Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

7 Bumps

Why is it that defending the unions = defending the middle class?

I don't get it. Please don't make any broad assumptions about me here. K? If you must, then assume that I'm intelligent and well educated. :)


Asked by Mom2Just1Kiddo at 5:59 PM on Mar. 15, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 28 (36,632 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (12)
  • I believe there was a time when that assertion would have been correct. That time was when the majority of union workers worked for private companies (not the public sector) and unions actually where working to provide safe and fairly paid environments. Back before most of those jobs left for cheaper pastures overseas.

    Unions NOW are not for the middle class. They are for keeping their own power and influence. Union membership is declining, and the union execs see their cash cow getting smaller.

    Answer by SuperChicken at 6:06 PM on Mar. 15, 2011

  • It doesn't really. Yes, some middle class belong to unions as do some lower class. Even higher class people belong to unions. There are many more people who don't belong to unions than do but even so they think it sounds good to be "for the middle class". They need support to stay alive and they think this does it. Unions can't have power if they don't have support and who can resist the draw of "lets help the middle class who never gets any help". Of course many can and do but they still do get a lot of unsuspecting people to support their agenda in this way.

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 6:22 PM on Mar. 15, 2011

  • I live in the thick of the middle class and don't defend the unions. Associating the bulk of the middle class to unions is used in a way to achieve political gain, by "some"

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 6:58 PM on Mar. 15, 2011

  • It doesn't. It's the only thing they can scrape up that tries to make them sound legitimate. Defending the guys that don't work all day so they can get paid union wage isn't likely to win many people over.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 6:00 PM on Mar. 15, 2011

  • It makes for a nice TALKING POINT!!

    Answer by LoriKeet at 7:01 PM on Mar. 15, 2011

  • I'm middle class and I'm not a member of a union. I live in NC. I don't know many people outside of the railroad who is a member of a union. It is a huge generalization to say that union=middle class.

    Answer by jesse123456 at 9:04 PM on Mar. 15, 2011

  • It isn't defending the middle class. It is just simply defending the unions. But in my view they are indefensible


    Answer by Carpy at 6:08 PM on Mar. 15, 2011

  • Because it makes them seem good... They have outlived their usefulness, people shouldn't have to support them anymore, if they don't want to. But the unions have no idea what to do without being able to leech off of people, what ever will they do?

    Answer by agentwanda at 10:32 PM on Mar. 15, 2011

  • It is the progressives attempt to gain popularity with independents as they push for more and more from the taxpayer. It isn't working as thinking people intuitively know that when an union member is making twice what the same job is worth in the private sector and that the private sector is paying taxes so that the union worker can game the system, that graft and fraud and unfairness in the extreme is taking place. Private sector unions should not exist and anyone that will emulate Scott Walker, if elected, has my vote.

    Answer by annabarred at 11:28 PM on Mar. 15, 2011

  • Pro sports are unionized and I would hardly refer to pro athletes as "middle class". If so, I must really be dirt poor. Like others have said, it's a way to paint themselves as looking out for the "little guy" which isn't necessarily the case.

    Answer by sopranomommy at 9:03 AM on Mar. 16, 2011