EPTAre Unions Necessary in the Modern World? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
olias
United Kingdom61 Posts
| ||
c.Deadly
United States545 Posts
On March 09 2011 04:37 smokeyhoodoo wrote: If unions disappeared nothing much would happen. When labor is sparse, companies have to offer competitive wages, and when it isn't, unions are worthless anyway. That being said, workers have a right to engage in collective bargaining. The employer however, also has the right to stipulate that union membership isn't allowed as a term of employment. This is true for 99% of unions, but some unions (namely teacher's unions and auto worker unions) have monopolized the supply of labor in their respective state's industry. They drive up wages and stagnate competition, which results in firms increasing the prices for their product in order to turn a profit. That's why car manufacturers in the US are doing so poorly in comparison to those in Asia - they make much less profit from charging the same amount of money. Abolishing unions would be good, because even though wages and employee benefits would decrease, the labor market would become competitive and the most skilled workers would keep their jobs while lazy/inadequate workers would be fired. This reduces cost for firms and allows them to either 1) decrease the price of their product or 2) provide a higher quality product for the same price, enabling them to compete in foreign markets and make more profits. Skilled, deserving employees will still have bargaining power to negotiate a higher salary as the firm makes more profits. | ||
|
Carras
Argentina860 Posts
well, then economy can go fuck itslef!! | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
On March 09 2011 04:53 Carras wrote: So basicaly.. your just saying that...if people get together and unite , that would be bad for the economy ? well, then economy can go fuck itslef!! I hate to quote this to agree, but I was thinking about this the other day. The whole, shrinking population vs shrinking economy problem. How a contracting economy is always presented as a 100% bad thing. If the population were shrinking- economic shrinkage would only make sense. The REAL concern is only standard of living. But I digress... | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On March 09 2011 04:53 Carras wrote: So basicaly.. your just saying that...if people get together and unite , that would be bad for the economy ? well, then economy can go fuck itslef!! Six people work at a factory large enough to hold eight workers, and are paid $5. If the workers were all paid $4, the factory could afford to hire two more workers. The city has eight people in it, two of whom are unemployed. The six band together to keep the two unemployed in order to preserve their own wages. Banding together looks nice when it's just those two words in paper. It's a lot less pretty in real life. | ||
|
Carras
Argentina860 Posts
BUT... WHY WHY ON EARTH DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO MAKE PROFIT! watter suplly,energy,education,healt care.. why do those things need to make profit! THEY DONT they are just human basics needs that should be provided by the state!! .. for all those who cry COMMUNIST! providing service at no profit rate doesnt mean that an investor cant make his own company... liberals alwyas say that the state runs this stuff like shit, thats why privates should do it... if privates are so good , then i think they would be able to out-manage and out-smart the state in those areas and even make some profit.. | ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1603 Posts
On March 09 2011 01:41 Ferrose wrote: If you have been following the news lately, you would know about the labor protests in Wisconsin. Well, in Michigan, the same thing is happening. + Show Spoiler [article] + In a scene similar to protests in Madison, Wisc., hundreds of firefighters and union members from around the state have jammed the rotunda of the Michigan Capitol building protesting what they call anti-union legislation percolating in the Legislature. Loudly chanting, "Shame on you" and "We are union," the protesters can be heard loudly in the Senate chamber, where bills to strengthen the powers of emergency financial managers for distressed cities and school districts were expected to be acted upon today. It is the first time a union-led protest -- several in recent weeks -- has spilled into the Capitol and caused a ruckus. The Senate continued its agenda, but the shouts from the lobby were a distraction. "They've awakened a sleeping giant," said Bill Black, a lobbyist for the Teamsters union who stood in the crowd closest to the Senate chamber. Pro-union demonstrators in the Wisconsin Capitol building have occupied it to protest Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walkter's push to eliminate collective bargaining for public employees there. The Michigan Senate sergeants-at-arms were watching the crowd warily to assure it did not attempt to enter the chamber, where decorum is strictly enforced. Several dozen union supporters sat quietly in the Senate gallery, while the protesters shouted outside the chamber. The emergency financial manager legislation is viewed by unionists as a plot to take over communities and school districts with state-appointed managers that could nullify employee union contracts and even dissolve councils and school boards to regain financial solvency. Firefighters and police have led the opposition to the bills. "We're here to show our support and solidarity for our