|
On March 09 2011 05:14 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 05:09 cursor wrote: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. 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. Show nested quote +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.
There are actually laws that prevent you from firing everyone in a union that act as a barrier to companies wanting to hire the workers based on merit or how much they need the job.
|
On March 09 2011 05:24 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 05:14 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 09 2011 05:09 cursor wrote: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. 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. There are actually laws that prevent you from firing everyone in a union that act as a barrier to companies wanting to hire the workers based on merit or how much they need the job.
Nothing stops you from closing shop, and re-opening it elsewhere. Wal-Mart does that all the time. Or waiting out a strike. Or hire thugs to kill strike leaders... Oh, wait.
All a union is, is a group of people, each of them unwilling to work for anything less then X, Y, and Z. If the employer can't meet those terms, he shouldn't employ them.
|
CEO driven, quarterly profit based, shareholder centered business is what is destroying the country. Move a factory. Fire some bitches. Lobby congress to loosen some law protecting pension or inspections(edit: or outlaw unions lol). Somehow count next Quarter Sales in this quarter to up the numbers... that is how CEO's work then they quit. In that aspect, yes, they are payed on their performance of bleeding a company dry for short term returns.
And they are legally obligated to do so in the US.
|
On March 09 2011 03:32 Body_Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 03:27 majestouch wrote:
lets be honest, the cost of living in wisconsin can't be that high... it is snow. and more snow. and a little bit more snow. as opposed to texas which isn't snow at all. Colder climates have a higher cost of living than warmer climates.
![[image loading]](http://www.postlets.com/create/photos/20101105/164528_Front.jpg)
Yeah, that must be true.
|
On March 09 2011 05:26 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 05:24 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 05:14 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 09 2011 05:09 cursor wrote: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. 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. There are actually laws that prevent you from firing everyone in a union that act as a barrier to companies wanting to hire the workers based on merit or how much they need the job. Nothing stops you from closing shop, and re-opening it elsewhere. Wal-Mart does that all the time. Or waiting out a strike.
In canada, the Union can actually pursue legal action if you open up shop close to where you closed the one when a Union formed. I believe this is true in the US but you'd have to check. There was a case where Wal mart actually had to leave a Quebec city because they closed a shop to bust a unionization there.
|
On March 09 2011 05:27 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 05:26 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 09 2011 05:24 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 05:14 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 09 2011 05:09 cursor wrote: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. 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. There are actually laws that prevent you from firing everyone in a union that act as a barrier to companies wanting to hire the workers based on merit or how much they need the job. Nothing stops you from closing shop, and re-opening it elsewhere. Wal-Mart does that all the time. Or waiting out a strike. In canada, the Union can actually pursue legal action if you open up shop close to where you closed the one when a Union formed. I believe this is true in the US but you'd have to check. There was a case where Wal mart actually had to leave a Quebec city because they closed a shop to bust a unionization there.
Note - the elsewhere.
|
On March 09 2011 05:30 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 05:27 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 05:26 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 09 2011 05:24 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 05:14 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 09 2011 05:09 cursor wrote: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. 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. There are actually laws that prevent you from firing everyone in a union that act as a barrier to companies wanting to hire the workers based on merit or how much they need the job. Nothing stops you from closing shop, and re-opening it elsewhere. Wal-Mart does that all the time. Or waiting out a strike. In canada, the Union can actually pursue legal action if you open up shop close to where you closed the one when a Union formed. I believe this is true in the US but you'd have to check. There was a case where Wal mart actually had to leave a Quebec city because they closed a shop to bust a unionization there. Note - the elsewhere.
Yeah, completely useless for a company like Walmart that is forced to lose a city to competitors because a specific clique got together and abused the laws.
|
i think i would say they were necessary in the present form a long time ago and were instrumental in getting rid of victorian working conditions in factories and they were not so much a vested interest as they are today. i'm not sure how the system should work today but globalisation is quite challenging to deal with. it roughly means that countries are competing to set the lowest minimum wages, the least stringent working conditions and quite often giving companies significant tax breaks and sometimes even allowing them to operate against the law of the country and if the workers unionise they can very cheaply and easily leave and set up somewhere else. it seems unlikely to me that international unions will ever happen (though it could be a positive thing if it did happen).
