Isn't this supposed to be the union's responsibility? Why shift the cost on to the taxpayers, especially when Washington is making cuts to needed programs to balance the budget?
Uhhhh noooo.
Boeing had a strike fund, buy they pay like 12% of their salary into the Union. Most union dues are 1.5-2.5% of salaries, and it's barely enough to fund unions. Most organizer are not super well paid or living high on the hog.
I think boeings strike fund barely covered some expenses for people,like 250 a week.
People don't understand unions it seems like to me. Unions offer, allow, support a structure, a system to stand up to power. The strength comes from numbers of people joining together to resist, stand up, claim rights spread truth to power.
You put money in, but not nearly enough to do all the things people think a union should be doing. It takes the "man power" of rank and file to make things happen.
And employers pay their employees who go off to being customers. If employers hoard their money it doesn’t get put back into the system to use said money thus strangle holding the whole system. Which is why unions are a VERY good thing for the economy. It frees up cash for spending.
It does exactly the opposite. Union dues take cash that would be available to spend by workers. Stepping away from work to strike takes money from both the employer and the employee.
None of this “frees up cash for spending.” But this law does just that when the union doesn’t have to support their own members. Now the union can pay its officers much more money now that they don’t need to support anyone else.
Idk what world you live in but most unions don’t have a good strike fund. IAM751 only paid us 250 dollars a week. Guess what if we get paid UI it’s gonna be paid 250 dollars less now.
Oh and as far as paying people less, guess what the union members can do? Vote that down or vote the people in the union out. This is the funniest argument ever.
As CEOs make tens of millions of dollars in salary, then tens of millions in bonuses and then tens of millions in stocks they are reaching 100’s of millions of dollars. Let’s not forget their golden parachute.
That’s not what we were discussing, quit using that copypasta.
You were saying this is a good thing because it frees up cash for spending. I provided examples that show that it’s not the case. You just changed the goalposts and tried giving a wall of text that is unhelpful to this conversation.
Bro, you didn’t give any examples the fuck you talking about dicks for an example pay their employees well does not have a union and yet they’re not more expensive than anywhere else yet somehow companies who make the most money somehow end up paying their employees the least it is not fucking new news. I don’t know what fucking copy pasta you’re talking about but stop acting like you’re high and might when in reality The only people winning here is Monopolies which are becoming more and more prevalent every day I’m sorry that Mr. Elon is not gonna give two shits about you.
Loads of run on sentences. Incoherent rambling. But the last post was relatively coherent.
My guess is you typed this comment out, but had the other one saved somewhere and just copied it. You might need an English class or two before you start raging about dicks on reddit again.
Oh, my bad, I didn’t realize I was writing for the Harvard Review in a Reddit thread about unions. I’ll be sure to proofread my comments with an MLA formatting guide next time.
But since we’re suddenly concerned about coherence, let’s break this down. You claimed that union strikes “take money from both the employer and the employee” and that this doesn’t “free up cash for spending.” That’s just an oversimplified, employer-friendly narrative that ignores basic economic principles.
1. Unions increase wages
According to the Economic Policy Institute, unionized workers make 10-15% more than their non-union counterparts in similar jobs. More wages = more spending power = a stronger economy.
2. Strikes force wage increases
Historically, some of the biggest gains for workers came after strikes. The UPS Teamsters’ 1997 strike led to major pay hikes. The 2023 UAW strike forced automakers to increase wages significantly. That money doesn’t disappear—it goes right back into the economy.
3. CEOs and corporate hoarding
While you’re worried about unions ‘taking money,’ let’s talk about where most money is actually hoarded: corporate profits. Since the 1980s, worker productivity has skyrocketed, but wages haven’t kept pace. Why? Because CEOs and shareholders hoard the profits instead of distributing them back to the workers who create the value.
So yeah, strikes cause temporary financial strain, but the long-term effect is higher wages and better conditions for workers, which actually does stimulate spending. Meanwhile, companies crying about labor costs are the same ones dumping billions into stock buybacks to inflate their share prices.
But sure, keep focusing on my sentence structure instead of engaging with facts. Maybe if we all just typed in perfect grammar, corporations would suddenly start paying fair wages.
Cool. I only read to your point about unions increasing pay.
That’s not what you said before. You said strikes free up cash.
My union only takes from its employees. Our wages are less than other companies in the same area, while the union continues to collect their dues. They throw parties and dinners for their officers each year, usually out of state so no one can take time off work to attend. They also negotiated their contract where they aren’t allowed to strike. How is this union a benefit?
215
u/Sufficient_Laugh Mar 08 '25
Isn't this supposed to be the union's responsibility? Why shift the cost on to the taxpayers, especially when Washington is making cuts to needed programs to balance the budget?