The NLRB tilts strongly towards unions.
Yes, and even though the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 was largely a conservative repeal of the near-communist Wagner Act made during FDR's tenure, that has been the case since the 1950's.
However I think their main role has been to raise the wages of union workers.
There is nothing wrong with that. You have a First Amendment right to make associations with anyone you please, and that includes a right to bargain for higher wages.
So while they are good for the union workers who keep their jobs, they are bad for workers in general.
Again, there is nothing wrong with that. Unions have no responsibility to "workers in general," only to the people they represent. If they did that -- they don't -- it would be part of their charters.
The real problem with unions isn't what you object to. The major problem with unions are twofold: 1) They are highly radicalized. Most rank-and-file trade workers have no clue how thoroughly communist/socialist infiltrated the leadership of their unions is. In the government and service unions like AFSCME and SEIU the situation is much worse: they do know how far left their leadership is, and they approve of it. 2) The absolute corruption at the top of almost every labor union. This goes hand-in-hand with their radicalized leadership, who, like left wingers everywhere, believe there should be one set of rules for themselves, and a different set of rules for their members and the rest of society.
The real problem with Big Labor is that they don't care about the people they're supposed to represent. They see them as nothing more than a vehicle to the leftist policy changes they want. That's all.
Thanks for the excellent reply.
Comment:
However I think their main role has been to raise the wages of union workers.
Reply:
There is nothing wrong with that. You have a First Amendment right to make associations with anyone you please, and that includes a right to bargain for higher wages.
Response:
I agree there is freedom of association. But when “bargaining” is done with baseball bats, that is another matter.
What about more peaceful threats, like a collective walk-out? We soon get into the topic of scabs and the threat of violence. If (often coerced) workers leave en masse, can they be replaced en masse? Well why not? Back to violence (or the NLRB). I grant you these are hypothetical, even if historically real, scenarios. Still, violence and the realistic threat of violence has been a large part of unionism (bargaining) in my opinion.
Comment:
So while they are good for the union workers who keep their jobs, they are bad for workers in general.
Reply:
Again, there is nothing wrong with that.
Response:
Agreed. Yet the public has been told that unions are responsible for our high wages. That is not true.
Your comment:
The real problem with Big Labor is that they don’t care about the people they’re supposed to represent. They see them as nothing more than a vehicle to the leftist policy changes they want.
My reply:
Agreed
I have no problem with higher wages - within reason.
When we went into negotiations with the union we had a set amount we could give without affecting the bottom line. That included wages and other conditions. Everything has a cost.
It seemed to me that unions were really trying to gradually take control of the company as they demanded inclusion of other than wage earners in the unit. That and many other demands. I am an octogenarian now and just don’t remember much of what was experienced. I do remember the union hierarchy in Pittsburg convinced my corporate brass to send me to a weeklong workshop on interpersonal relationships because they felt I was too hard nosed in enforcing the agreed upon contract.