Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy?

This question is irrelevant because laboUr unions exist to protect workers' rights not to protect the economy. It's like asking if churches are good for the economy.

Helpful, but when services are striking all the time when they receive almost twice the average wage of a city then they are hurtful and should be prevented from doing so

don’t understand

They are too mean to people who want to be independent and work on their own NOT be told what to do.

Help, but when services are striking all the time when they receive almost twice the average wage of a city then they are hurtful and should be prevented from doing so

Help, atleast the ones that arnt greedy and corrupt, H.R. are always on the side of the company, strong independent free trade union are essential for collective bargening, strengthening job security, rights, duties, conditions and preventing unscrupulous work practices.

I think the world has changed since unions were created. Employees rights have improved and been made law and is supported by human resource departments.

It is said that the influence of unions have altered over time and I suspect will continue in the future, thus making for an impossible stance on the issue.

Mostly help, and are important, but can sometimes take action too far. I believe in their right to strike, even for heath workers, as they need to have a way to get their voices heard.

In the past they may have helped in theory but have become corrupt and affect the lives of millions rather than the thousands they claim to represent should have their powers limited

Help, but members should be informed & regularly balloted on pay offers so they can decide when to stop striking rather than officials continuing to push for more.

If no unions, businesses would have everyone on minimum wage and no protection for workers from exploitation etc

Too complicated a question for a quick answer, they help because they ensure workers are not exploited thus reducing inequality but hinder if they have dated views and attitudes on green, equality and technology issues

Unions are important to protect workers due to legal aid not being available, discrimination in the workplace and protection of whistle blowers and very poor working conditions

They help in principle, but some are too influenced by leaders who either do not have a balanced view of member vs wider interests, or who don't understand that demanding more and more for their members is not necessarily the optimal strategy

Hurt, they exist to help their members access fair pay and accountability from their employers. They are not supposed to support the economy and this is a good thing.

Both, they help by providing a leverage for workers' rights but hurt by limiting services to the public when disputes arise. Ideally, workers should have representation at board level in order to reduce the need for unions as decisions are then made with the endorsement of staff in the first place.

Unions have a value bit are overly politicised. Donations to political parties should be banned. Unions should focus on protecting and defending the rights of their members.

Unions should be eradicated, I am behind the principle of a union, however, the tactics that unions take are destructive. They invoke terror in the population and this is the definition of terrorism and is a crime.

There should be better legally binding employment protection and wages laws removing the need for corrupt and self serving unions

It's both, economic performance does suffer in some ways but the economy suffers as a whole if workers lose rights and protections when they need it. I also think Unions do a poor job of helping to advocate for marginalised and ultimately represent fewer sectors. The argument though is for everyone to be part of a union not less.

Extremely complex! I think they have been misused at times, but are often necessary because the government does not protect workers enough.

Neither hurt nor help : but restrict the ability to become involved in non-workplace related matters

Help in theory but should move away from strike action as it harms the economy and the general public’s bau

They can help workers get a higher wage but they can also hurt the economy through extended strikes. Depends on the circumstances.

Collective negotiation of employment conditions is important, but controls on both sides need to be impact to avoid abuse of power.

They help individuals but in lots of cases they are in complete disregard of affordability and the economy.

I believe they hurt the economy, but I equally believe that they are essential to protect individual workers!

They hurt the economy but protect workers. There should be a balance between strong representation and protecting the economy.

protect workers rights, shouldn’t be involved directly w politics and economics when it’s not in direct interest w a discriminated worker

Hurt but help individual citizens. And that is more important than technical measures of how the economy is doing

I support unions and the right to join one but the membership fees are expensive which is why membership is falling.

HELP. Unions are the ONLY bodies that protect workers. Without them, the average worker will be squashed.

Help in theory, but in reality they are also significant barriers to progress in a lot of circumstances and aren’t willing to at least acknowledge that

Pragmatic unions can be helpful. Political and Ideological unions are harmful. Public Sector employees who a paid for by taxpayers' money should be banned from striking.

Neither, Unions help the workers maintain a decent standard of living in society, which is important regardless of the impact on the economy.

I believe the other parties should be on equal polling, why does it have to be Tory or labour? Both fail to deliver and never answer the question ms asked

Hurt, but still play a vital role in providing a voice for workforce and in securing fairer and/or higher wages for workers

I believe they can be a help but they should not be politically affiliated or fund specific political parties

Leading question. Question should be "What is more important - Workers right or a Healthy economy" which is i think what you're getting at here.

Necessary evil. In some cases they give workers protection but in other cases they become too powerful.

I think union membership is important for protecting individuals in disputes and safety; but they must think of the greater good.

