OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Corkey]

While I have never belonged to a union, and have never needed to, the cronyism in some unions is rampant, such as the longshoreman's union which an ex of mine belonged to. They did nothing for her when she was injured on the job. So while some may have need, I would question wether or not they actually do any good for the money one spends.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Corkey

While I have never belonged to a union, and have never needed to, the cronyism in some unions is rampant, such as the longshoreman's union which an ex of mine belonged to. They did nothing for her when she was injured on the job. So while some may have need, I would question wether or not they actually do any good for the money one spends.

I'm sure your friends experience is true, however, the Longshoreman strike of 1934 on the West Coast (San Francisco and Oakland, California, Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington- the "Albion Hall group") was a significant union movement helping thousands of these workers.

It is hard for me at times when talking "unions" because so many of the early (post WW I) work of labor unions for blue collar workers ans well as women and childrens worker rights is so important in terms of changes in safety and health for US workers. Work weeks, breaks, child labor laws, the advent of the "week end," etc. are things we take for granted today and there were bloody (as was the 1934 Longshoreman strike and all of the women killed in the "Triangle Shirtwaste Fire" of 1911) strikes and demonstrations by and for very hard working people being treated like dirt.

I do see a huge difference in what early union fights were about and what goes on today. There is a lot of cronyism and corruption at the top of union organizing. I can't help but feel thankful for early union organizing and what this has mean't for the US worker. Yet, I can see where members today are not fairly represented by them at all. And also when unions have hurt worker job security in the long run by not working with industries during times in which major economic changes have caused huge shrinkage in numbers of available jobs simply based upon supply and demand.

On the other hand, large companies (including the Big 3 in Detroit) failed to adjust their factory output during these times and did not re-tool factories for production of the kind of cars that became more popular during fuel shortages and with the influx of Japanese cars into the US. These trade agreements were known by these companies, yet they made no adjustments. Unions continued to bargain from obsolete positions which I think hurt workers deeply during the decline of the industrial age and the start of the US expanding into world markets. And the information age began and this has changed the face of the US workforce forever as well as expanded global economies that we have to compete in.

I'm not sure that union organizers made adjustments as well- there are differences in the kinds of health and safety variables within the information age than in the earlier manufacturing economy in the US.

I don't think it is all about the "good" or "bad" about unions. I think it is more about work force and union adaptations to what is best for workers in a very different world of work. So often, it just feels like apples and oranges being compared to me.