So what is it that made me express the union issue? Several things have helped to make up my mind. One, because of several conversations on Facebook about the raising of the minimum wage in the state of Illinois. Two, seeing signs in yards proclaiming “A Proud Union Home”.
I understand that it is near impossible to make a living on the minimum wage. Let’s remember that that wage was never intended for a person to try and meet the needs of a growing family. Its design was to be a fare wage for a younger and perhaps unskilled labor. If that wage is raised, it would knock the complete economic structure off kilter. In the state of Illinois it may drive business out just like the raising of taxes is doing right now. Let’s put the employee/employer relation in proper perspective. The owner or CEO of a large company is often the one under attack when the debate of increase in pay is brought to the forefront.
It is not the responsibility of an owner of a company to support its employees. It is their responsibility to pay a fare wage for the work that is performed. That fair wage can be negotiated by either the individual, a union, or by merit. (Work performance) The owner of a business started the business to make a profit. Their goal and objective is to be vibrant and grow a business that would make them a lot of money for the investment and risk of starting said business. It’s not to make sure that the employees are able to afford the latest new car or buy the most recent electronic toy. So many times the cry goes out that the company has more than enough money to be able to compensate its workers better.
So the owner, for taking the risk, making the right decisions, and making money, is wrong for not giving it away? Why? Why should the owner give up any more than what was agreed upon. Either by the individual, or by representation of a union? They are asked to do competent work and in return they get the wage they are promised. Again let me say that it should be a wage comparable to the work performed. The unions started out with that mission. To make sure workers were fairly compensated and not over worked with too many hours.
In the beginning owners and bosses were greedy and could care less about workers health and just wanted to grab all the cash with little expense. Capitalism was something that the unions would fight against and would be up in arms over. Samuel Gompers, one of the founding fathers of the labor movement, began his labor career familiar with, and sympathetic to, the precepts of socialism.
He formed the AFL, American Federation of Labor which later joined with the CIO and became the AFL-CIO. Labor Historian Melvyn Dubofsky has written, “By 1896 Gompers and the AFL were moving to make their peace with Capitalism and the American system. Even though Gompers was against Capitalism he realized the need to work together to strengthen the American work force. He gradually adopted a more conservative approach to labor relations Although the AFL had once preached the inevitability of class conflict and the need to abolish ‘wage slavery‘, it slowly and almost imperceptibly began to proclaim the virtues of class harmony and the possibilities of a more benevolent Capitalism.” One of the founding members of the labor movement realized the importance of working together to strengthen the American workforce. Not to wage a war and separate the worker from the employer, making them enemies.
Gompers’s philosophy of labor unions centered on economic ends for workers, such as higher wages, shorter hours, and safe working conditions so that they could enjoy an “American” standard of living—-a decent home, decent food and clothing, and money enough to educate their children. He thought economic organization was the most direct way to achieve these improvements, but he did encourage union members to participate in politics and to vote with their economic interests in mind.
Gompers’s trade union philosophy and his devotion to collective bargaining with business proved to be too conservative for more radical leaders such as Ed Boyce, president of the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) Source Wikipedia That last paragraph is the reason why I have a question mark after the title of this blog.
The driving force it seems, behind the union philosophy is one of division and separation. Separate into different classes instead of harmony. The owner, the boss, the CEO anyone in a position of authority, was the bad guy. Out to give the worker the bad side of any deal.
They are the ones who don’t care what the worker makes. They want all the money and forget the little guy. Do we not do the same thing when it comes to our finances? If we have a budget to live on do we not look for the cheapest priced item so that we can save more money. That saved money we put away to use it how we see fit. New cloths, new car, maybe a vacation. Some put away for retirement. Whatever is done with it is no one else’s business. IT’S MY MONEY I CAN DO WITH IT WHAT I WANT.
Yet when we feel when a business has a surplus because they budgeted well, we feel they should give it up because they have so much. In some cases they do with higher wages, which then their budget changes and adjustments are made. I don’t understand the philosophy that if a business is successful they need to give profit away. Who says that they should? We keep our surplus. After all necessities are paid, and we have a profit, there is no one sitting there demanding of it for themselves. So why should the worker ask for more of the profit from its employer?
People complain that they send work to other countries because it’s cheaper to make. Maybe we have priced ourselves out of work. Again, do we not shop around for the cheapest price? It doesn’t matter to us if it may hurt one business. As long as I can save money I am shopping were my money goes furthest. Again same philosophy. Why is it the union wants to divide and place the employee and the employer into different classes? Where is the harmony that one of the founding members of the labor movement worked for? Who is the one that is being greedy? More to come.
Markley's Blog 