EPTAre Unions Necessary in the Modern World? - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
manicshock
Canada741 Posts
| ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 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 can give you plenty of examples where unions have fought against equipment/facility cuts that don't affect the pay of its members, rather their productivity. Unions are necessary because they represent the interest of the worker. Yes, this directly conflicts with the interest of both the employer and the consumer, but without workers, nobody is happy anyway. You're right and wrong. The public sector unions WON'T give a shit about the economy so long as they get what they deem to be the right paycheck. They really DON'T give a damn about the employer (government) shooting itself in the foot. There is no reason for public sector unions NOT to drive the economy into the ground. Am I claiming that public sector unions are the only reason for the economy being as shitty as it is? No. But left unchecked for long enough, that is the only end result of a public sector union precisely because there is no reason for them not to. Do public sector unions do things other then negotiate for pay? Yes. Does that mean they are necessary? Maybe. Does that mean collective bargaining is necessary? No. Lets be clear though, I never argued that public sector unions wouldn't say anything not related to money. But since this debate, while phrased as a debate about unions in general, is really about public sector unions and economics and collective bargaining theres not a real reason to go into all the other supposed benefits. I'll leave you with this thought, "can a union, without collective bargaining, still voice opposition to cuts in equipment/facility cuts?" On March 09 2011 19:40 xM(Z wrote: your whole point is based on the assumption that government works for the people. many people beg to differ and even more are saying that the governmet works for the corporations. what will you do when the government doesnt represent the interest of the people? Many people need to take a real government class and not the NSL shit they teach in schools these days. In a democratic form of government with regular (non-rigged) elections the government always works for the people. Corporations can throw money at politicians, but people still vote for them. Thats why states hold hearings on bills they pass, thats why you can contact your reps. Thats why you vote. The reason some people think government works for corporations is because in general, outside elections, people do not make their wishes known. A lot of people grump about what they are doing to friends or at work or on online forums, but how many are actually politically active? How many people here have called their senator or rep and told them what they thought of a bill or issue? Sent a letter or email? Doing so is important because the staff of said person actually keeps track of the amount of voiced support for a certain issue side. However, what we see nowadays is exactly the government not representing the interest of the people, because elected officials play more towards being re-elected then doing what might be in the actual interest of the people. How else do you think we got into this debt? Massive spending on wars, Social Security out of control and needing a fix, Medicare/caid taking a huge chunk of our budget. This is where a lot of the earmarks and stuff come from too. Politico's spend money on their own state to make jobs, bring money in or what have you because it good for getting re-elected. Why are none of these problems fixed? Because regardless of what might actually be GOOD for the country, the majority of people still want certain things. So we get issues like the political 'third rail' that are untouchable (until recent economic problems have been too big to ignore) It's really a case of, 'be careful what you wish for' or confusing wants with needs. | ||
|
ICA
498 Posts
On March 10 2011 05:45 Rashid wrote: 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. They do :D I do not disagree with your second paragraph though, but that should be self-evident imo. Not having enough employers is also correct, but not the sole reason. If minimum wages do not cause unemployment, then why are the being disputed? What then is bad about them? Minimum wages abandon all those simple jobs that are just necessairy, don't need any training and can be performed by everybody. Those people get unemployed. If you say that employers can just pay them more is wrong. Employers in competitve markets are themselves paying the highest wage possible, if the wage rises they can employ only a friction of the people they employed before. And the reason why unions cause unemployment I explained like two pages before, I think. | ||
|
StarBrift
Sweden1761 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On March 10 2011 06:56 dogabutila wrote: Many people need to take a real government class and not the NSL shit they teach in schools these days. In a democratic form of government with regular (non-rigged) elections the government always works for the people. Corporations can throw money at politicians, but people still vote for them. Thats why states hold hearings on bills they pass, thats why you can contact your reps. Thats why you vote. The reason some people think government works for corporations is because in general, outside elections, people do not make their wishes known. A lot of people grump about what they are doing to friends or at work or on online forums, but how many are actually politically active? How many people here have called their senator or rep and told them what they thought of a bill or issue? Sent a letter or email? Doing so is important because the staff of said person actually keeps track of the amount of voiced support for a certain issue side. However, what we see nowadays is exactly the government not representing the interest of the people, because elected officials play more towards being re-elected then doing what might be in the actual interest of the people. How else do you think we got into this debt? Massive spending on wars, Social Security out of control and needing a fix, Medicare/caid taking a huge chunk of our budget. This is where a lot of the earmarks and stuff come from too. Politico's spend money on their own state to make jobs, bring money in or what have you because it good for getting re-elected. Why are none of these problems fixed? Because regardless of what might actually be GOOD for the country, the majority of people still want certain things. So we get issues like the political 'third rail' that are untouchable (until recent economic problems have been too big to ignore) It's really a case of, 'be careful what you wish for' or confusing wants with needs. Manufacturing consent is the name of the game. | ||
