Church Teaching on Unions

[gurneyhalleck1]

What you need to understand is that things have NOT changed. The boss is still the boss and the worker is still the worker. The boss wants the biggest profit possible and wants to concede as little wage, benefits, retirement, health care, or investment into his workers as humanly possible. And as a result, workers need to fight to either keep what they have or struggle and fight to get more. I’m a teacher and trust me, we don’t get offered $$$$ from the adminstration, from the district. You have to negotiate and fight it out. They will try their darndest to make sure you don’t get squat and they can keep the $$$ at the top or in pet projects. They don’t want to pay for health care. They don’t want to give raises. You either fight the fight or you stay status quo at best or lose what you have at the very worst, but never improve.

Unions negotiate wages, benefits, and a better life for workers. To think that the big bad manager was a bad egg in the 19th Century but in this world of greedy out-sourcing, CEO’s giving themselves obscene benefits and bonuses even when they run a company into the ground, don’t think that the typical CEO is out for the employees. Most CEO’s will either outsource the job if they can or automate it to avoid having a worker altogether.

To think “we needed unions 150 years ago but we don’t need them anymore because we have an ok standard of living” ignores a few realities: for one, wages have steadily declined as union membership in the U.S. has declined. Coincidence? The middle class is shrinking and in more need of protection and advocacy than ever.

The Far Right has done a good job of making the public hate unions, I’ll give 'em that. They use fear and envy as powerful weapons. Saying things like “hey, you folks working at the bakery or gas station or fast food or on the loading docks, you guys don’t get those fat pensions or health care or perks that those union weasles make, not fair, not fair!” Instead of thinking, “yeah, maybe we should unionize” or “boy, look at what unions can do!” they think, “yeah, we don’t have perks! And if we don’t have squat, neither should union workers!”

The Right usually accuses the Left of class envy and class warfare but the Right likes to get the Middle Class to fight itself. Make non-unionized workers who work within a context of next to no benefits become spiteful and jealous of those who do have such benefits. And the management and CEOs smile hoping by the time the middle class is done fighting the sour grapes war, NOBODY will have benefits and we’ll be a third world country—mega rich and poor. That’s where we’re headed.

I like unions…the folks that brought us stuff like WEEKENDS, sick days, bereavement leave during a death of a loved one, maternity leave, paternity leave, paid vacations. Imagine that! Live better, work union

I agree.

With the industrial revolution, there was plenty of opportunity of those with the capital to start and run businesses to exploit workers. That seems like a rarity nowadays; most organized employees make a decent, fair wage…and some make more in the public sector unions than in private sector unions.

 

[bbarrick8383]

What you need to understand is that things have NOT changed. The boss is still the boss and the worker is still the worker. The boss wants the biggest profit possible and wants to concede as little wage, benefits, retirement, health care, or investment into his workers as humanly possible. And as a result, workers need to fight to either keep what they have or struggle and fight to get more. I’m a teacher and trust me, we don’t get offered $$$$ from the adminstration, from the district. You have to negotiate and fight it out. They will try their darndest to make sure you don’t get squat and they can keep the $$$ at the top or in pet projects. They don’t want to pay for health care. They don’t want to give raises. You either fight the fight or you stay status quo at best or lose what you have at the very worst, but never improve.

Many people work in this type of environment. My first job out of high school was at a distribution center for Dollar General. They started everyone out on the loading dock at 9.10 an hour back in 1997. You were given an annual evaluation that could get you up to .25 raise. At the end of the year, they offered a bonus program, the more profit the company made, the higher the bonus was. Up to I believe at that time 3 weeks of pay was the max bonus. A few years later, they realized that the employees they wanted to keep around were leaving for other jobs paying a couple dollars higher. So they raised their pay to 15 an hour based on local competition. 15 an hour isn’t bad when the cost of living is what it is around here. I’ve seen the ads in Dallas for jobs paying that much, and the cost of living is much higher there.

Unions negotiate wages, benefits, and a better life for workers. To think that the big bad manager was a bad egg in the 19th Century but in this world of greedy out-sourcing, CEO’s giving themselves obscene benefits and bonuses even when they run a company into the ground, don’t think that the typical CEO is out for the employees. Most CEO’s will either outsource the job if they can or automate it to avoid having a worker altogether.

Unions are a great way to get a company to start outsourcing jobs. (UAW) I don’t trust a CEO any more than I would a union boss, I’ll work my tail off for my own benefit of creating ground for me to stand on when I go in and tell them I want a raise.

