|
On March 09 2011 10:43 Sephimos wrote:
You generally don't have the freedom to not join a union. There are only 22 right to work states, in the 28 others you have to join the resident union, or at least pay full membership dues. Unions are generally against freedom, the ones in Wisconsin hate the idea of their membership voting on the Unions existence. I mean, can you imagine, people having a choice on whether or not they want their union? Ghastly. It really kind of sucks for someone who really wants to work at a certain organization, then is forced to support a union with which they may or may not agree politically.
Not all jobs are union jobs. Don't join a union job. As simple as that. It's your freedom, after all.
|
On March 09 2011 08:47 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:45 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 08:42 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On March 09 2011 08:39 Piy wrote:
Capitalism is dumb to start with. Unions and other systems of control just change a flawed system. They have their problems, but in the current situation they give better conditions for workers usually, so I guess they are a good thing. People trading with one another is dumb? It's dumb when one party gets the short stick. Business transactions are always mutually beneficial, otherwise they wouldn't be made.
Nonsense, most tort law is based around the fact that this isn't true.
|
The United States has a minimum wage. Since 1938.
All of which are less than $10/hour, something close to $7. This is why unions are necessary
|
On March 09 2011 10:46 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:43 Sephimos wrote:
You generally don't have the freedom to not join a union. There are only 22 right to work states, in the 28 others you have to join the resident union, or at least pay full membership dues. Unions are generally against freedom, the ones in Wisconsin hate the idea of their membership voting on the Unions existence. I mean, can you imagine, people having a choice on whether or not they want their union? Ghastly. It really kind of sucks for someone who really wants to work at a certain organization, then is forced to support a union with which they may or may not agree politically. Not all jobs are union jobs. Don't join a union job. As simple as that. It's your freedom, after all.
What right to the people currently holding a job have to make it so that I can't pursue the line of work?
There's been plenty of good points brought up in favour of unions, but the single, most simple question that needs to be addressed can't be. Why should someone be denied a job based on something other than their ability and their asking price to do it? We have laws in place to prevent this from happening due to race, gender or age, so why should unions be the only body who can legally discriminate against people entering the work force?
|
On March 09 2011 09:19 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:07 Severedevil wrote:
If every worker had an agent, we wouldn't need unions. Unfortunately, a full-time worker cannot also be looking for better jobs and negotiating for better salary remotely as well as a trained professional. And corporations always have trained professionals trying to keep salaries low in innovative and obfuscative ways...
Unions are an ugly solution to an uglier problem. This argument might hold some weight in the private sector, it holds none in the public. The public worker's employers are the people, they have no right of negotiation or strike.
Why not?
|
On March 09 2011 10:54 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:46 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 10:43 Sephimos wrote:
You generally don't have the freedom to not join a union. There are only 22 right to work states, in the 28 others you have to join the resident union, or at least pay full membership dues. Unions are generally against freedom, the ones in Wisconsin hate the idea of their membership voting on the Unions existence. I mean, can you imagine, people having a choice on whether or not they want their union? Ghastly. It really kind of sucks for someone who really wants to work at a certain organization, then is forced to support a union with which they may or may not agree politically. Not all jobs are union jobs. Don't join a union job. As simple as that. It's your freedom, after all. What right to the people currently holding a job have to make it so that I can't pursue the line of work? There's been plenty of good points brought up in favour of unions, but the single, most simple question that needs to be addressed can't be. Why should someone be denied a job based on something other than their ability and their asking price to do it? We have laws in place to prevent this from happening due to race, gender or age, so why should unions be the only body who can legally discriminate against people entering the work force?
Going by the line of reasoning that sephimos is using, you don't have the right to a specific job. If the conditions of joining said job don't appeal to you, you don't have a right to it.
My line of reasoning, however, is that it simply undercuts the union, and would lead to them being dissolved after a while. Since i think unions provide a necessary service, I think they have that right, per the agreement of their employer obviously, to bar non-union workers.
|
On March 09 2011 10:54 SharkSpider wrote:
There's been plenty of good points brought up in favour of unions, but the single, most simple question that needs to be addressed can't be. Why should someone be denied a job based on something other than their ability and their asking price to do it? We have laws in place to prevent this from happening due to race, gender or age, so why should unions be the only body who can legally discriminate against people entering the work force?
Because a sufficient number of people near starvation levels will work for literally any wage. Unions are necessary because in order to protect the rights of a worker in a specific trade, they must include ALL workers of that specific trade.