brothers," said Tom Zalwacki, a member of United Steelworkers Local 8339 in Jackson, who was among the protesters in the Capitol rotunda. Source Now, I understand why labor unions were made in the first place. It was a necessity because of how workers were mistreated in the nineteenth century. And unions have been the base of things like fair wages, employee benefits, etc.. But do we still need them today? Should public occupations (like firefighters mentioned in the article) be allowed to have unions? If we get rid of them, what should we do? To me, it seems like unions abuse their power in the modern world. I do not believe that unions are inherently bad, but maybe it's just that the people in them are bad. Could we replace the things they fight for with simple legislation? What do you guys think? Edit: Mods, please move to General Forum. I accidentally made it in Sports and Games -_- Necessary??? - maybe maybe not Typically abusive of their power - yes. When my cousin (a fucking moron) gets paid 80 bucks an hour because the union dictated that based on his years with the company it is ridiculous. You don't even want to know how little he has to do per day. Less responsibility than a hall monitor at a high school. Though I guess I am glad it is there for him cuz without it he would be forever apprenticing at minimum wage jobs. | ||
|
echO [W]
United States1495 Posts
As for the question, are unions necessary? Yes. Do they also suck? Yes. It would be stupid to think that it would be good to do away with them, but it would also be equally stupid to think that you shouldn't curtail some of their abusiveness. | ||
|
Carras
Argentina860 Posts
On March 09 2011 04:58 SharkSpider wrote: Six people work at a factory large enough to hold eight workers, and are paid $5. If the workers were all paid $4, the factory could afford to hire two more workers. The city has eight people in it, two of whom are unemployed. The six band together to keep the two unemployed in order to preserve their own wages. Banding together looks nice when it's just those two words in paper. It's a lot less pretty in real life. then the 9th guy in town whos not working btw ..the capitalist..should think of a way he can make his machines produce cheaper so he can make more money to hire the extra guys... | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
The employer bargains from a position of power. I see no reason why employees cannot do the same. Nothing stops the employees from getting another job, you say? Well, nothing stops the employer from closing shop, and re-opening it, and hiring brand new people. Unions, much like corporations are a necessary evil. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On March 09 2011 05:02 echO [W] wrote: Just speaking on a philosophical level, I'm just sick and tired of politicians embracing the extremes at the moment. Both sides of the political spectrum. Everyone is acting like children today, especially in Wisconsin, the governor with his, refusal to change his stance and talk about it, and the idiot democrats for abandoning their posts. It's like their children! Ughh. As for the question, are unions necessary? Yes. Do they also suck? Yes. It would be stupid to think that it would be good to do away with them, but it would also be equally stupid to think that you shouldn't curtail some of their abusiveness. Expressing a middle-ground opinion doesn't make your arguments above reproach. You've provided no justification for why unions such or for why it would be stupid to do away with them or for why they are necessary. | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
On March 09 2011 05:01 Carras wrote: sth i notice... everyone says.. well if unions make capitalists pay higher salaries they have to increase prizes to make a profit! (well doesnt matter,cuz u get paid more money so its the same) BUT... WHY WHY ON EARTH DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO MAKE PROFIT! watter suplly,energy,education,healt care.. why do those things need to make profit! THEY DONT they are just human basics needs that should be provided by the state!! .. for all those who cry COMMUNIST! providing service at no profit rate doesnt mean that an investor cant make his own company... liberals alwyas say that the state runs this stuff like shit, thats why privates should do it... if privates are so good , then i think they would be able to out-manage and out-smart the state in those areas and even make some profit.. Just to make a small point, you could pay more and not increase prices, but you'd have to cut into CEO pay. Companies without CEO's making millions would do wonders for prices and wages. I'm proposing no solution, but the amount of actual profit that goes to the top 5 or 6 seats in a company is substantial. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
