Unions are not just for that, they do many other things essential in a developed country.

There are always more people looking for jobs than there are employers looking to hire, (hence why unemployment always exists). This means that the employer holds all the cards when negotiating salaries and conditions. They can simply say refuse a fair deal, and know that they will find someone who is willing to take an unfair deal. that is where unions come into it. With collective bargaining, there will not be workers willing to accept the unfair deal, and so employers are forced to make a fair deal.

Additionally, unions can provide many other benefits. The vast majority of workers are incapable of reading a contract and knowing exactly what it says. This is because lawyers spend years being taught, and practicing, how to write in a way that is incomprehensible. With a union, you know that your contract has been read over by someone who is capable of understanding it, and thus stopping any nasty surprises.

Other services includ eunions organising strikes as needed.

@ Bolded: Wrong. The forerunners of modern trade unionism emerged in England in the 1820s, largely led by a guy named Robert Owen, who developed a model community for both workers and factory owners, attempted an unsuccessful colony in Indiana, and then came back and helped institute a few of England's first labor reforms, along with the first major expansion of the franchise in the United Kingdom.

That is not ture. Even right now there are states with labor shortages, and in those states workers will get better pay simply because they are in higher demand. When there is a shortage of workers, workers willl get more power/money, when there is an abundance of workers they will get less pay/power.

When you want a good/great worker you have to pay for it. Great workers do not take shitty deals. If you dont care about the qaulity of your worker you can pay less, but it will be refelcted in their work and their customer service.

Even with unions, there will always be someone will to work for less as not everyone is part opf a union.

Private Sector needs unions more then ever these days...


Public Sector Unions suck...


No denying that...

The Hostess situation is just a bunch of asshole vulture capitalists ransacking a business, busting a union is icing on the cake.

Agreed.  I mean twinkies aren;t as popular as theey used to be, besides how many other hostess products can you name.  There used to be a ton like suzie qs and sno-balls etc.  I don't really see them around as much as I used to,  I don't think todays parents buy them as much as those of times past.  So the company is going down through product demise and lack of innovation.

  Also as far as the American Unions arguments are concerned.  I realize the arguments put forth, and I do think greed and both directions lead to over-reactive debates, but I just want to make one point.  Unions found their inception in this country due to the fact that workers were making not just less than a living wage, but so little that they were bieng payed with scrip (i.e. 'monopoly money') and/or essientially debt notices.  Many people died in debt to the companies that hired them!  Isn't that insane? 

  So yeah you can say what you want about unions, and Im sure there has been a lot of corruption over time, but hardcore leisse faire captalism is not the better alternative, and it has been confirmed in our nations history.  (hence why it is important to study history).

Those woul all be great points, if we were debating the merits of capitalism vs communism. However, they are irrelevant to the matter at hand

"Certain states have higher pay due to individual bargaining."

They can do so under collective bargaining. Danger pay, pay to compensate for higher cost of living, or lower quality of life can all be catered for under collective bargaining.

"Intelligent/hard working people have higher pay under individual bargaining"

Again, this is not communism. If a person works hard, they will be promoted, and then they will fall under a higher band in the collective bargaining and be paid more. Hell, Trade unionism doesn't even oppose the existance of bonuses, it just guarentees a fair wage even without those bonuses.

"Even without unions, some people are willing to work unfair contracts."

This is, unfortunately true. However, there are considerably fewer people who will if you have a good trade union. If there are fewer, then employers still need to hire trade unionists, and thus there is compromise.

The plain fact is, unions protect people from unfair employers. You might point to a minority of employers that give decent working conditions (whether they do this out of kindness or to attract better employees is irrelevant) the fact is, the majority of employers don't do this. Even in the case of fair employees, they will simply deal fairly with with trade unions, as they otherwise dealt with individuals, so that is still fine.

Yep, you are quite wrong. Unions are pretty cool. Some specific unions are a bit too powerful, but the general implementation of unions is one of the greatest achievements of our nation. They are a vital part of securing and maintaining fundamental workers' rights.

Why would you ever work for a big corporation if that was the case.

Say your a good CEO... and you max salary is set at 500,000.   Why would you work for a giant ass complicated company, when you could work at a much smaller, less complex company, that's less stressful and doesn't take up nearly as much of your time?

Salary caps cause other factors to gain increased importance.   Which is why in fields where they exist there are usually tigher labor controls.

For example sports teams in the US have drafts and restricted free agency. (Which i feel should be illegal but i guess isn't because it's a bargin made with the union?)

If it wasn't for the draft and restricted free agency, all of the stars would go to California, Florida, New York and then any state that doesn't have income taxes.

Do the same thing in corproations, and CEO's will move to buisnesses that can pay the cap, and other areas.

Well and overseas.

Why stay here if Europe is suddenly getting all the best CEO's?

Such policies seem to always be made on the theory that "Things should be like this" without a look at the practical facts or an aknowledgement that were are in fact part of a global economy.

Public sector unions are wrong these days..

They ask for more pay and benefits when govt cant afford it.

The assumption is that Govt can raise taxes to cover any increased labour costs for unions.

However especially here in Canada, Taxes are high enough.
What happens is that spending has to be reduced in other areas.

Now Public Sector Unions say they are fighting for the average person, however making the average person pay more taxes for benefits that he can only dream of and reducing other services to him is not progressive at all...
Its quite regressive really.