Dedicated to collecting the truth and ensuring that it's not lost by the people that don't want you to think about it.  
Have Labor Unions Out-lived Their Purpose Or Do They Still Serve a Useful Purpose?
Submit your thoughts but limit your post to 100 words or less. Posts of more than 100 words will have only the first 100 words printed.
The Reasons Unions No Longer Need To Exist.
 
1.

Union members continue to pay dues to be assured good working conditions. Years ago, that was a legitimate purpose - now, there are many government agencies to ensure that employees are treated fairly, that work conditions are safe and employees are not subjected to abuse or unfair terminations. The many government organizations that now protect employee can protect the employees better than the unions can.

 
 
 
Rashnelthinker
2.

The public is often poorly served by unions because they are denied proper service when the unions are "flexing their muscle". The public pays for services that they don't receive when police, teachers, sanitation workers and others are on strike or implementing some form of work slow-down. When truckers, railroad workers and other "public sector" union workers go on strike, it causes problems for everyone - not just the union workers' employers.

 
baker107
3.

In July of 2005, the Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters both split from the AFL-CIO. (Are those unions really “international” or is that another example of intentionally misusing words to distort a perception?) The reason for the split? Years of declining membership!

 

Unions cause more problems then they solve and people are starting to realize that fact. The unions are becoming “un-unified” as a result of an inability to increase membership. It appears too many people realize that they can live just fine without unions. The split is another step toward obsolescence / extinction.

  pds      
4.

When the union workers go ‘on strike' and refuse to work, and the employers hires non-union help to keep the company from going broke, union members and management call the employers “union busters”. But, the union members go 'on strike' with the explicit intention of trying to “break the company”, yet they don't refer to themselves as “company busters”. Why's that?

 
 

The union members can go elsewhere if they're dissatisfied with their working conditions, benefits or compensation. What options do the employer have other than to hire people that are satisfied with what the employer offers?

4all2see
5.

By October 2005: GM lost $1.3 billion AND they've paid over $750 million to workers that aren't working.

 
 

In 1984, GM was forced to agree to pay laid-off workers full pay and benefits. Currently over 5,000 GM employees are collecting full pay and benefits for NOT WORKING.

 

This 20-year-old bad contract clause will probably put GM into bankruptcy in the coming years. UAW will not yield - they don't care what financial destruction it causes and that's a huge reason companies fight so vigorously to keep unions out of their lives.

STEVE K.
6.

I'll bet strikes wouldn't last nearly as long if union management didn't get any pay as long as the striking workers are on strike and they aren't getting paid. It's pretty easy for management to tell the strikers to continue to stay off the job while management continues to cash larger paychecks then the workers will ever see. This inequity has always been very obvious yet nobody changes that policy. That shows the mentality of the union workers!

I see dumb people everywhere  
       
 
The Reasons Unions Should Continue to Exist.
 
1.

Unions still make it necessary for an employer to listen to a complaint from a worker without the worker being singled out and fired for complaining.

 
TRD
2. Unions policies and procedures have improved the working conditions for all employees - including those workers that have never belonged to a labor union. Everyone will continue to benefit from organized labor's progress.
 
 
Kim in Tulsa