EPTAre Unions Necessary in the Modern World? - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Enderskmc
Canada110 Posts
| ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
Most workers can't just go around demanding things, negotiating with their boss about every working condition every quarter year or whatever. If there are going to be negotiations where the workers are heard, they have to be through unions, no? Also, at first i read "are unicorns necessary in the modern world?" -.- | ||
|
Wazabo
Italy124 Posts
On March 10 2011 00:28 SharkSpider wrote: Income disparity and wealth disparity are hugely different measures. The latter is exclusively much, much higher than the former. Furthermore, at least in N.A., union workers' average pay is higher than the national average. This puts them squarely on the privileged side of wage disparity. If you account for the extra unemployment they bring about (in Canada estimates have been anywhere from 0.5% to 1.5% out of a typically ~10% unemployment rate), you account for the people forced on to wellfare and use that for a wage. I don't know what that would result in in Italy, but you might be surprised to see how little the rich actually impact average wages. My point is, the solution of the disparity between union workers / non-union workers is not deleting unions (read union as a tool for the workers to improve the quality of their work) cause that will destroy the society. I would like to see the bottom class getting richer, not the middle class getting poorer (what is happening now), while the very top gets much more richer. In Italy we have a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Last year our beloved prime minister Silvio Berlusconi increased its family and company wealth by aprox 4ish billion dollars. Going from an extimation of 5.9 billion to about 10. 4 billions dollar in a year during a period of financial crisys is a lot of money for me, especially when you consider that everyone else in the country is getting poorer. | ||
|
dp
United States234 Posts
On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote: Your opinion is just as out of touch with reality. You're trying to argue that any public union would keep its mouth shut and watch the government shoot itself in the foot so long as it doesn't affect the workers pay-check, and that simply isn't the case. I would say that is exactly what he is saying. States are going bankrupt. Does it seem like these unions are really open to compromise? I honestly don't care about unions in the private sector, but in the public sector it is a whole different story as was put forth by the member you are quoting. You don't see a problem with how these negotiations are run? None? If you aren't willing to accept the distinction between the two, there is no point in arguing with you. On a side note to everyone complaining about the elite 5% and all that jazz, get over it. "They don't want to share!" Why would they?.. Everyone acts as if these people were given every opportunity they never had, while this simply isn't the case. A majority are self made men. Average net worth for non college grads is higher than college grads in the forbes 500. These are people that worked their asses off, started a company and made it successful. Just because you don't have the skills, intelligence, motivation or drive to do the same is not the fault of others, but yourself. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On March 10 2011 01:54 dp wrote: On a side note to everyone complaining about the elite 5% and all that jazz, get over it. "They don't want to share!" Why would they?.. Everyone acts as if these people were given every opportunity they never had, while this simply isn't the case. The issue isn't that the rich are rich, or whatever you're reading into this. The issue is that income and wealth are becoming more concentrated compared to what they've been at any point over the last 70 years. The last time America had as extreme a concentration of wealth as we do today, it was followed by the 1929 Crash and the Great Depression. There's a limit to how far it can go before the economy falls apart. Leaving liberal concerns about economic morality aside, it's just not good economics to have most of our nation's wealth belonging to a small percent of the people. If we don't want to resort to redistribution, then we need to focus on rolling back the policies that have allowed the 'natural' distribution to become so skewed. | ||
|
Rashid
191 Posts
On March 10 2011 00:41 Skillz_Man wrote: I think unions are stupid. They are a failed thing... I believe we do need unions, but they let the power get into their heads. Sorry 'bout the faul language, but they really bother me: My dad is the manager of a Waste Water Treatment plant and he has several workers there that are totally lazy bastards who get to work and don't do shit at all, but he can't fire them because they are in a union. He also has a worker who was in a car accident and is paralyzed from neck down, and he isn't allowed to fire her either. It's simply ridicolous. Workers have rights that need to be respected, but unions are the extremists of the western society. Unions need to be in the power of the government, because it's probably the hardest power to corrupt. Ofcourse the people that are lazy benefit from unions but overall it's just making a lazy lazy society that will whine about everything. it's because of unions that you can afford to play SC2 and have time to post stuff in TL, coz otherwise you'd be working 16 hours a day for less than $1/hour. You know, kinda like how things were during the Industrial Revolution WHEN THERE WERE NO UNIONS? | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
