|
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?
|
Yes, they are necessary, I think. While I won't disagree that unions are abusing their power, if unions didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be long until employers got to "have their way" with their employees again, regardless of legislation. Governments make rules in favour of big companies all the time, I don't see why this would be any different.
If anything, I think unions shouldn't be allowed to abuse their powers in the ways that they do, rather than banning them outright or whatever.
|
LMAO. I read this as "Are onions necessary in the modern world?"
I was like: "whats wrong with onions?
I just woke up
|
unions necessary: to an extent yes. the point of unions is noble, it is to protect the workers from "corrupt capitalism" ie robber barons (note us history 19th/early 20th century) and what not. however, as of recent, unions have become more of the "mommy or daddy" for ALL issues of the worker rather than helping when something is truly wrong. most notably seen through the UAW (united autoworkers)--they are the most successful union, workers at the Arlington, Texas GMC plant (where pickup-trucks are made) workers are paid $40/hour to screw on bolts in an assembly line. Yes $40. This doesn't include benefits. When GM was failing several months back, they actually closed the facility AND still paid the workers, because it was cheaper than actually operating it.
If you look at the SEA countries, there aren't unions. you may be wondering why, the reason is, there is an abundant supply of labor for every person they get rid of they have 10 more waiting in line. Hence why their cars are cheaper.
as for the wisconsin teachers protesting, they honestly are stupid [i could use more vulgar words which better describe them]. In stark contrasts, texas teachers make $45k base WITHOUT the benefits covered fully like they are. The wisconsin teachers are making more base and EVERYTHING covered. moreover, 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.
tldr; unions necessary: yes to an extent to make sure workers aren't fully taken advantage. have they become too powerful? in some cases yes.
|
The threat of unions is necessary, the unions themselves are detrimental to most companies that they are involved with, while the "spillover effect" onto companies w/o unions is less detrimental while providing the same benefits to the work force. Outlawing unions would cause labor inequalities just like pre-union business was at the turn of the century.
|
Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)?
|
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.
|
I'd argue unions are more necessary than ever. Companies are larger and more faceless than they used to be. Governments are just as if not more bureaucratic and inept. Unions force those great powers to contend with the conditions of the workers they employ.
Working conditions on average are bad enough without those protections being removed.
That being said, many unions are stupid and have made changes that do more damage than good. I prefer to work jobs that are not unionized personally. Still, I believe they are necessary.
|
yes. Greed and selfishness is a human trait, now people just do it while smiling and wearing suits. Unions are totally necessary, and they really always will be.
|
Unions used to mean more than they do in modern day US. To answer your question, they should be.
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.
It does snow in texas...
|
It's funny that as the rich get richer, the poor, who could unionize, get more and more anti-union because of crap like Fox News and the Republican Party.
I've never seen a situation where unions were actually power hungry, I just hear rhetoric from American sources that says "unions lose jobs" and bs like that.
America, if you want to get rid of unions, at least institute minimum wage and better job security. Until then, every group of lower-mid class jobs should unionize.
PS I say this as someone who is not part of a union, because I make a very good living.
|
On March 09 2011 03:27 majestouch wrote: as for the wisconsin teachers protesting, they honestly are stupid [i could use more vulgar words which better describe them]. In stark contrasts, texas teachers make $45k base WITHOUT the benefits covered fully like they are. The wisconsin teachers are making more base and EVERYTHING covered. moreover, 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.
Uhhh what do teachers in Texas have to do with ones in Wisconsin?
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
You guys don't get it.
The more you unionize, the less competitive your economy becomes, and the more corporations will outsource.
|
United States7481 Posts
On March 09 2011 03:27 majestouch wrote:
as for the wisconsin teachers protesting, they honestly are stupid [i could use more vulgar words which better describe them]. In stark contrasts, texas teachers make $45k base WITHOUT the benefits covered fully like they are. The wisconsin teachers are making more base and EVERYTHING covered. moreover, 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.
let's get some things straight first of all, the wisconsin teachers are not protesting because they think they're not getting paid enough, or because they think they don't have enough benefits. they actually accepted a cut in pay and benefits. they're protesting because the governor wants to remove completely the ability of the union to collectively bargain for benefits.
second of all, have you ever considered the fact that maybe the higher pay for wisconsin teachers than texas teachers is one of the prime reasons for the disparity in quality of public school education in the two states?
|
On March 09 2011 03:39 Shai wrote: It's funny that as the rich get richer, the poor, who could unionize, get more and more anti-union because of crap like Fox News and the Republican Party.
I've never seen a situation where unions were actually power hungry, I just hear rhetoric from American sources that says "unions lose jobs" and bs like that.
America, if you want to get rid of unions, at least institute minimum wage and better job security.
The United States has a minimum wage. Since 1938.
