I come from a union family and walked way further than I thought it would be to see sanders speak at a union hall. Worth it.
The strike that happened a week or so before the event would have had me staying home, had it extended, though. Even tho I only ever saw one single person on the picket line. Only scabs cross the line.
What sucks is that in this economy, employers know that they can get scabs to come in at like a dollar more an hour—union be damned.
We need to get back to where employers feared, or at least listened to, unions and their power of collective bargaining. They’ve done an amazing job of gutting unions, and will not stop until they are made illegal.
This situation is less margin-y and more insult-y in rural hospitals
Nurses be like “Raise @5% or equal to inflation, or we strike!”
The boss be like “nah well pay traveling nurses 300% more than you for years before we do that. And we know you do this as a passion so you’ll ultimately stay past retirement.”
You certainly aren’t wrong, but… at least in my area (and this is with state-level laws that fucking decimated union power), unions are relatively well respected by the population at large, because most of us have some experience with them (big trades area), and they are growing, rather than shrinking, despite having their legs cut off at the knee.
Despite being a super conservative and heavily gerrymandered area, our major trade unions (pipefitters, construction, metalworkers, electricians, etc.) never went away, much as the state (for the past 15 or so years) would have liked otherwise. And it’s making a big resurgence; there are tons of manufacturing plants near me and a lot of them are part of or bound by the unions (not just their workplace, but like regional unions)
I hope the trend continues! We need more collective action in our society. We need unions for non-tradespeople, and we don’t have any of those… but at least the trade unions are unshakeable, and that’s a good gateway for the rest of us.
That’s good to hear. I have first hand experience with manufacturing being part of a regional union. Unfortunately, we were UAW in name only. We were lucky during the strike, the plant we supplied did not strike. The other GM plant in my area went on strike. Anyone that supplied them laid off all of the workers. Where I live, that is $362 per week (you have to file for unemployment). That barely covered rent. Forget about gas, food, the light bill, and medicine.
Without us, GM would have no engines to put in their cars. But the UAW doesn’t look out for the “little guy”.
Sorry, I’ve got skin in the game, and it frustrates me to know end that we didn’t receive ANY of the protections that the GM workers did.
Yeah, I’m jaded. But I still know that strong unions are necessary for the workers to force management to listen.
I’m really sorry to hear that. Genuinely. We all need better.
I am a firm believer in unions and collective action, despite never having the opportunity to be part of a union myself. And like they don’t have a lot of power here… they got most of it removed by law years and years ago.
But it doesn’t stop us trying at least, I suppose. And the general vibe is to support the unions. I’m sure there are tons of scabs here, but… they aren’t winning social favor being scabs at least.
Even if they are largely toothless, it’s better to be toothless together; A pack of starving wolves with one tooth each is enough to do a lot of damage if they attack together often enough.
The real problem is getting them to be part of the pack. I mean each wolf is toothless anyway, so getting them to join the pack is super important for their survival too.
The saddest thing I saw was young people refusing to sign the union card. We are a Right to Work state, so they don’t have to pay the dues to receive union benefits. This starves unions, which contributes to the toothless-ness.
Like I said, it was so sad to see. I tried talking to them, but they wouldn’t do it. They need every penny. I can’t fault them for that. Regardless of anything else, that’s how we see it in a plant. Maximizing your checks because the pay isn’t enough.
I’m sure that I am preaching to the choir here. But I want this up for people who’ve never known the life, to see how it is.
All good friend; we do agree and it really sucks that it’s so difficult to get people to support their own best interest if it costs them in a tangible way (even if the benefits are exponentially more impactful).
This is an education thing and we are fighting a lot of anti-union propaganda, here and everywhere. We see people lose their jobs over joining.
Who can blame them not wanting to sign up?
Union leaders need to fight fire with -water-. They need an unyielding stream of information to fight the fanned flames of disinformation and anti-union propaganda going out to perspective members, and that’s… unfortunately just not generally practical.
I don’t really have a solution, I’m sorry, but I am absolutely behind yours and every other union. I will support you all with every breath in my body, for whatever that’s worth.
Ahh, I wish it were that easy, but 4.1% of 350 million is like 14 million people (I’m willing to accept that my math is wrong but I double checked it 4 times including using the internet… and idk if I mathed it wrong or if that’s just an accurate number… I really kinda hope I’m wrong…)
That’s a lot of people either way… and you can’t fault them for looking out for themselves or their family.
That’s not how unemployment numbers work. They (the government) only count the amount of work eligible adults (i.e. 18+, legal/documented persons) who are actively seeking employment It would be silly to include babies and school-aged children in their statistics for employment, heh. But it also leaves out a large number of adults who have simply given up looking for work. I think it also doesn’t include those who have been actively seeking employment longer than a certain amount of time, but I don’t fully recall.
Lots of economists have long criticized it for being way too broad of a stat that isn’t inclusive enough. I remember my macro econ professor in college going in tangents about it and it kind of surprised me how many people it doesn’t include.
Anyway, back to the main point: It isn’t calculating 4% of the entire US population.
