Baraka_Guru

This should go without saying. Unions aren't meant to improve the bottom line; they're meant to improve the conditions (both working and earning) of workers. A well-managed, properly treated, adequately compensated workforce costs more than a poorly managed, treated, and compensated one.

Yeah, I'd like to see the differences. I wonder if unions play much on the productivity of workers. I imagine in some cases unions actually improve productivity, whereas in other areas they decrease it. Ideally, though, unions aren't meant to bolster productivity. Instead, they're meant to give workers some clout when it comes to working conditions, pay, and enforcing rights and laws. I understand a company's rights when it comes to private property and capital, but it's the labour of its workers and the conditions surrounding it that it doesn't own. It buys that from the workers. The workers deserve to have it treated fairly.

* * * *

@ Pan:
I see this particular situation less about the jobs that have already been lost in manufacturing and other sectors (think resource sectors as well) and more about the current status of workers in the U.S., especially those that aren't unionized. Retail is still a very large problem when it comes to compensation and certain rights (think Wal-mart). It is assumed by far too many that retail jobs are "transition" jobs instead of careers. Flex hours to keep people technically part time so as not to pay benefits when they are virtually full time is just one issue.

Do you not see problems within retailing? I wonder what percentage of retail jobs are unionized vs. manufacturing. I worked in retail for a while, and I cannot imagine doing it throughout my working life.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot