[christkv]

I don't dispute that unions were important and offer some sort of benefit. What I don't like is that most of the big unions in Europe receive a lot of governmental money and become lobbying groups for political parties. I would not consider them independent in any sense of the word.

[tremon]

But that's exactly what a union is: a lobbying group that strives for a better outcome on behalf of its members. "Independence" is not part of their job description. Why wouldn't they talk to politicians, or even publicly support the political parties that are more aligned with their goals? Or do you believe that is a privilege to be reserved only for the rich?

[christkv]

Sure be a lobbying group but without public funding. If your members can't be bothered to pay the cost of the union it can cease to exist.

[tremon]

In other words, yes you do believe that having direct access to politicians is a privilege to be reserved only for the rich.

[christkv]

No I believe that you should not be paid my tax money to run your politically motivated union. The members of the union should.

[tremon]

Ah, but that's not your tax money you see; your tax money is being spent on other things you don't like such as teacher salaries. It's other people's tax money that's being used to maintain unions.

[christkv]

You make a lot of assumptions about other people don’t you and what they believe. You should learn to see the world as a spectrum of grays instead of black and white. Two things can be true at the same time.

[Ylpertnodi]

As a union member - my union can fuck off. Dirty back-door deals, scratchy-back 'allowances', management collusion...

But, we went on strike, got a pay rise, my disciplinaries were found to be baseless, I got a pay rise they hid from us.

Swings and roundabouts, but I have got two people fired -it takes time, and it's done correctly. Or the law gets involved.

I'll take a shitty union over not.