Already in america poepl sign away all sorts of stupid freedoms in their contracts. At lest in the uk we have a lot of staturatory right protecting us. Companies exist to make money. Their largest expense is usually staff ... you are a necessary evil for a company who eats the bosses profit. you need unions. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On March 10 2011 03:03 Rashid wrote: it's because of unions that you can afford to play SC2 and have time to post stuff in TL, coz otherwise you'd be working 16 hours a day for less than $1/hour. You know, kinda like how things were during the Industrial Revolution WHEN THERE WERE NO UNIONS? Unions have done their part, then, and shown companies that there are limits that people won't allow themselves to be pushed past. That doesn't mean that in the current day, they aren't just a waste of space that serves no purpose but to exclude people from the workforce for the benefit of union insiders who win their positions with anything but merit. Not all things that were once needed are still needed. | ||
|
GypsyBeast
Canada630 Posts
| ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
On March 09 2011 03:32 Body_Shield wrote: Colder climates have a higher cost of living than warmer climates. Unless you live in Hawaii, or some other random island. | ||
|
vrok
Sweden2541 Posts
Having worked as a mailman for 3 years in the middle of the industry's downsizing period I can tell you from experience that unions are absolutely necessary. Hell, even though they've been downsizing for a long time already now, some offices actually run at a greater cost now than they did when I started. The process of downsizing costs money in itself, and it's a never-ending process in this specific industry as well. Unions may not be perfect or extremely effective, but without them, some industries would lead to butchering their work force to the point where downsizing, and trying to cut production costs, only increases costs instead. If you think all CEO's and IQ-free middle management types, with irrelevant or non-existing education, are some supernatural geniuses that can tell the future and knows all the consequences for their actions in advance, you're sadly mistaken. Most rely on advisers because they simply have no clue themselves. Advisers that themselves are without a clue, leeching money out of the corporation for no real reason, and spawning horrible ideas that happen to sound like magic to the management's ears, that any sane person actually working for a living would find ridiculous and instantly recognize as impending failure. Some of them actually go out and give lectures to the workers to explain the reasoning and all the workers can do is basically laugh at their incompetence. Even in the face of irrefutable counter arguments they trot their ignorance with pride, because they get paid for it. A union takes part in the advisory process and that's the only place where advisers and director/middle management types can be revealed as the morons they really are without causing serious damage first. Unions are needed to push back company greed, force them to at the very least listen to the worker's point of view. If you think, well if the company management makes such grave mistakes they will be forced to take action to balance out again. Yeah sure, after already having butchered their current workforce and lost a shitload of capital for no reason other than their own greed, stupidity and stubbornness as some of these things take years to put into action before they can be truly evaluated in their ignorant minds. That is not acceptable. The workers aren't disposable slave laboring trash. Without them there is no company. Believe it or not, some people actually prefer that much needed physical labor that is essential to any country that wants to function at all. They're not necessarily less human, less intelligent or lazy just because of it. Unions are needed to protect these industries and keep the working conditions viable. If you think your union is terrible and/or ineffective at what it's supposed to do, join it and aspire to make a difference instead of fucking whining. You have much more power to change things that way than as a single person trying to lobby ideas to education-less, clueless government/board of directors types that don't actually work for a living. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On March 10 2011 03:10 MrTortoise wrote: withou tunions you would have no rights no min wages and no holidays. Already in america poepl sign away all sorts of stupid freedoms in their contracts. At lest in the uk we have a lot of staturatory right protecting us. Companies exist to make money. Their largest expense is usually staff ... you are a necessary evil for a company who eats the bosses profit. you need unions. You are a necessary evil... The way to get better rights, higher wages, more holidays, etc. is to make yourself more necessary to the business. A union can help by allowing you to make the amount the business is hurting by you not working the same amount as you are hurting by not working.(because you get no income, and neither does the business) However, that Union needs to be an Option for all workers not a Mandate. On March 10 2011 03:56 vrok wrote: If you think your union is terrible and/or ineffective at what it's supposed to do, join it and aspire to make a difference instead of fucking whining. You have much more power to change things that way than as a single person trying to lobby ideas to education-less, clueless government/board of directors types that don't actually work for a living. If you think a group is bad at what it does trying to change it is an option... you should also have the option of Leaving the group. If you think your country is bad, vote... or leave. If you think your workplace is bad, buy some stock and vote...or quit If you think your union is bad, vote...or .. you can't opt out. For public unions there is the problem that they are voters | ||
|
Joementum
787 Posts
On March 10 2011 03:17 SharkSpider wrote: Unions have done their part, then, and shown companies that there are limits that people won't allow themselves to be pushed past. That doesn't mean that in the current day, they aren't just a waste of space that serves no purpose but to exclude people from the workforce for the benefit of union insiders who win their positions with anything but merit. Not all things that were once needed are still needed. Unions will be needed for as long as for-profit corporations exist. The biggest expense for corporations is staff and you bet your ass that if a company could pay its employees half of what they are paying them now, they would. You think that there are people that won't allow themselves to be pushed past that limit, but there are. There are thousands of people that just don't give a shit and just want a job, period. They don't care about the pay, benefits or working 60 hours per week. At the end of the day, they just want a paycheck they can get by with. That is why unions are needed. So long as those people that get walked all over in life exist (not saying they are useless or bad people), unions will be needed or corporations will just start abusing their power. | ||