On March 09 2011 03:43 Antoine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 03:27 majestouch wrote:
as for the wisconsin teachers protesting, they honestly are stupid [i could use more vulgar words which better describe them]. In stark contrasts, texas teachers make $45k base WITHOUT the benefits covered fully like they are. The wisconsin teachers are making more base and EVERYTHING covered. moreover, 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.
second of all, have you ever considered the fact that maybe the higher pay for wisconsin teachers than texas teachers is one of the prime reasons for the disparity in quality of public school education in the two states?
Educational spending is obviously one of the prime reasons the educational system is shitty in the south. And the fact that the school board re-writes history on a whim.
|
As a member of a union, unions are crap. They lower your wages down the the lowest common denominator, and keep worthless pos people in good jobs because companies are too afraid to fire them.
|
60% of Americans oppose taking away the right of collective bargaining, so yeah the unions sure are power greedy when taking the fight. + Show Spoiler +
|
Unions are bad for competition and the economy, period.
However, our society has morally chosen to create 'safety nets' and 'minimum quality of life standards'.
You can either do that by unions, or by increasing programs that will boost workers' quality of life. It's all just moving around assets. Somebody will still pay the taxes.
Personally, I'd prefer they let corporations be totally free to compete, then tax the system as a whole to make up for what the workers lose via loss of unions.
But in the end, you're just trading one drain on the system for another. It's all about opportunity costs... and unions get votes. Taxes don't.
|
Unions are necessary to the extent that every single corporation will take more advantage of their workers than they already do. My question, however, is are unions actually effective at what they're supposed to do? I started at Wal-Mart in 2000 for $8.75/hr. At my current employer, doing the same thing, for a different large corporation in the same city and state, I make $8.64/hr in 2011, although I'm supposed to get that increased through showing my work history soon. And that's another giant pain in my side--using TheWorkNumber and their phone tag fun just to get proof of my past employment. What can the union do to help? I'm not even sure.
A recent political cartoon showed an angry Republican elephant telling a union worker in Wisconsin "We all have to sacrifice!" with a nearby rich man cradling his wine glass labeled "tax cuts" cheering on the elephant "You tell him, my man." I felt that cartoon accurately described a certain level of hypocrisy from the right.
Additionally, I keep hearing that the Wisconsin public labor unions are actually well aware of the need for cuts, and they keep emphasizing that they are protesting the governor's proposal to strip their bargaining rights. They were actually okay, albeit not entirely happy, about taking pay cuts! But some conservatives are still calling them out for being greedy.
TL;DR My union has never exactly felt good at what it's supposed to do, but I'd rather have some protection than none, which is what Wisconsin's governor is trying to accomplish.
|
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.
I completely change my original post and adopt this guy as my teacher.
|
On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote: Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)?
Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do
|
In a sense, I find it necessary that a balance of power be struck between corporations and their labour, which doesn't really occur if labour is unorganized. On the other hand, the higher wages demanded by unionized industries increase inflation in the economy at large and create a wage imbalance between them and similar, non-unionized industries. And of course, there is a tendency for unions to restrict job availability to some extent. For these reasons, I won't call unions an inherently good or bad thing.
What I would consider a bad thing, however, is the state's imposition in restricting any group's collective bargaining rights with a corporation. I don't believe that the government should aid or restrict the dealings of unions seeing as they are only organizations which enter into private contracts with employers and their members.
|
On March 09 2011 03:48 Sm3agol wrote: As a member of a union, unions are crap. They lower your wages down the the lowest common denominator, and keep worthless pos people in good jobs because companies are too afraid to fire them.
This was my experience as well. Unions tend to have no beneficial effect. Rather, they stagnate economic processes.
|
YES , no unions mean capitalists (wich is people that DONT WORK and win money solely and the work of others) WIN
(well,with unions the win anyways..but its a step towards helping workers..)
|
The problem with unions is that by the time they become powerful enough to defend the rights of the union members, they become a corporation in and of themselves, complete with the corrupt executives (union leaders) and the big time politicking.
I personally think the union system as it is today is a load of crap. Could it be made better? Possibly. Probably. Will it be made better? Doubt it. Too much political clout.
|
5003 Posts
On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote: Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do
If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?
Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob.
|
Depends on what your goal is. If you think the goal of a nation is to maximize profit and maximize economic growth then sure, unions are in the way. If you think the goal of a nation is to serve its populace, to make sure people are doing well, then you need unions.
Corporations are huge powerful institutions. An individual can't hope to make a deal with an entity that powerful on fair terms. Unions are needed to make sure there is a balance of power withing corporations between people and capital.
|
Your weekend, worker safety regulations, vacation time, any pay decent pay all has to be taken from Corporations by force. Don't think we got any of that shit for free because they think we deserve it.
The US has a very violent labor history, especially at the turn of the 19th century. Don't think ANY of the luxuries were enjoy today weren't hard earned, and would remain indefinitely without some sort of leverage. To somehow outlaw unions would be ridiculous. I can't believe its even discussed by the people who need it most.