To think “we needed unions 150 years ago but we don’t need them anymore because we have an ok standard of living” ignores a few realities: for one, wages have steadily declined as union membership in the U.S. has declined. Coincidence? The middle class is shrinking and in more need of protection and advocacy than ever.

I reckon Suudy is tired of debunking the whole wage theory. The problems I am running into as a lower middle class person(although I think I’m techically considered poor by the government) is the cost of living. My food costs more than my house.

The Far Right has done a good job of making the public hate unions, I’ll give 'em that. They use fear and envy as powerful weapons. Saying things like “hey, you folks working at the bakery or gas station or fast food or on the loading docks, you guys don’t get those fat pensions or health care or perks that those union weasles make, not fair, not fair!” Instead of thinking, “yeah, maybe we should unionize” or “boy, look at what unions can do!” they think, “yeah, we don’t have perks! And if we don’t have squat, neither should union workers!”

This is where you are delusional, you use “The Far Right” as if there was some organized mass of evil corporate henchmen whispering in our ears at night what to believe.

The Right usually accuses the Left of class envy and class warfare but the Right likes to get the Middle Class to fight itself. Make non-unionized workers who work within a context of next to no benefits become spiteful and jealous of those who do have such benefits. And the management and CEOs smile hoping by the time the middle class is done fighting the sour grapes war, NOBODY will have benefits and we’ll be a third world country—mega rich and poor. That’s where we’re headed.

If I accuse you of class envy, it’s because you are running around forums screaming about evil rich Republican CEO’s who aren’t being taxed enough. Wake up brother, look at the world around you, most of us are not unionized and are comfortable with our benefits or actively working to find a way to make them better on our own.

I like unions…the folks that brought us stuff like WEEKENDS, sick days, bereavement leave during a death of a loved one, maternity leave, paternity leave, paid vacations. Imagine that! Live better, work union

I’ll be honest with you, I like the idea of a union. I wouldn’t have a problem joining a union. But if it’s ran like the big unions acting like angry mobs and demonizing anyone making what they would consider enough money to be able to throw out at a crowd to score some political points then forget it. If it’s apolitical, has a legitimate concern of the companies welfare as well as the employees welfare then fine I’m all for it.

 

[tommcguire]

Tonight in a prayer service, we read the Gospel of Luke- The Rich Man and Lazarus In this story Jesus is not easy on the Rich man. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him,‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ The response was negative.

Jesus did not hate rich people; he ate in their homes often. His teaching, however, is hard for those who do not respond to the needs of the poor.

Today there are eight people looking for every one job. We have in our midst many poor people, many becoming poorer by the day. I do not care what economic system or system of unions for worker solidarity, are in place, as long as it favors the poor not the rich. Best if there is some sort of fairness, that will come with the reign of God for which we pray: Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

 

[Millie1997]

RE: the African-American woman who needed to beg for gas to get home from her job.
A few observations:

1. Do you know she was telling the truth? I’ve been conned with sad stories by people who needed their next fix or pint;
2. Why do you point out her race? Are poor African-Americans more worthy of our help and compassion than poor whites?
3. Assuming she is telling the truth, would our present-day unions improve her situation? We don’t know her work ethic, her spending habits, if she is working 12 hours or 40 hours a week, if she could get a job closer to home, her family life, etc. We don’t know if her employer is struggling to make payroll, straining just to keep his door open in this sluggish economy. Would unionization force him out of business and cost her the job she has? There are probably a dozen solutions for her that would be of more immediate help than propping up bloated, corrupt unions busy sucking up dollars for their top tier and their crony politicians.
4. American unions are pro-abortion, greedy and corrupt. Do you think an organization like that is the go-to group to help the poor? They are abusing and manipulating the workers they control to destroy our freedom and our country. We need to take the emotional blinders off and stop them before they succeed.
5. Should we feed the poor and raise wages with the dead bodies of unborn babies?

 

[Lujack]

The worker may have a right to seek a “living wage” but no one has an obligation to pay him one.

Well, unless you take into account the pretty obligation not to cheat workers; it would seem that living it up while paying your workers only enough to live in slum housing is a very serious sin.

 

[pnewton]

it would seem that living it up while paying your workers only enough to live in slum housing is a very serious sin.

It may seem like it to you, but this is not something the Church has said. First, slum housing is a relative term, as is living it up. These have no real meaning. The Church has never defined how much gap should exist between the rich and the poor, only that the rich have an obligation to use their money to help the poor.

