If unions are simply people associating and deciding to strike or not and negotiating as one unit I don't think any Republicans are going to stop or fight that. What is being called "anti-union" is where the government comes in and doesn't allow a company to hire anyone but union labor and forces people who do not want to be in a union to pay dues to the union. Or in the recent Boeing case where the fed bureaucrats decided to pick the union as the winner and didn't allow Boeing to open a plant in a nonunion state. Such policies are as tyrannical as it gets and only help stooges. If you don't like being at a company with a ****** boss then leave.
First, its easiers said that done to leave a good paying job if you don't have any other skills or education. And even with education, doesn't mean a company will hire you. Honestly, WHO has that "perfect" degree that will hire you and pay you the sallary you want?
To a certain degree you are right. I have close people in unions as in Boeing, emergency departments etc. From what I have seen, read, and been in…
In general, what I have discover in many places… the union/shops do not want to hire more people- to ask for higher wages and more over time, etc. I remember recently, Boeing’s union in STL was talking about going to strike because of “few bucks” in hourly wage. To a certain extent I can see it and other times… you are like… I really don’t want to go on strike and risk losing your job for an extra $3,000 or less a year salary. But you are earning about $60,000 a year within the first 3 years of employment. I can see certain things as far “working more hours, harder tasks etc.” that will equal a bit more in pay. I think in general, the government wanted that plant to be open there… but with politics etc., there’s more to it than what you will see on the news or the general worker telling you. Sometimes you don’t need to open a new plant… just keep the pay the same and hire more people.
But in every city/ county, businesses sometime get a TIFF. Basically from what I understand, it allows the company to pay fewer taxes for about 25 years. After that, they need to pay the full amount. Sometimes it can average about $1,000,000 a year in taxes. For example, Wal-Mart. Normally they get a TIFF and will stay there for until the TIFF “time” runs out. Then move. It’s easier to move across the street of a differnt zip code/ county line, etc. and build a new building, than pay its full share of taxes. The general public thinks it’s “fun and fair game” to shop there in their community. Until the TIFF runs out and then the company “announces” they have to relocate. Now, your city is left with a huge empty building. The closes thing that could handle the rent is a new/ another mega church… which is “tax exempt”. I know this was getting a bit off subject but it all ties in together.
Even at my job, and others who I communicate with…on one hand, they want more workers to work with them… but on the other hand, they don’t want new workers because the job/shop, etc. can try to split that salary up into theirs. If you get some honest people to talk to you, many departments (emergency; police, fire, medics, etc.) in the county (not city) are earning near 6 figures and over… at the lowest rank. To help keep those high paying jobs, they don’t hire as many people. I don’t want to put anyone out there… but there are some cops with only 4 years on the job earning almost $100,000 a year. Do I think they are worth it…yes. But it’s wild seeing what a district person makes vs. a city employee. That same time and rank in a city department averages about $38,000 a year….This even works for school districts. I hate when some school teachers try to compare their salary to a city school teacher. The city (i.e. ST Louis city) earns about $40,000 a year and that’s after a number of years of working. But you get into many school districts even the worse ones, they earn about $50,000-75,000 per year starting off. Depending if they have a BA or Masters or higher. But are they worth it, yes… do the city needs to pay its teachers and emergency departments more… yes… but will they, NO. It’s all about politics. A city can say “we can’t afford to pay you that” but somehow they can always go over budget for buying signs, travel, and other crazy things. That’s a BIG difference…unions. It has positive and negative feedbacks.
But back to Ron Paul… It’s good to hear he’s not trying to get rid of unions. They have their place. If it wasn’t for unions… labor workers would probably earn less than $20,000 a year. McDonalds wouldn’t have such great benefits compared to 20 years ago, etc. Always remember, big businesses are there to MAKE MONEY. The less you are paid, the more they make. If there was a computer/machine… ok there is… but when it comes on the market to replace you in your job.. Don’t think a company won’t pay to have it. With a union, can help to slow down that type of progression. Think of unions as AARP. But like I said… some things they fight for just blows me away.