As for your outsourcing and the collapse of our economy, don't blame our high cost of production because of wages and safety standards... its our inadequate government that is unwilling to tariff the influx of slave labor imports from china and other countries. Don't for a second think that our country somehow depends less on Slave Labor now than it did in the 1700's ... the slaves are just in other countries. We need to stop buying that shit, outlaw it, or tariff it into the ground so the motivation to produce here increased.
Also, don't be fooled into thinking that we benefit at all from the slave labor, we get slightly cheaper goods, with 80% of the profit going to one or 2 people in a company.
I really find it hard to believe this post is even debatable, and that the OP was so biased with the thread title. Ugh.
|
5003 Posts
its our inadequate government that is unwilling to tariff the influx of slave labor imports from china and other countries.
Why does this mean our government is inadequate?
|
As for the "unions are corrupt" bit. Yes they are. So is anything that humans devise that is bureaucratic. It's human nature to use your power to your advantage. People do it at my job, at the local city government level, at the PTA, on sports teams... in BroodWar... its just human nature.
This does not mean that we should dismantle the workers only institutional leverage vs the Monarchical structures that are corporations.
The US is supposed to be based on democracy? Its not. Your job is a top down structure, your education is a top down structure, banking is top down, the media is top down- lets even pretend the politics were 100% legit. Still, that would leave 90% of your daily life at the whim of undemocratic institutions.
|
On March 09 2011 04:12 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +its our inadequate government that is unwilling to tariff the influx of slave labor imports from china and other countries. Why does this mean our government is inadequate?
Because its being run by the Companies its supposed to govern/regulate, and not the other way around.
|
On March 09 2011 04:10 cursor wrote: Your weekend, worker safety regulations, vacation time, any pay decent pay all has to be taken from Corporations by force. Don't think we got any of that shit for free because they think we deserve it.
The US has a very violent labor history, especially at the turn of the 19th century. Don't think ANY of the luxuries were enjoy today weren't hard earned, and would remain indefinitely without some sort of leverage. To somehow outlaw unions would be ridiculous. I can't believe its even discussed by the people who need it most.
As for your outsourcing and the collapse of our economy, don't blame our high cost of production because of wages and safety standards... its our inadequate government that is unwilling to tariff the influx of slave labor imports from china and other countries. Don't for a second think that our country somehow depends less on Slave Labor now than it did in the 1700's ... the slaves are just in other countries. We need to stop buying that shit, outlaw it, or tariff it into the ground so the motivation to produce here increased.
Also, don't be fooled into thinking that we benefit at all from the slave labor, we get slightly cheaper goods, with 80% of the profit going to one or 2 people in a company.
I really find it hard to believe this post is even debatable, and that the OP was so biased with the thread title. Ugh.
i agree with paragraphs 1 and 2 , but i dont think taxes on imports are the REAL answer..they are a narrow sigthed short term answer. maybe it would be a good thing to implement temporarily , but if you do that your market is now loosing lots of money just becouse you r putting your own country man in front of those of other countries.. instead you could educate your people to develop new ways of production , not only machines and stuff, but also managing,doctors,etc.
taxing would also cripple the other country`s economy wich in the long run wont be good for you.. unless you want them to lower prices and end up broke.. wich would be kind of selfish..lots of people would die in china...
edit: not only education , also public investments, industrialization,etc
|
Human greed is just as present in management and ownership as it is in working for a wage. The fundamental fallacy behind "unions are needed to curve evil businesspeople's greediness" is that it assumes that a larger group of self-interested people will be less greedy than a smaller group. Modern history has not provided any of the missing backing for that viewpoint.
The key economic issue here is that unions used to be all about controlling the supply of labour to corporations. If corporations weren't providing a fair value for employees, they could "make themselves scarce" by refusing to compete with eachother for jobs, thus increasing their salaries. This is fine, at least in my opinion. The problem, now, is that Unions have legal and contractual rights in most developed countries. This gives them the power to deny jobs to people who would accept them for less pay, who are often the people who need them the most. It's no longer a case of Unions working against the tyranny of business for the sake of the working man, it's a case of inside-groups working for their own self-interest at the expense of the outside-group. (Economically, higher wages plus termination restrictions force the net up, at the expense of higher total employment.)
Without unions, you get more short-term employment, better international competition, less oursourcing leading to long-term employment, and wages distributed among the workforce, albeit at a lower level. With unions, short-term unemployment increases, jobs are outsourced over time for countries with looser labour laws, companies are less profitable so international investors withdraw capital from the country, and income is concentrated on a smaller group of the workforce who have no defining characteristics other than seniority in an organization.
