Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: Public-employee unions are in trouble’

I have never belonged to a union. But I have always been "pro" union because I think that workers need to band together and work for their common interests. Corporate America - boards of directors - do just that - they seek their common interest, which is to maximize their economic benefits. There is nothing wrong with workers and employees doing this also.

However, it is apparent to me that too many unions are giving themselves a bad reputation and causing workers to turn away from them. The unions are becoming greedy, corrupt, too self-serving and most recently, too many of them are too pro-illegal immigration, which has turned a lot of people away from unions.

Unions need to evolve to survive. I do not believe that the elimination of unions would be a good thing - but we are quickly arriving there.

I hope unions can get back on track and work to achieve "win-win" situtaions with their employers.

What the public needs to understand is that the public employees' unions are the vanguard of the middle class. Corporate America is not paying living wages and salaries the way they used too. If public employee unions continue to take these kind of hits politically, Corporate America will no longer have anyone in the United States to buy their products because the former are not providing enough living wage jobs for it to happen. Furthermore, small businesses will never be able to replace the living wage jobs that the factory sector used to provide. Unfortunately, the United States is headed in the direction of post-industrial age Great Britain and will eventually become a second rate industrialized nation like the latter if things continue in the same direction. China, India, Singapore, and Brazil will eventually get the last laugh since they are seeing phenomenal economic growth and we're not.

@rafinsure stated,

"China, India, Singapore, and Brazil will eventually get the last laugh since they are seeing phenomenal economic growth and we're not."

Seriously, how may union members are there in the countries of China, India, Singapore, and Brazil?

I think you just contradicted your own argument that the "...public employees' unions are the vanguard of the middle class" and are needed in order for the United States to "...not become a second rate industrialized nation" (your quotes).

I think unions outlived their purpose a long time ago. Today the ability to expose businesses that mistreat their employees or identify those that are less-desirable to work for is far simpler than it was even 2 decades ago. Most unions have become the exact thing they were established to combat: bloated entities whose purpose is preserve their own existence at the expense of others. That's why union dues collections are down.

I'm not saying that professional organizations and watchdog groups don't have a purpose, but to force companies to deal with them is wrong in my opinion.

@ rafinsure

You obviously are confused.

"What the public needs to understand is that the public employees' unions are the vanguard of the middle class. Corporate America is not paying living wages and salaries the way they used too. If public employee unions continue to take these kind of hits politically, Corporate America will no longer have anyone in the United States to buy their products because the former are not providing enough living wage jobs for it to happen."

You do realize that public employee unions have nothing to do with Corporate America, don't you? Public employee unions represent public employees - people who work for federal, state and local governments. People like firemen, policemen, teachers, bureaucrats, etc. They do not represent factory workers and such.

Public sector unions haven't served a good purpose for many years. I taught school 31 years ago. Our school's union rep claimed I should join because unions worked hard to insure higher teacher salaries. I couldn't help but laugh and walk away from the converstion. Back then, I would net a whopping $777/mo., before union dues.

I think unions and the labor movement played an important part in the history of our nation especially in giving those workers along auto assembly lines, steel mills and coal mines an honest wage and a safer workplace. But maintaining the status quo of progression now has hit a brick wall known as competition. GM Ford & Chrysler can no longer compete with Toyota, Honda, Nissan and now Hyundai vehicles made "right to work" southern states where work can be doe for far fewer man hours snd aren't bound by the most redicious of union work rules.

Unions in government work present an entirely different set of potential conflicts of interest that President Frankin D. Roosevelt warned of back in the 1930, which is why he opposed extending collective bargaining rights to federal government employees. In all reality what employee really wants to give up 3%-5% of their gross pay (pre-tax) to prop up something that isn't allowed to strike or otherwise picket? It would do me absolutely no good at all whatsoever.

Take a look at real wages over the last 30 years. You will find that they have declined in almost perfect sync with the decline of Unions. It's no surprise that the Republican Party has worked to weaken Unions, but the price we are paying for that is the demise of an economically viable middle class.

If we are talking about a choice between "unions" and "corporate America" as some seem to think - that's not much of a choice.

Unions sometimes are politically motivated and can improve the wages of their workers inordinately causing an increase in prices and services that serves neither the rest of the people in the economy nor ultimately their own workers. On the other hand Corporate America can seek taxpayer bailouts, likes illegal immigration, outsources jobs to Asia, bribes congressmen.

Some choice!

What is the purpose of a Union?

I spent two years in France and Belgium where tradesmen are required to go through a lengthy process before they could hang their "single" on the side of their business. I became good friends with a photographer who explained the process to me. He was schooled to learn the techniques of photography. He served as an apprentice (often without pay) where he learned to refine those techniques that he learned in school. He "journedy" from town to town, working for other photographers who critiqued his work and his ability. Finally, after at least five years of "learning", he was be tested his peers who decided whether he was capable of being a photographer.

During that whole process, money was not the issue. He was expected to live or die based on his ability, not on some "union" protection. The Photographers Guild was there to protect the public from charlatans who called themselves photographers who didn't have the skills and experience necessary to do the job expected.

The Unions in America do not protect the public. They protect those who pay dues. They protect themselves at our expense.

Mike Richards. You need to do more study on the history of labor unions in this country. Pay special attention to the unions that fought hard to clean up safety issues in the meat packing and mining industries. These improvements in safety alone justifies the existence of those unions. Your unsupported assertion that "Unions in America do not protect the public", is just plain wrong. And how about child labor laws? Would you like your children to work 12 hour days in a unsafe meat packing facility. That is the way it was not so long ago.