So there's nothing wrong with an individual working for a less then normal wage. However, enough of those individuals means that unions have no power. What's the point of an organization attempting to benefit the laborers when the laborers are willing to work for less than a livable wage (and unwilling/unable to better themselves)? You get 1906 America, people are paid exactly enough that they don't starve to death, with enough people desperate for jobs, any more pay becomes unnecessary.
|
Unions are not necessary. Supply and demand dictates salaries in an open economy. Hence why Asia's booming. Asians generally are willing to work for notably smaller salaries.
All unions do is abuse situations and give incentive to find alternatives.
The advance in salaries and work conditions was due to regulation and strengthening of the economy. Not because of unions.
Should unions be allowed to exist? Of course. However, they should NOT be protected. If a union goes on strike, the employer should be free to fire all of them on the spot.
|
On March 09 2011 11:16 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:54 SharkSpider wrote:
There's been plenty of good points brought up in favour of unions, but the single, most simple question that needs to be addressed can't be. Why should someone be denied a job based on something other than their ability and their asking price to do it? We have laws in place to prevent this from happening due to race, gender or age, so why should unions be the only body who can legally discriminate against people entering the work force?
Because a sufficient number of people near starvation levels will work for literally any wage. Unions are necessary because in order to protect the rights of a worker in a specific trade, they must include ALL workers of that specific trade. So there's nothing wrong with an individual working for a less then normal wage. However, enough of those individuals means that unions have no power. What's the point of an organization attempting to benefit the laborers when the laborers are willing to work for less than a livable wage (and unwilling/unable to better themselves)? You get 1906 America, people are paid exactly enough that they don't starve to death, with enough people desperate for jobs, any more pay becomes unnecessary.
You're dodging the question, though. What's the point of an organization attempting to benefit all workers when the only way it knows how is to shove people out of the work force and in to unemployment?
Are you saying that people deserve to starve so that a privileged group can maintain high wages at a job others would be just as suited for?
|
On March 09 2011 11:16 Offhand wrote:
Because a sufficient number of people near starvation levels will work for literally any wage. Unions are necessary because in order to protect the rights of a worker in a specific trade, they must include ALL workers of that specific trade.
So there's nothing wrong with an individual working for a less then normal wage. However, enough of those individuals means that unions have no power. What's the point of an organization attempting to benefit the laborers when the laborers are willing to work for less than a livable wage (and unwilling/unable to better themselves)? You get 1906 America, people are paid exactly enough that they don't starve to death, with enough people desperate for jobs, any more pay becomes unnecessary.
This, right here.
Unions are absolutely necessary. With the Red scare and union-busting of the 1920's came The Great Depression ten years later.
|
On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:23 Ome wrote:
Corporations have proved time and time again that they will cut corners on everything to increase profit margins, see BP oil last year, or the practice by Nike, the Gap and others who employ young children overseas.
Unions somewhat keep Corporations in check. Of course there are bad unions, bad union leadership, and good, decent corporations. But overall they protect the worker from exploitation that would certainly occur if they did not exist. This is not a union's job. It's your job, as a consumer, to choose products that are created in ways you deem to be ethical. Until society is ready to do that, no one in it deserves to think they're doing their part to stand up for their position on the environment, how overseas workers are treated, etc.
You are kidding or trolling, right? Society is far away from that level of maturity and will probably never reach it.
|
Unions are still necessary. Companies have become larger and more powerful than in the past through globalization. Firing a few "problematic" employees who demand higher salaries or whatever whenever they want won't be a problem.
|
On March 09 2011 11:18 Dogsi wrote:
Unions are not necessary. Supply and demand dictates salaries in an open economy.
And unions are just another player in the game of supply and demand. As an employer, if you don't like the terms your union is offering you, don't sign.
|
The biggest problem with public sector unions is that they collect dues from all of their members which are then used to fund exclusively the election campaigns of Democrats. Who, once elected, give in to lavish benefits [to a level not seen in the private sector] during contract negotiations. These benefits are then funded entirely by the taxpayers.
Plus union protests are some of the ugliest displays out there.
|
On March 09 2011 10:38 pfods wrote:
Plus, because of citizens united, unions are the only counter balance to corporate spending in politics, which are heavily republican. Given what positions you're taking on this issue though, I don't think you'd be opposed to the democratic party never being able to win an election de facto.