This is basically a key example of why supply-limiting wealth distribution is a bad idea. Cut union power, increase tax on profits and give that to the population in forms of infrastructure. For clarification on why this is better, the key is the marginal utility of a worker. Taxes will not bring the "worth" of hiring an extra worker below zero if it's not negative already. Upward pressure on wages will bring the worth of hiring an extra worker below zero. People are accusing businesspeople of being greedy, but any businessperson will hire a worker who costs less than the product he creates, in theory even if the difference is a dollar or two. The real, sickening greed is people who would both lower the money the government gets in taxes and put someone else out a job just for a wage increase that economics doesn't call for.
|
anyone else read "Are Onions necessary..."
|
If you want to compete with people, internationally, for jobs, who work 7 days a week 12 hours a day with no safety regulations... please be my guest.
The only good jobs left in this country are union jobs. The unions are not the problem with our system, or why it is collapsing. The problem is that corporations have too much power, run the government, run the regulating institutions and are 90% of the time running them with the same people. Dismantle the only counter balance to corporate power, as corrupt as it is, and see what happens. You think minimum wage is low? lol. Hope you like working weekends.
|
On March 09 2011 04:07 Mortality wrote: The problem with unions is that by the time they become powerful enough to defend the rights of the union members, they become a corporation in and of themselves, complete with the corrupt executives (union leaders) and the big time politicking. From what I've understood, unions in the US are a bit more extreme than what I've grown up with. But when it comes to negotiating saleries, that statement is quite true. Usually the process goes: a big union with lots of workers (say miners) manage to negotiate a raise since the mining buisness is doing great at the moment. Then all the smaller unions will argue that their followers should also get a raise, just because the miners got one... And it doesn't work the other way around... I've never heard of anyone getting a paycut when the company is doing worse than usual, people just get fired, or offered reduced working hours.
What unions do great tho, is negotiating health and safety procedures and equipment.
On March 09 2011 04:07 Mortality wrote: I personally think the union system as it is today is a load of crap. Could it be made better? Possibly. Probably. Will it be made better? Doubt it. Too much political clout.
Besides for the saleries thing... I think unions overall here is doing quite fine, tho I have come across some bad apples, the ones that basicly work with the companies, and against the workers that are paying their wages to help them...
|
On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote: Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective? Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob.
Yeah, I know. This is what the other train of thought in my head.
It's not a simple debate!
Getting fair wages, the original goal of unions, is one thing. But having some barely literate person screwing bolts onto a shitty made GM car for $40/hr is different. I don't even know how you remedy that
|
Unions are terrible devices which should only be used in extreme situations with workers that have little to no ability to understand there own basic needs. Though, on a major front, unions inhibit business (public or private) by advocating for a baseline of business and not rewarding excellence. Their worst crime though is the baseline of business is not an average of what a person can do, but usually falls to the lowest level of quality they can attend. Perhaps in the 19th century these organizations are needed, though currently many state and the federal government have government entities which act as watch dogs and regulators of minimum wage and other labor practices.
In a previous post, the question was raised if big business cares about their employees. The truthful answer to this question is, only those that are currently performing well for them. To me, this is the way it should be, a situation the forces people to look to shine and be recognized, to get promoted or do a job they want to do. With out the ability to rise based on merit, people will usually fall to the basic level needed to survive the next budget cut.
|
The triangle cooperation, competition, and in last resorts, conflicts, between the government, labour unions and employers (companies) organizations form the basis of the wealth of the nordic countries.
So I would say yes, unions are absolutely necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
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.
And I would like to say that i am currently not a member of any union because i am an IT professional and as such are at the nice end of the salary spectrum, and i vote at the right-wing. This doesn't prevent me from seeing the bigger picture.
|
Unions are the biggest waste of anything, ever. These are the people who whine, complain, and eventually protest/riot all because they are stuck in an hourly job and are only getting paid slightly more than a burger-flipper. I was completely outraged that the average hourly rate for a union employee at those car plants in detroit was something like 75 or 80 dollars/hour when Obama bailed them out!!! These people have no skill that would ever amount to that much money. I'm sure that figure included stuff like insurance and benefits, but still....It's no wonder foreign cars are becoming more popular, they pay a line worker much closer to what that skill is actually worth and we in turn pay less money for the same quality. I'm all for giving americans jobs over foreign workers, but not at the expense of charity, and that's all that unions are ever after. They just claim that it's in the name of "equality".....
|
Unions are needed to perform some push-back and protect the intrest of the worker.
If all unions were suddenly abolished then the status of the worker would slowly but surely be pressed as far as possible. It's only in the intrest of a company to be as productive as possible and that includes cheap labour, as cheap as possible.
Once the situation gets very dire and the workers want to form a union again you can be damn sure that they aren't going to get a chance to form one. Union busting would be pretty simple if there are no unions.
|
No unions would lead to competition for the best workers, and a more efficient economic system. There would be more wage disparity though, as fail-workers get fail-wages.
Under unions, being by far the best worker doesn't mean you get the best wage. Without unions, you would undoubtedly get paid more for working harder. Unions promote laziness, they promote "working just as hard as you have to". Because you can't get fired, a lot of people don't try. And because you can't get raises for working hard, again, you don't try.