|
vrok
Sweden2541 Posts
On March 10 2011 04:03 Krikkitone wrote: If you think a group is bad at what it does trying to change it is an option... you should also have the option of Leaving the group. If you think your country is bad, vote... or leave. If you think your workplace is bad, buy some stock and vote...or quit If you think your union is bad, vote...or .. you can't opt out. For public unions there is the problem that they are voters I wasn't talking about voting. There's a huge difference between merely voting and trying to make a difference. Voting means shit. I don't really know what you mean about having an option to leave. I can only speak for my country but... You do. The union is simply more powerful than you and as such will more likely impose their will over yours, because you, as a lone individual, is irrelevant and meaningless. To both the union and the company. That's why unions exist in the first place. To consolidate power among the workers to the point where their opinions and influence on the company's practices cannot be freely ignored. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On March 10 2011 04:09 Joementum wrote: Unions will be needed for as long as for-profit corporations exist. The biggest expense for corporations is staff and you bet your ass that if a company could pay its employees half of what they are paying them now, they would. You think that there are people that won't allow themselves to be pushed past that limit, but there are. There are thousands of people that just don't give a shit and just want a job, period. They don't care about the pay, benefits or working 60 hours per week. At the end of the day, they just want a paycheck they can get by with. That is why unions are needed. So long as those people that get walked all over in life exist (not saying they are useless or bad people), unions will be needed or corporations will just start abusing their power. Unions Don't stop companies from paying their staff 1/2 of what they make now... if your work started paying you 1/2 as much you would get a different job and quit that one. and work for a different company. Now if there is someone else who will take that job for less, shouldn't they get it? If the company is going to pay you more than someone else, you should be worth that much more to the company's bottom line. There is the issue of companies all collaborating to lower wages (or raise prices) but that is a separate issue. | ||
|
ICA
498 Posts
Minimum wages (whether they are good or not is again a totally different topic) are set by the gvmt rather than unions. Unions renegotiate contracts. Even if there wouldn't be unions you could still have min wages. And again to stress my opinion which I stated before, minimum wages as well as unions cause unemployment. That's some serious stuff that most of you guys seem to forget. | ||
|
Rashid
191 Posts
On March 10 2011 05:27 ICA wrote: Why are you guys always connecting minimum wages with unions? I mean these are to distinguished things, at least where I live. Minimum wages (whether they are good or not is again a totally different topic) are set by the gvmt rather than unions. Unions renegotiate contracts. Even if there wouldn't be unions you could still have min wages. And again to stress my opinion which I stated before, minimum wages as well as unions cause unemployment. That's some serious stuff that most of you guys seem to forget. Minimum wages and unions don't cause unemployment. Not having enough employers does. That is why it is important for the government to set up educational campaigns and entrepreneurship programs to teach young working adults that they too can have their own businesses. as well as special loans to help them start-up, like how the government is doing in my country. | ||
|
NEWater
Singapore178 Posts
As a result of not having a proper union our workers are getting run over constantly by government that doesn't give a shit about the interests of the common man, and impose taxes and retarded policies first and then pretend to "consult" after. | ||
|
nicknack
Australia189 Posts
On March 09 2011 04:26 Ghad wrote: I think you americans are completely blind to the detrimental effect on the economic output of a nation that comes from a lacking security for the worker force. This dude hit the nail on the head. Lack of unions keeps people poor. Sub-prime mortgage crisis anyone? I recommend everyone try and get there hands on 'deer hunting with Jesus', book about America's political and economic landscape. Explains why Americans in general don't like unions and why they failed there. I think unions are necessary, remember the episode of the Simpsons were Homer becomes the union boss? | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On March 10 2011 03:17 SharkSpider wrote: Unions have done their part, then, and shown companies that there are limits that people won't allow themselves to be pushed past. That doesn't mean that in the current day, they aren't just a waste of space that serves no purpose but to exclude people from the workforce for the benefit of union insiders who win their positions with anything but merit. Not all things that were once needed are still needed. Sooo, you're hoping that history will be enough to stop large organizations from crushing the little guy in their path? Someone has a remarkable faith in humanity's ability to learn from its mistakes. The system needs reform, not abolishment. You can't be absolutely 100% certain that employer abuses won't start happening immediately after their disappearance, nor is keeping them in their current incarnation benefitting society appropriately. | ||
| ||
