Unions: To Be or Not To Be, Should That Even Be a Question?

For my response I reflected on why worker's Unions should not exist:


Union members continue to pay dues to be assured good working conditions. Years ago, that was a legitimate purpose - now, there are many government agencies to ensure that employees are treated fairly, that work conditions are safe and employees are not subjected to abuse or unfair terminations. The many government organizations that now protect employee can protect the employees better than the unions can.
Link 1: http://www.blurtit.com/q200582.html



The public is often poorly served by unions because they are denied proper service when the unions are "flexing their muscle". The public pays for services that they don't receive when police, teachers, sanitation workers and others are on strike or implementing some form of work slow-down. When truckers, railroad workers and other "public sector" union workers go on strike, it causes problems for everyone - not just the union workers' employers.

In July of 2005, the Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters both split from the AFL-CIO. (Are those unions really “international” or is that another example of intentionally misusing words to distort a perception?) The reason for the split? Years of declining membership! Unions cause more problems then they solve and people are starting to realize that fact. The unions are becoming “un-unified” as a result of an inability to increase membership. It appears too many people realize that they can live just fine without unions. The split is another step toward obsolescence / extinction.
 Link 2: http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/25/news/economy/boycott/index.htm


When the union workers go ‘on strike' and refuse to work, and the employers hires non-union help to keep the company from going broke, union members and management call the employers “union busters”. But, the union members go 'on strike' with the explicit intention of trying to “break the company”, yet they don't refer to themselves as “company busters”. Why's that? The union members can go elsewhere if they're dissatisfied with their working conditions, benefits or compensation. What options do the employer have other than to hire people that are satisfied with what the employer offers?

By October 2005: GM lost $1.3 billion AND they've paid over $750 million to workers that aren't working.In 1984, GM was forced to agree to pay laid-off workers full pay and benefits. Currently over 5,000 GM employees are collecting full pay and benefits for NOT WORKING. This 20-year-old bad contract clause will probably put GM into bankruptcy in the coming years. UAW will not yield - they don't care what financial destruction it causes and that's a huge reason companies fight so vigorously to keep unions out of their lives.
Link 3: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aljY1GAp9e9g&refer=news_index