4.1 is an exceptionally low unemployment rate. An unemployment rate of 1% would be beyond impossible to achieve and would certainly cause out of control inflation, yet there would still be over 3 million people unemployed. That’s still “a lot” of people. That’s not something that any economy fixes. Most of those people are going to be unemployed because they haven’t found the job they want, not because they can’t find any job. For instance, tech workers get laid off all the time and typically take their time finding the right next position.
I never said it wasn’t low. It’s low, but 14 million people is still a lot of actual people, people just like you, under a different circumstance.
14 million people looking for work means there are a lot of potential scabs, because our social safety nets are fucking laughable. They don’t even exist for a lot of people, such as those with no work history yet (can’t get unemployment if you’ve never been employed, for example, and if you only have a couple years employment history, unemployment in a lot of places doesn’t cover shit).
Having been one of the underemployed, you often take what you can get because you don’t have the luxury of finding the “right job”.
Or you and your family become homeless.
Those are basically the options these days and I’m not willing to say that’s not the case just because unemployment (which does not include underemployment, nor those who left the job market) is low by some economists standards, because it absolutely is for millions of people.
So sure, many of those people might be looking for “the right job”, but in the interim, they find and take “the right now” job. And that might be scabby.
It’s not low by some economist’s standards. It’s low by every economist’s standards. Economists don’t agree on much, but they agree on this. Under all circumstances in every economy there are always “a lot” of people looking for employment .
Again, I don’t doubt or disagree with your assessment of your situation. Again, I support you. It’s not the economy making the safety nets so bad. There is plenty of money to pay for it, we just don’t. It’s not the economy attacking unions, it’s the employers and many politicians. It’s not the economy allowing companies to fire striking workers, etc. the economy is fine. It’s the labor system that’s broken, and no economy will fix that.
Come work for a week in a plant. We make shit wages, work way too hard for it, and see the economy as grocery bills being double what they were a few years ago. Most of us struggle to make ends meet. I can’t blame those that would cross a picket line to make $2 more per hour for less work.
The unemployment rate is a terrible way to gauge how the job market is.
I don’t doubt any of what you are saying and I support you. However “this economy” isn’t the problem. This current economy has been fueling the first expansion of union membership in decades. That doesn’t mean it’s going to help every worker in every industry, but that’s due to industry specific factors, not the economy as a whole.
I don’t know your industry, and I don’t know what Biden might have done or not done to impact your situation. All I’m saying is that the broader economy isn’t the issue.
Only scabs cross the line.
I come from a union family and walked way further than I thought it would be to see sanders speak at a union hall. Worth it.
The strike that happened a week or so before the event would have had me staying home, had it extended, though. Even tho I only ever saw one single person on the picket line. Only scabs cross the line.
The orange felon probably would.
What sucks is that in this economy, employers know that they can get scabs to come in at like a dollar more an hour—union be damned.
We need to get back to where employers feared, or at least listened to, unions and their power of collective bargaining. They’ve done an amazing job of gutting unions, and will not stop until they are made illegal.
This situation is less margin-y and more insult-y in rural hospitals
Nurses be like “Raise @5% or equal to inflation, or we strike!”
The boss be like “nah well pay traveling nurses 300% more than you for years before we do that. And we know you do this as a passion so you’ll ultimately stay past retirement.”
You certainly aren’t wrong, but… at least in my area (and this is with state-level laws that fucking decimated union power), unions are relatively well respected by the population at large, because most of us have some experience with them (big trades area), and they are growing, rather than shrinking, despite having their legs cut off at the knee.
Despite being a super conservative and heavily gerrymandered area, our major trade unions (pipefitters, construction, metalworkers, electricians, etc.) never went away, much as the state (for the past 15 or so years) would have liked otherwise. And it’s making a big resurgence; there are tons of manufacturing plants near me and a lot of them are part of or bound by the unions (not just their workplace, but like regional unions)
I hope the trend continues! We need more collective action in our society. We need unions for non-tradespeople, and we don’t have any of those… but at least the trade unions are unshakeable, and that’s a good gateway for the rest of us.
That’s good to hear. I have first hand experience with manufacturing being part of a regional union. Unfortunately, we were UAW in name only. We were lucky during the strike, the plant we supplied did not strike. The other GM plant in my area went on strike. Anyone that supplied them laid off all of the workers. Where I live, that is $362 per week (you have to file for unemployment). That barely covered rent. Forget about gas, food, the light bill, and medicine.
Without us, GM would have no engines to put in their cars. But the UAW doesn’t look out for the “little guy”.
Sorry, I’ve got skin in the game, and it frustrates me to know end that we didn’t receive ANY of the protections that the GM workers did.
Yeah, I’m jaded. But I still know that strong unions are necessary for the workers to force management to listen.
Man, that sucks that your shop union didn’t stand with the rest.
At any rate: solidarity forever ✊
I’m really sorry to hear that. Genuinely. We all need better.
I am a firm believer in unions and collective action, despite never having the opportunity to be part of a union myself. And like they don’t have a lot of power here… they got most of it removed by law years and years ago.
But it doesn’t stop us trying at least, I suppose. And the general vibe is to support the unions. I’m sure there are tons of scabs here, but… they aren’t winning social favor being scabs at least.