Unions honestly annoy me in the news, and in general, but who am i to judge, I'm still a student. ^^
|
5003 Posts
On March 09 2011 04:21 cursor wrote: If you want to compete with people, internationally, for jobs, who work 7 days a week 12 hours a day with no safety regulations... please be my guest.
The only good jobs left in this country are union jobs. The unions are not the problem with our system, or why it is collapsing. The problem is that corporations have too much power, run the government, run the regulating institutions and are 90% of the time running them with the same people. Dismantle the only counter balance to corporate power, as corrupt as it is, and see what happens. You think minimum wage is low? lol. Hope you like working weekends.
The only good jobs left in this country are union jobs if you're uneducated.
You have no idea what you're talking about. No unions does not mean "you work weekends". Nor does the fact that the companies have a lot of influence on the country does not mean the government is inadequate, nor are tariffs even a good thing.
Of course, judging by the fact that you're willing to pass off all of these as plain fact literally implies you have no idea what you're talking about simply because you're blinded by how you want to see the world. Please get a grip.
|
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.
This certainly isn't true, cost of living is derived from demand (how desirable it is to live there) that's why the bay area in california has such high cost of living. Generally speaking, if the only difference between two places was a cold climate or a more temperate climate, demand will be higher in the temperate area.
Can a cold area have a higher cost of living than a warm area? Sure, but that would be the result of other features, and not the temperature.
|
On March 09 2011 04:31 Milkis wrote: The only good jobs left in this country are union jobs if you're uneducated.
You have no idea what you're talking about. No unions does not mean "you work weekends". Nor does the fact that the companies have a lot of influence on the country does not mean the government is inadequate, nor are tariffs even a good thing.
Of course, judging by the fact that you're willing to pass off all of these as plain fact literally implies you have no idea what you're talking about simply because you're blinded by how you want to see the world. Please get a grip.
Congrats, so much text without any substiantial argument at all, nice.
|
On March 09 2011 04:21 cursor wrote: The only good jobs left in this country are union jobs. The unions are not the problem with our system, or why it is collapsing. The problem is that corporations have too much power, run the government, run the regulating institutions and are 90% of the time running them with the same people. Dismantle the only counter balance to corporate power, as corrupt as it is, and see what happens. You think minimum wage is low? lol. Hope you like working weekends. No matter how much legal power corporations have, the simple fact is that they will compete for employees if they have to, and they will do what they can to avoid having to compete for employees and wages if they do not. The only way a company can make you work for less is if you are willing to work for it because your skills aren't worth enough to some other company.
The best jobs are also not union jobs. Union jobs are just the best jobs for people who don't have significant skills. Engineers, programmers, IT professionals, managers, salespeople, HR reps, financiers, skilled tradespeople, doctors, lawyers, actuaries, counsellors, business owners, etc. can all make more in than your average union worker because they have skills you can't train in a few weeks or find on the street.
|
Necessary yes. Flawed, yes. As is everything.
Go work at a Wal Mart and see the future of America without unions- I worked for a merchandising company in those stores for years. Then imagine that without minimum wage.
Make no mistake that the center of the debate in this thread is, really, why is America in so much trouble economically. There are think tanks, media, and companies out there putting out the idea now- since its on the table- that the real problem with the US is organized labor.
This couldn't be further from the truth. While flawed, Unions give people far more of a chance than without. The problem is the imbalanced power wielded by companies and the rich in this country, which affect policy creation to their favor.
The attempt will be to argue that the Unions are the problem with the country. There are much much bigger ones I assure you.
|
to all liberals, or those who wrote liberal tougths...
REALLY ?? REALLY GUYS ?? your gonna keep tossing the same shit you v been tossing for ages..
do you REALLY dont see it ? every single country where the FMIs liberal recipe of shrinking the state,no intervention etc has failed HORRIBLY, that shit has even caused one of the worst crisis in the history of the US, even Europe is crashing... and your still saying the same stupid stuff ?????
|
On March 09 2011 04:33 cursor wrote:
Go work at a Wal Mart and see the future of America without unions- I worked for a merchandising company in those stores for years. Then imagine that without minimum wage.
Unions aren't involved in minimum wage. That is set by the government directly.
Unions can affect what the job pays, though, overtop of that.
|
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.
|
On March 09 2011 04:31 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:21 cursor wrote: If you want to compete with people, internationally, for jobs, who work 7 days a week 12 hours a day with no safety regulations... please be my guest.
