One of the greatest advancements in worker well being in the US was done by Ford pioneering well paid and well rested employees.
I live in a country that had a certain amount of economic prosperity and it has been under clear economic crippling since the last constitutional amendment that expanded workers rights. Coincidence or causality? It's very hard to say, but the fact that union leaders are richer than CEO's and company founders makes the whole thing suspicious.
Modern unions definitely sell a lot of kool-aid.
Modern corporations sell a lot of anti-union kool aid as well. Unions are not there to be "good people" any more than a CEO is supposed to be a "good person." Unions are there to balance corporate power.
>Coincidence or causality?
It's impossible to say without knowledge of the country. (not that I want you to dox yourself.)
I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of examples of great economic prosperity without unions and labor laws.
It is of common occurrence for a political movement to claim its actions were responsible for effects already happening. But also, there is a confounding effect: unions were a reasonable response to the acts of state that used violence and coercion against employees. The FBI busting strikes, or the military shooting down workers protests. Unionization was vital to revert that. But that doesn't mean everything they said or did was the best for the workers.
The ability to unionize is a very different thing that the passing of a law that describes how labor should be. Making unions illegal is an act of oppression. Forcing workers to be part of the union is another act of oppression.
But the case in point is about the addition of a work law that involves the restriction of how much time an employers can bid of the employee. I am not yet convinced that it was unions that raised wages so it was possible to raise salaries that covered working 16 hours to 12. I think that was already happening, and the protests and unions of the time were at best accelerating that transition.
Now we finally have some protections against precarity that we didn't have before. But we could have saved ourselves a lot of hardship if the government had just guaranteed them to us. And we are privileged workers compared with most. Most people couldn't afford to take the risks we did or afford to put that much of their spare time into organising a union.
Your views and understanding of this issue are trash and clearly come from a place of never having to worry about your job or livelihood.
Nope, I've only been screwed by unions my entire life as a worker with mandatory unionization and a consumer with import restrictions and service outages.
> Now we finally have some protections against precarity that we didn't have before. But we could have saved ourselves a lot of hardship if the government had just guaranteed them to us.
That is true for any desire. If the government gave me anything for granted, then I wouldnt have to work for it at all. The question about the precarity of the market you were/are is completely out of my knowledge, but I could argue that what you needed was a way to make the company responsible for the accidents and the health problems that arise from that work, or have some sort of work insurance that would align the incentives of the employers and the employee(make safer work spaces to reduce insurance claims). That is a very reasonable thing to ask of the government.
> Your views and understanding of this issue are trash
Compelling.
Although I don't think it is better to have richer CEO's is better than rich Union leaders, this is not true unless you live in Cuba.
They also enjoy special constitutional protections, that makes them almost as hard to arrest as a politician. Their kids are house representatives. They take pictures with the president and campaign with them.
They are part of the ruling class. The lower more ideologically "pure" unions constantly denounce how rich they are by selling out their own workers.
They manage the medical insurance fund for all employees in their unions, which is a billion dollar fund: several times it was found they cleared out the funds as well as replaced meds and all that (a few lesser union leaders got convicted of this).
Argentina is a special place, and one could argue that corruption is a problem at all institutions. But the unions are one more corrupt institution, that can easily start selling out their own, the same way a politican would or a business man could sell out his employees.
For me, calling for unions to solve economic problems is like bringing a bear to solve the bee problem.
A note on union leaders owning million dollar homes: http://www.ambito.com/793963-los-duenos-del-paro-y-de-grande...
This is the "most successfull" union leader of argentina phyisically removing the president of the largest private post office: http://www.perfil.com/politica/moyano-fue-a-oca-y-echo-por-l...
Turns out he owns a post office with thousands of employees. He owns a lot of things, being president of a soccer club and all. He was never anything else but a trucker and a trucker union leader.
A note on noteworthy union leaders salaries, ranging 10-15x the earnings of the workers they represent:
http://www.laizquierdadiario.com/A-vos-que-te-cuesta-llegar-...
Union leaders are not forced to publicly disclosed their tax filings, so you can only gauge what they own by what they do.
You can argue this is anecdotal evidence, but then again, theres no way to make it no anecdotal because its protected information.