In developed countries i think there is less role these days for the unions and often some corruption. I wouldn't say british unions are corrupt but there are often some slightly too cosy relationships between them and some politicians but not outright corruption as i've heard is sometimes present in the USA maybe. sometimes there are decent arrangements informally made between some unions and employers that make sense and are mutually beneficial but often they can be quite destructive economically. and for this i mean they escalate situations where a company has to lay off some staff or change contracts for the worse to be more competitive. I say this from a vaguely left-ish political position too, as much as i would love workers rights, pay and conditions to get better without exception; once basic levels of these are acquired (a decent level of rights like no illegal sackings, equal employment opportunities, a wage a person can reasonably be expected to survive on and conditions that aren't going to actually cause tons of deaths and injuries as a vague example) you have to be at least somewhat pragmatic about the trade off between economic efficiency and employment and employment conditions.
that said i don't entirely trust governments and things like the UN or EU to guarantee workers are entirely free from abuse and think there will always have to be some kind of structure of power involving the workers themselves directly... anyway i agree there is something problematic here but don't think getting rid of unions is a good idea but also can't really think of a good solution to change the structure of unions
TL;DR in their present structure modern unions don't seem able to help conditions in the developing world and can be somewhat abusive of their position in the developed world but can't really think of a better way...
|
On March 09 2011 04:53 c.Deadly wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You're right, but it's the companies fault for allowing their balls to be put in a vice.
|
If I'm not mistaken, the Wisconsin issue is about public office unions. Firefighters, teachers, police officers, etc. etc. All this talk about better economics and private businesses doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in this context. Unions aren't that common in private enterprise, and where they are, they are often challenged (look at Directors Guild of America for instance).
This is about public unions specifically.
The Unions actually involved have said they will take massive pay cuts instead of giving up their union rights. This Republican Senators and Governor seem to be the only ones around who seems to think this is a good idea.
|
Unions drive up compensation making labor more expensive.
Because labor is more expensive businesses use less of it and potential workers crave more of it.
This is good for those lucky enough to have these union jobs.
It is bad for employers, customers and the unemployed.
Allowing teachers to unionize is good for the members of the union, but it is bad for the schools, students and taxpayers because the school system adjusts to overly compensated teachers by having larger class sizes, raising taxes and providing worse facilities.
|
Unions are needed now more than ever, it's quite sad to see how fast companies will completely disregard basic human rights, McDonalds is a perfect example of this. As of now at least in Sweden there isn't really a proper union movement for workers in that sector and the treatment shows, and this happens in the US and other countries aswell.
Forcing your workers to take a break during shifts if you feel there isn't enough to do; IE forcing them to be at work unpaid.
Going into their own system and changing times for when people came to work cutting hours a month out so they wouldn't have to pay for several hours a month. Do this for every worker and you are making millions stealing from their own employees.
Forcing the workers to freeze out, bully and humiliate anyone that demands to get the records of McD stealing their money. For example: A friend of mine hade 8 hours (8 fucking hours!) cut in a single month, so she demanded to get paid for the hours she had worked. This led to the guy in charge mushing in two burgers into her shirt. "You can't work with a dirty shirt, either work without it or go home.". She was one day later laid off because he she hadn't showed up for work that day.
This is put into system so that you can terrorize your workers as much as possible while paying as little as possible. This is what the companies want to do, and don't think your higher education would save you, the market is flooding with more personel than is needed.
Before we had unions people worked 12-16 hour shifts 7 days a week and didn't even make enough to pay their rent. You really want to go back to that? Everyone has right to standards, every single major company out there wants you to have as few rights and as low standards as possible just to make a few more millions in profit. I prefer to have a system where you can be a worker and still live a decent life.
|
Is it just me or does anyone else feel like over 90% of the people posting in this thread don't know what unions actually are?
|
I feel that often unions are like a monopoly on labor. Monopolies on goods and services are generally forbidden (anti collusion) so why not for unions?
|
On March 09 2011 05:53 Deadlift. wrote:
Is it just me or does anyone else feel like over 90% of the people posting in this thread don't know what unions actually are?
I'd say more like 75%. Unions are structured differently in different countries and have different government-imposed legal privileges.
|
The main problem is the government interference. If the companies and the unions are able to make free actions, eventually they will stabilize at a point that is liveable for both the workers and the companies.
If the company is too harsh, people will unionize and won't want to work there.
If the unions demand to much, the company look for other laborors.
In theory, it should stabilize, though it probably won't because people don't behave rationally. But it's gotta be better than making a bunch of laws that either favor one or the other until we can't even figure out what's going on anymore.
|
On March 09 2011 05:55 sikyon wrote:
I feel that often unions are like a monopoly on labor. Monopolies on goods and services are generally forbidden (anti collusion) so why not for unions?
If companies had any moral standards, it wouldn't be needed. As it is now they don't so you have to protect your citizens.
|
OMFG xD i read
"are unicorns nessecary..."
and seeing that ppl misread the same like me makes it even funnier
anyhow
i think in the very end unions brings us one step closer to a global band of humanity resulting in peace and living standards everywhere
somewhere has to be the first step
otherwise we will destroy ourselfs in the very end
|
Unions...
Needed? No.
Useful? Sometimes.
Good? Sometimes.
Bad? Sometimes.
Corrupt? Sometimes.
Sometimes unions are helpful.
Sometimes unions are less corrupt than the company they work for.
Sometimes unions are equally as corrupt as the company they work for.
Sometimes unions are more corrupt than the company they work for.
It really depends.
|
On March 09 2011 03:43 Tien wrote:
You guys don't get it.
The more you unionize, the less competitive your economy becomes, and the more corporations will outsource.
Q.F.T.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
