I worked for HP for a little over 4 years and I would have killed for a union. I was a CE, a traveling tech that (originally)worked on a number of laptops/desktops doing(mostly) hardware repairs. When I was hired I was told that "there are no raises, just position changes and bonuses." They paid almost $15 an hour when I started had decent (about $70 a month) benefits which was fine for when I started since it was entry level. We had a staff of 15ish for the area, which was sometimes more than adequate. In my tenure there we went through 3 bosses, Mark Herd(5 years with the company; resigned for "inappropriate conduct"; $34.6 million severance package), Leo Apotheker(1 year with the company; dismissed by board for doing nothing and Hp dropping 42% share/$32 billion; $13.5 million severance) and most recently Meg Whitman(current).

After the first year all bonuses were cut. After about a year and a half with the company (6 months before Mark Hurds resignment)there was a mass email that said everyones pay would be cut across the board in order to "keep from cutting jobs". 6 months later the first person was let go from my team. Every year benefits were thinned and costs were raised. Every few months from there on someone got the axe. For every person axed responsibility was shifted to other CE's, but this did not count as a position change. We eventually shifted into an area where we regularly didnt have enough people to do the work/travel assigned. By the time I was let go in August we had 5 staff left and I was 1 of 2 let go for the month. My job had grown far outside of the original description, I had less benefits and was making less than what I was hired for(while cost of living has jumped quite a bit). Meanwhile A failed and a disgraced pair of CEO's walked away with an amount of money equal to 1600 years of my salary, in addition to their yearly 7 digit bonuses.

(tl;dr: Had a job with 15 other employees, people got fired, responsibility shifted, no raises not enough people to do work. Failure CEO's walk away with almost $50 million severance + salary when fired/quit)

I by no means feel unions are perfect but they are needed to prevent shit like this from happening.

Hostess Blames Union For Bankruptcy After Tripling CEO’s Pay

anyone that thinks corporations will treat workers fairly in a unionless economy is fooling themselves.  i'm not saying corporations are evil.  i'm not saying union are faultless.  i'm saying any entity left uncheck will better their own situation at the expense of others.  the unions are needed in many places because of the massivly loopsided power dynamic between a multi billion dollar corporation and a single employee. the whole "absolute power corupts absolutly" phrase is applicable.

free markets ought to level the playing field (allowing employees to seek alternative employment in bad conditions) but with the corporate consolidation that has been occuring in the last 10 years or so we're not exactly a free market anymore.  too many industries have too few players to have a truely free market place. either we strenghen unions or dismantle large corporations.   while i'd personally prefer the latter (especially after the "too big to fail" bank disaster) we certainly can't come in an dismantle all unions.  not if you want to live a good life.

Unions were a central part of the Bolshevik Revolution that led to the rise of communism in the USSR, and trade unions became an official part of the government. They weren't banned in the USSR, they were a core part of the one party state.

In contrast, being that Fascism is the "Third Way" and represents a mix of communism and capitalism (think China today) the Nazi's were in direct ideological competition with the Communists and banned unions to prevent the communists from using them to start a revolution to overthrow the government.

Even in the western world today, if you go into a meeting of communists you will find the leadership and members of some of the largest unions. As union leaders, when a state is over-thrown and the union becomes an official governmental body they will gain a lot of power and wealth.

I think that with the advent of the internet, easy to use cameras (cell phone cams) that unions are not needed as much. If you work in horrible conditions in this day and age, go to the internet and make your case, once a business is affected by the conditions they make their worker work in they will change their ways, or a competitor will come in seeing an opportunity (assuming that a competitor does not have to go through too many regulations)

It aint perfect, but Unions were created to prevent companies from taking advantage of their workforce.

Unions in theory are a good thing, However tey are run by humans, so if you get ones that suck at negotiating all they do is resort to screaming and storming out of negotiations.

In Australia at least, the only unions that seem to make a difference is the ones who represent the blue collar workers. All the white collar unions are usless as tits on a bull as all they good at is barking demands and when shit gets to tough they backdown and employees suffer the consequences for pissing of the employer. it is actually easier for you to negotiate your own package in a civil manner.

Couldn't you make the same argument for corporations and by their nature corportations are dictatorships. I don't see how unions can be called bad when every organisation of any scale have similar and worse problems due to their nature? I didn't make any arguments about sexual harrassment or child labour, however the ability to organise is a right given to people in a free democratic republic.

There's nothing wrong with unions. As long as there's a way for companies to go bankrupt and re-organize without a union, then there is a proper balance between businesses and unions.

Both businesses and unions need to be on a level playing field. Workers should have the right to associate with each other. However, said unions should not be coercive in nature, and forced upon all workers.

Abuses happen when one entity is above the other. If unions are protected by the government or mandatory funding (such as public unions), then they can have egregious problems. If unions are discouraged to the point of non-existence, then you get the problems that we saw in the late 1800s and early 1900s with worker conditions and the like.

Oversimplify the issue of labor relations much, OP?

Too bored with ignorance about labor and unions to even bother typing an argument.

And imagine how much good they could be doing if those 50-million-a-year fat-cats were only taking 500,000 a year (still more than enough to be beyond comfortable) and investing the rest of it in R&D or more hiring or more development? How many employees could you hire with 49.5 million?

The bulk of major executive compensation should be in stock options. That way if they really want to get rich, they have incentive for their company to do well, instead of the "plunder and ditch in your golden parachute" philosophy that far too many businessmen have.