Labor Unions Discuss Your Opinion Regarding Whether

Labor Unions Discuss your opinion regarding whether unions are still relevant and necessary in today's work environment. What other means might be used to ensure the "employee voice" in the workplace? Use a reference. Labor unions are still viable, at least in certain situations, because a single employee going up against an employer is usually not going to go well for the employer. However, labor unions are fighting relevancy for a couple of reasons.

First, so much (if not all) of what leads to a unionized employee getting raises or promotions is driven by tenure…and only tenure. That may sound good on paper and many people assail what comes from a meritocracy sort of situation. However, merit-based raises are entirely legal, are widely used and have a proper place because someone who has five years of service should NOT get a job automatically over someone with four years of service just because of that tenure difference.

It would and should tip the scales in the favor of the more tenured person but it should never be the only factor. Indeed, performance, education and other intangibles should matter as well (Mullins, 2012). Second, forced union membership is not ethically viable because forcing someone to join a collective that they may not agree with, even if they might benefit from the efforts of the union, is not proper. Indeed, most union dues that are donated to political parties go to Democrats.

However, to suggest that union rank and file is remotely all Democrat is just not true. This is not a slam on Democrats…just as statement of fact. Lastly, unions have made some outrageous demands in some instances and this ruins it for the unions that are trying to do the right thing. The Hostess situation is an obvious example of this in action. To sum it all up, unions could have their place but the unions have to recognize that they represent everyone and they should behave as such.

Second, they should not be donating to political parties at all because that just pollutes the process in some nasty ways. Finally, the unions have to realize that they do not own the business or control it. They have to work with the employer…not against them. Unless that lesson is learned, unions will continue to fade in size and relevance (Mullins, 2012; Koba, 2013). Discussion #3 Can an individual be both pro-union and pro-employer, or does being pro-union mean one has to be anti-employer? Absolutely.

If an employer is working well with a union, the union people should not be adversarial. Further, the employer has to be doing well for the employees to be paid and retained. As such, treating the employer like a leper and/or the enemy really does not do anyone a bit of good. It needs to be an symbiotic relationship…not an adversarial one. Capitalists and business owners are not evil, at least in most cases. Also, businesses should generally be able to what they wish.

When the NRLB is telling companies where they can and cannot operate, that is way too far and this sort of behavior is greased and encouraged by labor union donations (Pryne, 2011). Can an individual be anti-union and still legitimately claim to support pro-employee interests? Absolutely. As noted above, employees and employers will generally get along much better if they work in symbiosis rather than as enemies.

When fast food workers are trying to unionize under the idea that they should be getting $15 an hour, that is ludicrous because that job is not worth that much…nor will it ever be. If McDonald's and others were unable to keep a staff at that wage level, they would raise the wage. If someone is anti-union and they are not a business owner or operator, it is likely because unions are often (not always) demanding very egregious things that have no place in reality or within widely.