The numbers I've seen suggest otherwise. Only 2 out of the top 20 donors lean heavily GOP while at least 10/20 are unions who are donating at least 90-10 to DEMs. In fact the top 70 are dominated by groups favoring DEMs. Corporations tend to give to both parties to keep the favors coming.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
Forcing employees in certain private industries to pay dues to a union which then gives millions in political donations is unseemly. Forcing tax payers to support public unions (through mandatory dues collections) which then give political donations needs to be ended. You can choose which job to take, which company to buy products from- you can't choose which police, firefighters or DMV union works for the government.
|
On March 09 2011 11:38 Vile Animus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:38 pfods wrote:
Plus, because of citizens united, unions are the only counter balance to corporate spending in politics, which are heavily republican. Given what positions you're taking on this issue though, I don't think you'd be opposed to the democratic party never being able to win an election de facto. The numbers I've seen suggest otherwise. Only 2 out of the top 20 donors lean heavily GOP while at least 10/20 are unions who are donating at least 90-10 to DEMs. In fact the top 70 are dominated by groups favoring DEMs. Corporations tend to give to both parties to keep the favors coming. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=AForcing employees in certain private industries to pay dues to a union which then gives millions in political donations is unseemly. Forcing tax payers to support public unions (through mandatory dues collections) which then give political donations needs to be ended.
And likewise, forcing employees, unionised, or otherwise to support certain political parties (Based on which campaign their company finances - not all give equally to both parties) needs to be ended as well.
It seems to me that the problem here is not with unions, but with political contributions.
|
Unions are necessary as long as we continue to not have a functioning rights system.
|
On March 09 2011 11:22 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:16 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 10:54 SharkSpider wrote:
There's been plenty of good points brought up in favour of unions, but the single, most simple question that needs to be addressed can't be. Why should someone be denied a job based on something other than their ability and their asking price to do it? We have laws in place to prevent this from happening due to race, gender or age, so why should unions be the only body who can legally discriminate against people entering the work force?
Because a sufficient number of people near starvation levels will work for literally any wage. Unions are necessary because in order to protect the rights of a worker in a specific trade, they must include ALL workers of that specific trade. So there's nothing wrong with an individual working for a less then normal wage. However, enough of those individuals means that unions have no power. What's the point of an organization attempting to benefit the laborers when the laborers are willing to work for less than a livable wage (and unwilling/unable to better themselves)? You get 1906 America, people are paid exactly enough that they don't starve to death, with enough people desperate for jobs, any more pay becomes unnecessary. You're dodging the question, though. What's the point of an organization attempting to benefit all workers when the only way it knows how is to shove people out of the work force and in to unemployment? Are you saying that people deserve to starve so that a privileged group can maintain high wages at a job others would be just as suited for?
If a company cant afford to hire workers with proper salary and benefits, then that's it. It doesnt mean they can cut pay and benefits "just to give work to the unemployed", which is hilariously rarely the case. Outsourcing has ALWAYS been about cutting costs to benefit the company.
Unemployment means there arent enough employers. The only real way to solve unemployment is to encourage people to be entrepreneurs so that they can provide more jobs, and that's through education and government-funded programs to teach young working adults that they too can open up their shop.
|
On March 09 2011 11:22 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:16 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 10:54 SharkSpider wrote:
There's been plenty of good points brought up in favour of unions, but the single, most simple question that needs to be addressed can't be. Why should someone be denied a job based on something other than their ability and their asking price to do it? We have laws in place to prevent this from happening due to race, gender or age, so why should unions be the only body who can legally discriminate against people entering the work force?
Because a sufficient number of people near starvation levels will work for literally any wage. Unions are necessary because in order to protect the rights of a worker in a specific trade, they must include ALL workers of that specific trade. So there's nothing wrong with an individual working for a less then normal wage. However, enough of those individuals means that unions have no power. What's the point of an organization attempting to benefit the laborers when the laborers are willing to work for less than a livable wage (and unwilling/unable to better themselves)? You get 1906 America, people are paid exactly enough that they don't starve to death, with enough people desperate for jobs, any more pay becomes unnecessary. You're dodging the question, though. What's the point of an organization attempting to benefit all workers when the only way it knows how is to shove people out of the work force and in to unemployment? Are you saying that people deserve to starve so that a privileged group can maintain high wages at a job others would be just as suited for?
You're changing the question. You're point is that more people, demanding a larger than subsistence wage, would force some out of employment and onto the streets? This would be true, if companies operated on razer thin margins, but the reality is that most companies report enormous profits and this money goes directly to those in control of the company. Higher wages would only force a reduction in workers if the company couldn't stay in the black while maintaining the same production.
That scenario is less and less true in today's world, as the rich/poor gap is increasing, companies are reporting record profits right out of the recessions (note, because people are willing to work for less). Americans earn, on average, less then they did 10 years ago.
TL:DR: The difference between high and low wages for workers isn't the difference between everyone on subsistence wage or a privileged few working while the rest starve. The difference is how many yachts the CEO has.
|
I read the title "Are Unicorns Necessary in the Modern World?"... yes, yes they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