Even if they are largely toothless, it’s better to be toothless together; A pack of starving wolves with one tooth each is enough to do a lot of damage if they attack together often enough.
The real problem is getting them to be part of the pack. I mean each wolf is toothless anyway, so getting them to join the pack is super important for their survival too.
We agree on many things.
The saddest thing I saw was young people refusing to sign the union card. We are a Right to Work state, so they don’t have to pay the dues to receive union benefits. This starves unions, which contributes to the toothless-ness.
Like I said, it was so sad to see. I tried talking to them, but they wouldn’t do it. They need every penny. I can’t fault them for that. Regardless of anything else, that’s how we see it in a plant. Maximizing your checks because the pay isn’t enough.
I’m sure that I am preaching to the choir here. But I want this up for people who’ve never known the life, to see how it is.
All good friend; we do agree and it really sucks that it’s so difficult to get people to support their own best interest if it costs them in a tangible way (even if the benefits are exponentially more impactful).
This is an education thing and we are fighting a lot of anti-union propaganda, here and everywhere. We see people lose their jobs over joining.
Who can blame them not wanting to sign up?
Union leaders need to fight fire with -water-. They need an unyielding stream of information to fight the fanned flames of disinformation and anti-union propaganda going out to perspective members, and that’s… unfortunately just not generally practical.
I don’t really have a solution, I’m sorry, but I am absolutely behind yours and every other union. I will support you all with every breath in my body, for whatever that’s worth.
4.1 percent unemployment is not a sign of an economy that favors bringing in scabs.
Ahh, I wish it were that easy, but 4.1% of 350 million is like 14 million people (I’m willing to accept that my math is wrong but I double checked it 4 times including using the internet… and idk if I mathed it wrong or if that’s just an accurate number… I really kinda hope I’m wrong…)
That’s a lot of people either way… and you can’t fault them for looking out for themselves or their family.
That’s not how unemployment numbers work. They (the government) only count the amount of work eligible adults (i.e. 18+, legal/documented persons) who are actively seeking employment It would be silly to include babies and school-aged children in their statistics for employment, heh. But it also leaves out a large number of adults who have simply given up looking for work. I think it also doesn’t include those who have been actively seeking employment longer than a certain amount of time, but I don’t fully recall.
Honestly, the unemployment stat is a pretty weak economic health indicator overall: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-unemployment-rate-doesnt-tell-us.aspx
Lots of economists have long criticized it for being way too broad of a stat that isn’t inclusive enough. I remember my macro econ professor in college going in tangents about it and it kind of surprised me how many people it doesn’t include.
Anyway, back to the main point: It isn’t calculating 4% of the entire US population.
4.1 is an exceptionally low unemployment rate. An unemployment rate of 1% would be beyond impossible to achieve and would certainly cause out of control inflation, yet there would still be over 3 million people unemployed. That’s still “a lot” of people. That’s not something that any economy fixes. Most of those people are going to be unemployed because they haven’t found the job they want, not because they can’t find any job. For instance, tech workers get laid off all the time and typically take their time finding the right next position.
I never said it wasn’t low. It’s low, but 14 million people is still a lot of actual people, people just like you, under a different circumstance.
14 million people looking for work means there are a lot of potential scabs, because our social safety nets are fucking laughable. They don’t even exist for a lot of people, such as those with no work history yet (can’t get unemployment if you’ve never been employed, for example, and if you only have a couple years employment history, unemployment in a lot of places doesn’t cover shit).
Having been one of the underemployed, you often take what you can get because you don’t have the luxury of finding the “right job”.
Or you and your family become homeless.
Those are basically the options these days and I’m not willing to say that’s not the case just because unemployment (which does not include underemployment, nor those who left the job market) is low by some economists standards, because it absolutely is for millions of people.
So sure, many of those people might be looking for “the right job”, but in the interim, they find and take “the right now” job. And that might be scabby.
It’s not low by some economist’s standards. It’s low by every economist’s standards. Economists don’t agree on much, but they agree on this. Under all circumstances in every economy there are always “a lot” of people looking for employment .
Again, I don’t doubt or disagree with your assessment of your situation. Again, I support you. It’s not the economy making the safety nets so bad. There is plenty of money to pay for it, we just don’t. It’s not the economy attacking unions, it’s the employers and many politicians. It’s not the economy allowing companies to fire striking workers, etc. the economy is fine. It’s the labor system that’s broken, and no economy will fix that.
Come work for a week in a plant. We make shit wages, work way too hard for it, and see the economy as grocery bills being double what they were a few years ago. Most of us struggle to make ends meet. I can’t blame those that would cross a picket line to make $2 more per hour for less work.
The unemployment rate is a terrible way to gauge how the job market is.
I don’t doubt any of what you are saying and I support you. However “this economy” isn’t the problem. This current economy has been fueling the first expansion of union membership in decades. That doesn’t mean it’s going to help every worker in every industry, but that’s due to industry specific factors, not the economy as a whole.
I don’t know your industry, and I don’t know what Biden might have done or not done to impact your situation. All I’m saying is that the broader economy isn’t the issue.