The only good jobs left in this country are union jobs. The unions are not the problem with our system, or why it is collapsing. The problem is that corporations have too much power, run the government, run the regulating institutions and are 90% of the time running them with the same people. Dismantle the only counter balance to corporate power, as corrupt as it is, and see what happens. You think minimum wage is low? lol. Hope you like working weekends. The only good jobs left in this country are union jobs if you're uneducated. You have no idea what you're talking about. No unions does not mean "you work weekends". Nor does the fact that the companies have a lot of influence on the country does not mean the government is inadequate, nor are tariffs even a good thing. Of course, judging by the fact that you're willing to pass off all of these as plain fact literally implies you have no idea what you're talking about simply because you're blinded by how you want to see the world. Please get a grip. Sorry bro, but it is fact. It is fact that weekends came from organized labor. So did safety standards, in the Textile Mills for starters, coal mines and meat packing later on. These are protections that would easily be stripped away. Indeed you want to see the world as "everyone gets what they are due if they work hard and are educated enough." I'm afraid that is more of a contort of reality than iss "we need to match the institutional affect of the rich/powerful, with some sort of opposing power".
|
The teacher's union at my university is going on strike on Thursday.
|
On March 09 2011 04:38 cursor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:31 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:21 cursor wrote: If you want to compete with people, internationally, for jobs, who work 7 days a week 12 hours a day with no safety regulations... please be my guest.
The only good jobs left in this country are union jobs. The unions are not the problem with our system, or why it is collapsing. The problem is that corporations have too much power, run the government, run the regulating institutions and are 90% of the time running them with the same people. Dismantle the only counter balance to corporate power, as corrupt as it is, and see what happens. You think minimum wage is low? lol. Hope you like working weekends. The only good jobs left in this country are union jobs if you're uneducated. You have no idea what you're talking about. No unions does not mean "you work weekends". Nor does the fact that the companies have a lot of influence on the country does not mean the government is inadequate, nor are tariffs even a good thing. Of course, judging by the fact that you're willing to pass off all of these as plain fact literally implies you have no idea what you're talking about simply because you're blinded by how you want to see the world. Please get a grip. Sorry bro, but it is fact. It is fact that weekends came from organized labor. So did safety standards, in the Textile Mills for starters, coal mines and meat packing later on. These are protections that would easily be stripped away. Indeed you want to see the world as "everyone gets what they are due if they work hard and are educated enough." I'm afraid that is more of a contort of reality than iss "we need to match the institutional affect of the rich/powerful, with some sort of opposing power". Past performance doesn't indicate current usefulness. A lot of that stuff is limited by laws unrelated to unions, now. If the only argument you can level in favor of unions is that the things they were once useful for might be reversed eventually without inciting action, then you're just acknowledging that they no longer have a purpose.
|
On March 09 2011 04:33 SharkSpider wrote: Union jobs are just the best jobs for people who don't have significant skills. Engineers, programmers, IT professionals, managers, salespeople, HR reps, financiers, skilled tradespeople, doctors, lawyers, actuaries, counsellors, business owners, etc. can all make more in than your average union worker because they have skills you can't train in a few weeks or find on the street.
You try to build a whole country that is adequately employed around those professions. Organized Labor is needed for construction, manufacturing, service and retail jobs... the bulk of any economy. (I should include farming but apparently that is done 99% by machinery these days.)
I can see that a couple of you are arguing from the standpoint that you have a good job because of your education, and it pays well and you're irreplaceable because of your skill set. Congratulations. It's really good for you but it's not a viable answer for 90% of the workforce, nor is it really the "problem" with unemployment in the country. There are only so many of those types of jobs, which are highly competed for, which is why they are so well payed.
|
Private employee unions, probably not necessary, but should be allowed
Public unions, definitely not necessary, and should probably not be allowed
|
On March 09 2011 04:35 ThaZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:33 cursor wrote:
Go work at a Wal Mart and see the future of America without unions- I worked for a merchandising company in those stores for years. Then imagine that without minimum wage.
Unions aren't involved in minimum wage. That is set by the government directly. Unions can affect what the job pays, though, overtop of that.
The government is run by the companies and the money. It would only be a matter of time.
My point is, if you dissolve the only organized structures to lobby for people, it wont be long before the companies lobby the governments into outlawing minimum wage. It would be the next logical step. Some shit about competition, and how people are being payed too much and other people would do it for less, and how that is damaging our economy- you guys would eat that up.
|
I think unions are essential to prevent workers from getting shafted, but unions have crossed the line into corruption in the past, and that can not be allowed.
I live in Detroit, which is a pretty well unionized area, Michigan as a whole is pretty union oriented, with the UAW and all. I view unions as a form of regulation that helps to keep large companies from abusing employees. From what I hear, Wisconsin unions are in much more dire straits then michigan unions, although we did recently elect a republican governor.
The idea that a union could be stripped of it's collective bargaining is insane to me. I think Jon Stewart said that a union without collective bargaining is just a group of people wearing identical t shirts
|
5003 Posts
On March 09 2011 04:33 Ghad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:31 Milkis wrote: The only good jobs left in this country are union jobs if you're uneducated.
You have no idea what you're talking about. No unions does not mean "you work weekends". Nor does the fact that the companies have a lot of influence on the country does not mean the government is inadequate, nor are tariffs even a good thing.
Of course, judging by the fact that you're willing to pass off all of these as plain fact literally implies you have no idea what you're talking about simply because you're blinded by how you want to see the world. Please get a grip. Congrats, so much text without any substiantial argument at all, nice.