It depends, unions hurt the economy when leaders prioritise ideological goals over the best interest of members

Help, without unions we wouldn't have as good pay, weekends, or conditions; these criteria stimulate the economy

They hurt the economy but are an important part of maintaining workers' rights, which would otherwise suffer under corporate oversight.

Hurt, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as long as the people get more equitable working standards

"Helping the economy" can mean many things - what is most important is which arrangement helps the most people.

Neither help nor hurt. They are necessary to keep a balance between workforce issues and management overreach.

Help, when they're all under control by the government and can't organise strikes and instead take the role of bargaining members.

Largely they are helpful, but some clearly have other motivations other than their members (such as the railway unions).

It depends. Short term, I can see some damage potentially being done, but nothing that isn't temporary. Long term I think that having them around can be of benefit, even if it isn't a straight line to get there.

Hurt, but that’s what they’re designed to do.

They hurt it in the short term but help in the long term if they work successfully for their members

Help, in theory but have recently become corrupt, and they should reorganize and reenergize.

Hurt, but are necessary to ensure public workers have a voice

Help if they focus on helping employers treat staff fairly and thus retain staff and maintain productivity. Unhelpful if their focus is solely on wages or holding onto lost hope of keeping one job until retirement without change.

Both, it's complicated

It doesn’t matter, unions are a backstop against large, unscrupulous organisations that hold too much power

Hurt private enterprise - better employment law is required to protect all workers but collective bargaining is necessary in the public sector

Help, so long as they stick to interests of working people and members and eschew ideology and party politics

Neutral but certain public service jobs should only be able to strike when 60% of the workforce votes for it

Hurt but they are essential to protect workers rights and their power should not be reduced nor limited.

They generally help but sometimes unions are corrupt and should be banned from making political donations

Help and should stop being demonised. They are there to support and ensure a fair working experience for employees.

Hurt. That’s what they’re designed to do

Hurt, but they are necessary to combat any workforce maltreatment from employers.

Helps long term

Hurt but aim to help workers

Hurt, but are still necessary to guarantee workers rights

Hurt in the short term, but help reduce economic inequality in the longer term

I find unions are becoming more expensive and the average person who needs the support is struggling to pay for the price of living

Unions are needed to give workers a voice, however this system seems to have broken down in recent years

Hurt the economy, however the people have the right to have a standard of living that the labour unions are able to keep

They have the power to do both, as seen in historical times like 1960s-1980s Britain. I believe, however, there is an importance in the right to strike and be a member of a trade union, and that they have been a tremendous help in building a Britain worth living in.

Help, but have recently become psuedo corporations with bosses as opposed to democratic leadership

In recent years unions have hurt the UK. although i understand the right to protest. Unions have seen the current state of the UK and have seen an opportunity to gain. Which is wrong.

They can help and should have a voice however it should be a requirement of anyone negotiating on behalf of their full labour force to have had business acumen training to fully understand the impact of the requirements they are negotiating for on the organisation.

Depends on the union and how they wield their power, its a two way street - both for the employer and employee - and the union's job is to ensure the worker doesn't get a raw end of a deal.

I think they are beneficial and help workers feel supported, they are only frowned upon because they actually voice what everyone thinks.

Help. But ensure they're activity pure and transparent and democratic. Reflect views of all members 're donation, ability to strike

strike action hurts the economy but I believe in the right to belong to a union and overall unions do not hurt the economy

Hurt, I dont agree with them but I also think that the government has no right to ban them. Although private companies do.

Dfryjryhsherrtj

Help, public sector union are necessary as the government has a monopoly on labour wages.

Help, but its not enough! We need a revolution of the Nationalist worker!

Help, but are dangerous and volatile tools that should act responsibly and without government intervention

Help. And should be present on boards of companies a la Germany.

Hurt, and they should have their powers limited

Membership of a union should be compulsory in large organisations, both [public and p[rivate, and members should be compelled to vote on issues to ensure a democratic outcome.

They should be able to strike if they have a majority vote from their members and any pay offer should be put to their members.

They Hurt but can be good under some circumstances like toting out bullying and toxic culture within organisations but they harm and hold the government to ransom

i could not tell you what this question means

Hurt the economy, but protect individuals which is more important.

Help in theory, but should have powers limited

Their impact on the economy is less important than their impact on the workers they represent- which is generally positive

Hurt, but they need to be replaced with tougher employment legislation (especially for public sector environments)

Hurt, but I believe that they are necessary

They do both. They help workers, they screw corporations. I don't mind that

I don't think the question should be whether it helps or hurts the economy. It could help the economy but hurt the workers (if conditions and pay are extremely bad).