|
Sprouter
United States1724 Posts
| ||
|
Rashid
191 Posts
On March 10 2011 06:59 ICA wrote: They do :D I do not disagree with your second paragraph though, but that should be self-evident imo. Not having enough employers is also correct, but not the sole reason. If minimum wages do not cause unemployment, then why are the being disputed? What then is bad about them? Minimum wages abandon all those simple jobs that are just necessairy, don't need any training and can be performed by everybody. Those people get unemployed. If you say that employers can just pay them more is wrong. Employers in competitve markets are themselves paying the highest wage possible, if the wage rises they can employ only a friction of the people they employed before. And the reason why unions cause unemployment I explained like two pages before, I think. No they they do not. Saying that abolishing minimum wage and unions will solve unemployment is like saying hiring 13 year old thai orphans as sex slaves in brothels will save them from the streets. Both are greedy, selfish, unethical solutions to a problem. Yeah, it's a shame that staff costing more means employers cant hire more workers, increasing unemployment, but that doesn't mean employers can use this lame excuse to cut corners in the salaries and benefits of their employees just to hire a larger workforce, especially since the employer loses NOTHING and gains A LOT in return: employees get their salaries and benefits reduced while employers get to have a larger workforce without having to sacrifice a single dime. Like i said before, the REAL solution is for the government to intervent with campaigns and programs aimed to educate the working class about entrepreneurship. And it would also help a lot if corporations and business owners to be more socially responsible and not act like greedy selfish douchebags and do stupid inconsiderate things like giving themselves million dollar bonuses using bailout money. | ||
|
staxringold
United States173 Posts
| ||
|
ibreakurface
United States664 Posts
Who gives a fuck if we have the strongest economy, do we forget why we want a good economy? So we can have a better quality of life. | ||
|
tryummm
774 Posts
On March 10 2011 08:11 Rashid wrote: No they they do not. Saying that abolishing minimum wage and unions will solve unemployment is like saying hiring 13 year old thai orphans as sex slaves in brothels will save them from the streets. Both are greedy, selfish, unethical solutions to a problem. Yeah, it's a shame that staff costing more means employers cant hire more workers, increasing unemployment, but that doesn't mean employers can use this lame excuse to cut corners in the salaries and benefits of their employees just to hire a larger workforce, especially since the employer loses NOTHING and gains A LOT in return: employees get their salaries and benefits reduced while employers get to have a larger workforce without having to sacrifice a single dime. Like i said before, the REAL solution is for the government to intervent with campaigns and programs aimed to educate the working class about entrepreneurship. And it would also help a lot if corporations and business owners to be more socially responsible and not act like greedy selfish douchebags and do stupid inconsiderate things like giving themselves million dollar bonuses using bailout money. Go tell someone with a PhD in economics that minimal wage doesn't cause unemployment...they will certainly set you straight. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On March 10 2011 08:43 staxringold wrote: Also if you "solve" unemployment by getting people jobs that pay less than the current minimum wage (which is itself not a liveable wage) that's not solving anything, it's sweeping a problem under the rug by playing with numbers. This is not true for union wages, which is what the topic of discussion is. I'm also against minimum wage as is, it should scale with age up until adulthood, because the people who really reap the benefits of a minimum wage increase are the 16-year old part-timers working at fast food joints. Course, that would lead to some agism, which might even be illegal. Either way, as a whole its a flawed system when you add in training wages, part-time and students to the mix. | ||
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
Believe it or not, but there was a time when government policy ensured that wages rose with prices. Solidarity and the chance for unions to have a say in management is over. Neoliberalism is starting to lay down the hurt. | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7323 Posts
On March 10 2011 04:03 Krikkitone wrote: 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 This whole idea of being able to pick up and move at the drop of a hat is ridiculous. Ive seen several people in this thread bring that point up. "Well if you think you aren't being paid appropriately, leave" I You act as if a person can magically move from one place to another at no cost or risk. Moving or switching companies isnt as easy as you are making it out to be. Theres things such as family, cost of moving(things like a lease or a mortgage), risk in moving (whos to say itll be better there or there will be long term stability). Pros and Cons must be weighed. Just telling people to up and move is incredibly childish ans simple minded. It shows you have no real world experience or you have zero meaningful connections with people around you. | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
Of course this may become irrelevant eventually.It's highly possible that most worker jobs will eventually be made obsolete by machines, robots, and computers. The technology essentially exists already, and making it an affordable alternative to a human staff may only be a matter of time. | ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
On March 09 2011 02:11 hidiliho wrote: LMAO. I read this as "Are onions necessary in the modern world?" I was like: "whats wrong with onions? I just woke up  Lol, I just did this as well. XD I just woke up. | ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
yes, unless you consider the "modern world" to be the the US. unfortunately, not all workers that deserve better treatment have the union power to make their lives a little better | ||
|
ArcticVanguard
United States450 Posts
| ||
| ||