Some arguments are ridiculous enough that simply restating them is enough to disprove them. The first claim is so ridiculous -- the only reason why you would find union jobs "good" is simply because you are completely and utterly uneducated and incapable of doing anything substantial. There are many jobs out there and many things people could do, it's just that people aren't educated enough nor creative enough to find these opportunities.
This is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to the poster I have quoted -- he has no idea how to think about issues simply because he is blinded.
On March 09 2011 04:33 cursor wrote: Necessary yes. Flawed, yes. As is everything.
Go work at a Wal Mart and see the future of America without unions- I worked for a merchandising company in those stores for years. Then imagine that without minimum wage.
Make no mistake that the center of the debate in this thread is, really, why is America in so much trouble economically. There are think tanks, media, and companies out there putting out the idea now- since its on the table- that the real problem with the US is organized labor.
This couldn't be further from the truth. While flawed, Unions give people far more of a chance than without. The problem is the imbalanced power wielded by companies and the rich in this country, which affect policy creation to their favor.
The attempt will be to argue that the Unions are the problem with the country. There are much much bigger ones I assure you.
No one thinks unions are the "problem with the country". Stop trying to rephrase the discussion and use strawmans to support your point. Unions are not necessary.
Sorry bro, but it is fact. It is fact that weekends came from organized labor. So did safety standards, in the Textile Mills for starters, coal mines and meat packing later on. These are protections that would easily be stripped away. Indeed you want to see the world as "everyone gets what they are due if they work hard and are educated enough." I'm afraid that is more of a contort of reality than iss "we need to match the institutional affect of the rich/powerful, with some sort of opposing power".
I don't see the world as that way, in fact, so good job strawmanning. The point is that there are government regulations that deals with many of the standard problems now -- many of the standard rights have been established at this point to the point where while they did nice things in the past because they were necessary in the past where competitive forces weren't in full effect, they are not necessary now where education triumphs all.
|
On March 09 2011 04:43 cursor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:33 SharkSpider wrote: Union jobs are just the best jobs for people who don't have significant skills. Engineers, programmers, IT professionals, managers, salespeople, HR reps, financiers, skilled tradespeople, doctors, lawyers, actuaries, counsellors, business owners, etc. can all make more in than your average union worker because they have skills you can't train in a few weeks or find on the street. You try to build a whole country that is adequately employed around those professions. Organized Labor is needed for construction, manufacturing, service and retail jobs... the bulk of any economy. (I should include farming but apparently that is done 99% by machinery these days.) You're taking what I said out of context. I was simply showing to the power that their conclusion that Union jobs are the best jobs was not true. The economy does need unskilled labour, but right now companies are still reporting a skill shortage in America. Plenty of people who want jobs, but not enough people who can do them.
On March 09 2011 04:43 cursor wrote: I can see that a couple of you are arguing from the standpoint that you have a good job because of your education, and it pays well and you're irreplaceable because of your skill set. Congratulations. It's really good for you but it's not a viable answer for 90% of the workforce, nor is it really the "problem" with unemployment in the country. There are only so many of those types of jobs, which are highly competed for, which is why they are so well payed. Jobs that have a lot of qualified applicants are not highly paid. Your argument is actually exactly and precisely wrong in that it is backwards. Highly professional jobs have people competing to become qualified for them, to meet a preset standard that is required to do the job. The reason they pay well is so that people will go the the lengths to learn and develop their skills so they can do the jobs properly.
If wages are high in any area, that means there aren't enough people there. This is only really false when unions and collective bargaining are involved.
|
I will give you that Milkis, if the government functioned properly, and regulated properly, and was run in at truly democratic fashion, the need for Unions would be greatly diminished. Because the government could act as one big voice for the uneducated masses. So in a 100% free market, unregulated mess, I would say unions are necessary, but in a well regulated, fairly governed market, the need could be diminished to Zero.
|
Please dont use anecdotal evidence, it means nothing and is truly what is wrong with American politics as a whole at the moment...
|
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.
|
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!!
|
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...
|
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.
|
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..
|
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. SourceNow, 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.
|
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.
|
On March 09 2011 04:58 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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...
|
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.
Unions, much like corporations are a necessary evil.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Not sure how it is in other countries, but in Germany the unions are uncompetent and then run crying to the politicians, asking them to help and to do something on the politics level.
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.
|
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.
|
On March 09 2011 05:09 cursor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On March 09 2011 05:04 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
Lets not focus on what is "best for the company." I have no idea how this gets so ingrained into people's heads. Try to think of it as how can we get manufacturing done, and get people the MOST. Get people the most pay, best product, all around. Rather than, can I get the workers to compete enough so I can make things at $1 an hour cost? Or, can I get people to compete enough that they are willing to work in unsafe environment just to eat?