 

[CollegeStinks]

I agree.

With the industrial revolution, there was plenty of opportunity of those with the capital to start and run businesses to exploit workers. That seems like a rarity nowadays; most organized employees make a decent, fair wage…and some make more in the public sector unions than in private sector unions.

SOME? What do you mean SOME? Try MOST!

Average Salary of Public Worker: $67,691
Average Salary of Private Worker: $60,046
(2008)

And people wonder why we’re $14,000,000,000,000 in debt. I’ll tell you what’s socially just: maintaining an economy. That’s what modern church leaders should be advocating, not getting into the nitty gritty political specifics.

 

[Abu]

This a useful commentary by George Weigel – The Church and the Unions:
Extract:
“The right of workers to organize to advance their interests is not in question. What is in question is the claim of organized government employees to be immunized against the sacrifices necessary to rescue America from fiscal disaster: a disaster created in no small part by irresponsible politicians pandering to public-sector workers’ unions. A union that does not defend its own is, of course, an absurdity. A union that defends only its own, with no concern for the common good, is something else altogether. That kind of unionized selfishness smacks of organized greed, just like the pyramid schemes of Bernie Madoff and his ilk.”
insidecatholic.com/feature/the-church-and-the-unions.html

 

[Lujack]

SOME? What do you mean SOME? Try MOST!

Average Salary of Public Worker: $67,691
Average Salary of Private Worker: $60,046
(2008)

And people wonder why we’re $14,000,000,000,000 in debt. I’ll tell you what’s socially just: maintaining an economy. That’s what modern church leaders should be advocating, not getting into the nitty gritty political specifics.

Well, who is taken into account there? It is tough to tell how accurate that is without determining which workers are factored in For example, the median teacher salary in New Jersey is $61,000. School superintendents, on the other hand, regular making over $150,000-if they were factored into the equation, the median salary would be much higher, and yet it is the average unionized teacher who is supposed to be on the chopping block.

 

[Lujack]

This a useful commentary by George Weigel – The Church and the Unions:
Extract:
“The right of workers to organize to advance their interests is not in question. What is in question is the claim of organized government employees to be immunized against the sacrifices necessary to rescue America from fiscal disaster: a disaster created in no small part by irresponsible politicians pandering to public-sector workers’ unions. A union that does not defend its own is, of course, an absurdity. A union that defends only its own, with no concern for the common good, is something else altogether. That kind of unionized selfishness smacks of organized greed, just like the pyramid schemes of Bernie Madoff and his ilk.”
insidecatholic.com/feature/the-church-and-the-unions.html

Why is it unionized government workers who should bear the bulk of the sacrifices? Whenever raising taxes on those making $250,000+ a year is considered, that isn’t fair to ask the rich to pay more than the poor-but hoo-boy, those teachers and their median salary of $48,000 a year in the state of Wisconsin, they need to sacrifice! Cut my taxes, but don’t you dare give good pension and health benefits to those teachers!

 

[Ender]

Why is it unionized government workers who should bear the bulk of the sacrifices? Whenever raising taxes on those making $250,000+ a year is considered, that isn’t fair to ask the rich to pay more than the poor-but hoo-boy, those teachers and their median salary of $48,000 a year in the state of Wisconsin, they need to sacrifice! Cut my taxes, but don’t you dare give good pension and health benefits to those teachers!

This is a valid argument. I don’t think it accurately reflects the economic reality of the situation but it’s at least the right way to argue the point. This is in contrast to arguing that the Church somehow opposes what the state of Wisconsin has done. The Church has no opinion on the matter.

Ender

 

[Lujack]

This is a valid argument. I don’t think it accurately reflects the economic reality of the situation but it’s at least the right way to argue the point. This is in contrast to arguing that the Church somehow opposes what the state of Wisconsin has done. The Church has no opinion on the matter.

Ender

Part of my issue with the state of Wisconsin’s actions, though, is that they went past just cutting pension and benefits and reducing raises and instead shot right through to trying to quash the union. There are a lot of provisions in that bill that give the state no immediate fiscal relief and are instead just targeted at collective bargaining. The most troubling provision for me is the provision that caps raises for unionized public employees at the rate of inflation, but specifically does not do the same for non-unionized ones, because I think that reveals the true motive of the bill.