And people in Germany, who whine at the low salaries (and some of the salaries are quite low), need to realize that under each contract there are TWO signatures, one by the employer and one by the union. And they need to realize that handling working conditions is the responsiblity of the union, not the politicians. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On March 09 2011 05:03 Nightfall.589 wrote: Six people work at a factory large enough to hold six workers, and are paid $4. The employer figures, he can make these people work for 60 hours a week, instead of 40, and pay them the same. Because the city has eight people in it, two of whom are unemployed. The employer bargains from a position of power. I see no reason why employees cannot do the same. Nothing stops the employees from getting another job, you say? Well, nothing stops the employer from closing shop, and re-opening it, and hiring brand new people. It's supply and demand. If employer has work that needs to be done, it doesn't matter who does it, they simply sell it to the lowest bidder. If the shop is productive enough to use 6 workers for 60 hours a week, then it can use 360 work hours every week. It doesn't matter if that's split between 6 or eight people. In your example, the employer can have the two unemployed people share the extra work. Yes, wage goes down, but a fair supply/demand model exists. This is not true with collective bargaining. You can't tout the left-wing equality and best outcomes for everyone line while supporting relatively small cliques that exist because they can force unemployment for their own benefit. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On March 09 2011 05:09 cursor wrote: Just to make a small point, you could pay more and not increase prices, but you'd have to cut into CEO pay. Companies without CEO's making millions would do wonders for prices and wages. I'm proposing no solution, but the amount of actual profit that goes to the top 5 or 6 seats in a company is substantial. Some CEOs are worth that kind of money. Steve Jobs, for one. His predecessor? Not so much. I'll also throw out that people as a rule of thumb, don't start unions because they are being treated fairly at their workplace. It's supply and demand. If employer has work that needs to be done, it doesn't matter who does it, they simply sell it to the lowest bidder. Then they should fire everyone in the union, and see how that works out. Nobody's holding a gun to their head. You can't tout the left-wing equality and best outcomes for everyone line while supporting relatively small cliques that exist because they can force unemployment for their own benefit. You can't expect that everyone pursuing rational self-interest will always provide the optimal overall greater good. | ||
|
echO [W]
United States1495 Posts
On March 09 2011 05:04 SharkSpider wrote: Expressing a middle-ground opinion doesn't make your arguments above reproach. You've provided no justification for why unions such or for why it would be stupid to do away with them or for why they are necessary. I guess my expression of a middle-ground opinion is just my overall frustration with the current state of political discourse. The fact that politics has become my way or the high way sickens me. | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
Because, any profits made, in the current setup, will go to the top 3 or 4 guys. If not the top 1 guy. They aren't going to lower prices if payroll drops 5%, they are just going to pay themselves all the extra. You know that. | ||
|
Carras
Argentina860 Posts
Just to make a small point, you could pay more and not increase prices, but you'd have to cut into CEO pay. Companies without CEO's making millions would do wonders for prices and wages. I'm proposing no solution, but the amount of actual profit that goes to the top 5 or 6 seats in a company is substantial. nonono you are worng, CEOs, DONT MAKE PROFIT , the have wages that they probably deserve, if they didnt then capitalists wouldnt pay them that much.. and they get paid that kind of money cuz they make the owner , or investors make EVEN MORE MONEY | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On March 09 2011 05:09 cursor wrote: Just to make a small point, you could pay more and not increase prices, but you'd have to cut into CEO pay. Companies without CEO's making millions would do wonders for prices and wages. I'm proposing no solution, but the amount of actual profit that goes to the top 5 or 6 seats in a company is substantial. Supply and demand applies here too. CEO salaries are put in to fixed expenses or performance expenses only. This means that the decision to hire a new worker does not depend on your CEO's salary. The worker is either profitable or not, in their own individual unit. If hiring an extra worker nets more revenue than what you spent on their salary and benefits, you hire them, plain and simple. Anything above market price for labour is just bonus, which is only really acceptable if the worker produces more than you thought they would, by overtime or profit sharing in a good year, etc. | ||
|
TheKanAry
United States149 Posts
A human being if given the choice between doing what they see as best for them, or doing what is best for you, will most often do what is best for them. This is evil behavior, or so philosophy would lead us to believe. Now my point is, you cannot account a system flawed because the people inside it are bad, because the only way to get a system where the people are all good, is to have a pre-established government (kind of like what we have here at TL) that is made of all decent people. This, is basically impossible to implement in a real-world environment. Additionally, and this is important, the grand majority of people who are in government today are not interested in public service, but are rather interested in power, (again, selfish behavior) and cannot be trusted with the full potential of said power. So as far as i'm concerned, the system only 'works' (and i'm stretching that word mind you) as long as two conflicting sides fight, evil or not. So yes - unions are necessary, because the only thing about human behavior that has changed since the 1830's, is the law, and people break that all the time. | ||
| ||