 

[Lujack]

It may seem like it to you, but this is not something the Church has said. First, slum housing is a relative term, as is living it up. These have no real meaning. The Church has never defined how much gap should exist between the rich and the poor, only that the rich have an obligation to use their money to help the poor.

The Church has said that the employer is obligated to pay a just wage, though.

 

[Ender]

Part of my issue with the state of Wisconsin’s actions, though, is that they went past just cutting pension and benefits and reducing raises and instead shot right through to trying to quash the union.

This is a judgment about the motivation of the lawmakers, something you cannot know.

There are a lot of provisions in that bill that give the state no immediate fiscal relief and are instead just targeted at collective bargaining.

True. Wisconsin (and a lot of other states) got in financial trouble in part because the cost of state workers had gotten out of hand. Beyond that, the relationship between the unions and politicians was of one hand washing the other: the politicians voted for extravagant salaries/benefits for the unions and the unions contributed time and money to reelect the politicians. By eliminating many of the collective bargaining rights the governor has attacked a relationship that should have been adversarial but was instead symbiotic. It strikes at the root of the problem and will make it more difficult to resurrect it in the future when control of government changes parties.

Ender

 

[tommcguire]

For those who must judge those in need, I suggest the parable of the Good Samaratan. Jesus makes no judgment about the victim (Was he just trying to get a free stay in the inn?) Jesus instead talks about those who would find excuses not to help, His ethic is hard to accept for some in His day and also some today.

Let us assume unions have been destroyed as some would like, how then would workers gather in solidarity to seek just terms from employers?

 

[tommcguire]

Comparing income totals is comparing apples to oranges. Many factors go into making public and private comparisons of earnings; just quoting totals gives a false conclusion. One of the real problems in coming to understand unions and the common good is finding true and objective data. So often the data quoted is meant only to support an arguement; objectivity does not seem to matter. I know that sometimes I fall into this trap, do you?

 

[Ender]

Let us assume unions have been destroyed as some would like, how then would workers gather in solidarity to seek just terms from employers?

Umm … like the other 90% of workers in this country that don’t belong to unions? The idea that the only workers treated fairly are those who belong to unions is demolished by the simple fact that most people don’t belong to unions and, I suspect, don’t want to.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Part of my issue with the state of Wisconsin’s actions, though, is that they went past just cutting pension and benefits and reducing raises and instead shot right through to trying to quash the union. There are a lot of provisions in that bill that give the state no immediate fiscal relief and are instead just targeted at collective bargaining. The most troubling provision for me is the provision that caps raises for unionized public employees at the rate of inflation, but specifically does not do the same for non-unionized ones, because I think that reveals the true motive of the bill.

While I to suspect the budget crisis is being used to attack the union, I am surprised by your last statement. I thought that pro-union people thought that unions helped people make more money and non-union salaries followed union salaries. That is the excuse I hear all the time for closed shops.

I also not that the Republicans are taking a tactic that they always criticize of letting no good crisis go wasted.

 

[Lujack]

While I to suspect the budget crisis is being used to attack the union, I am surprised by your last statement. I thought that pro-union people thought that unions helped people make more money and non-union salaries followed union salaries. That is the excuse I hear all the time for closed shops.

I also not that the Republicans are taking a tactic that they always criticize of letting no good crisis go wasted.

I’m not sure that I understand what’s surprising about my last statement-would you mind elaborating a little bit?

 

[Abu]

Lujack
The Church has said that the employer is obligated to pay a just wage, though.

Such a statement cannot obligate as if it is a doctrine – it is a recommendation which has application under many different economic circumstances which determine the wage. On wage fixing the Catholic Late Scholastics favoured leaving wage determination to the ‘common estimation’ of the market, since any other method is inherently arbitrary and leads to endless complications.

Here, Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., in *Religious Liberty And Contraception *is helpful (John XXXIII Fellowship Co-op (Australia), 1988, p 22-23), concerning “the practical order: human rights and duties.”

“But for a certain norm of action to be a matter of doctrine, it would clearly have to be proposed as a universally binding norm – one which is of certain validity always and everywhere. Thus, we could not elevate to the status of doctrine a norm which is proposed provisionally, and as subject to possible future correction after future consideration; nor one which is a particular ad hoc decision applying to given circumstances which might turn out to be transitory; nor, finally, one which is a concrete directive designed to give practical force to a doctrine which is in itself too broad or general to have much effect without such further application or specification. (An obvious example of such a doctrine would be the teaching – both natural and revealed – that a labourer deserves a just wage.)”