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.
|
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
|
On March 09 2011 05:09 cursor wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
Well, to analyze your point that perhaps the people in unions are bad, i think it would be best to apply a principle of human behavior.
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.
|
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. 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.
|
On March 09 2011 06:16 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Well, damn, let's all get on the work 60 hours a week for 1.5$/hour bandwagon. I mean, the Chinese are doing it, it's got to be a good idea.
You first.
Or do you not actually mean what you say, and are just aiming to show how things that you disagree with on a political basis, are a Bad Idea?
|
The more you unionize, the less competitive your economy becomes, and the more corporations will outsource.
globalization ROCKS! with no unions it means that no matter where you live.. you will be paid the lowest salary possible..just becouse somewhere where there are no labour laws and people get exploited, can do it cheaper =)
|
On March 09 2011 06:16 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +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. So you would like to work for 1 dollar an hour, 16 hours a day? Because that argument makes no sense, people in undeveloped countries will ALWAYS be cheaper, so using your logic everyone will just outsource anyways.
|
I think most people's justification for unions is as a counterweight against the plutocratic movement that is rapidly enveloping our country. People cite global competitiveness as a justification for elimination of unions and they describe unions as anti-Capitalist. I suppose the follow up question to that is, who exactly does that hurt more than anyone? The answer is, the top 0.1%. So many people cite capitalistic logic as their pledge of allegiance even as it doesn't benefit them at all.
Capitalism as an idea is a very good incentive model for improving society. Sadly, I think pure capitalism in our globalized economy has evolved (or devolved) to the point where the societal benefits of pure capitalism are very debatable. The incentive model isn't rewarding improvement of society as much anymore, it's rewarding those who can game the system the most..yes I'm looking at you investment bankers. The degree of economic inequality is increasing while the level of social mobility is decreasing. Unions have traditionally been a counteracting dam holding back that flood, but I think that dam has burst. I will never argue that unions are without fault. Truly, they have been among the most corrupt organizations of recent history. However, I do believe they performed a needed function in our society. I am wondering if anything will fill the gap they are leaving behind.
|
The people here who assume that without unions we would be working 16 hour days for peanuts have no clue. That statement just makes my brain hurt...
Minimum wage has nothing to do with unions.
Many highly rated employers are companies with no unions.
Unions frequently abuse their position by requesting unreasonable benefits which ultimately force the company's hand to outsource instead of provide lower-paid jobs to people of the same country. The city in which I live has had multiple teacher strikes and public transit worker's strikes that have caused a shitload of inconvenience to everyone... all because their employer refused to give them a 15% pay raise!!!!! What the fuck? People who have no education and drive buses here make more than thirty dollars an hour. Are you serious? In the meantime, public transportation is becoming less accessible for the poor (arguably who need it the most), since fares keep having to be increased to pay for the inflated salaries of the unionized workers.
If unions are used correctly in prevent exploitation of workers, then i'm 100% behind the idea. The fact of the matter is however that most unions just do whatever they can to abuse their situation and get as much as possible for the workers regardless of whether or not they deserve it. Its despicable and needs to stop.
|
My opinion: short version. Unions are a necessity to some extent and are generally beneficial for society in many situations.
However, if unions become too strong, they can severely stagnate growth or create inefficiencies that are not ideal for a given economy (see: Agricultural subsidies in the US)
|
On March 09 2011 06:26 Reason.SC2 wrote: If unions are used correctly in prevent exploitation of workers, then i'm 100% behind the idea. The fact of the matter is however that most unions just do whatever they can to abuse their situation and get as much as possible for the workers regardless of whether or not they deserve it. Its despicable and needs to stop.
Because CEO's of large corporations don't ever abuse their situations to get as much as possible whether they deserve it or not? It works both ways, chief.
Edit: http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/ This link explains it all. Are CEO's really worth 10x more to a company now than they were in 1965? I think not. It's a case of people taking because they can.
|
Wisconsin shows exactly why unions are necessary as Walker not only wanted to break the unions but immediately reduce their pay and benefits as well. Walker attempted to take away the teacher's right to actually do anything about further wage cuts in the future (which will certainly happen). The reasons the protests are happening are simple, union breaking came at the exact same time an abuse of power, preventable by unions, threatened the teacher's own livelihood.
This isn't to say that abuses of power within unions is an impossibility. That whole dialogue that unions are the ones ripping people off (in order for master's degree holding teachers to get a middle class wage) is nonsense. It only clouds the issue and doesn't address the gregarious abuses of power that are rampant in the current government.
The American middle and lower classes are being held accountable for the state of the economy. Cuts in government spending will effect them the most and those responsible for the economy's current state will be rewarded for it.
|
On March 09 2011 06:31 thebigdonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 06:26 Reason.SC2 wrote: If unions are used correctly in prevent exploitation of workers, then i'm 100% behind the idea. The fact of the matter is however that most unions just do whatever they can to abuse their situation and get as much as possible for the workers regardless of whether or not they deserve it. Its despicable and needs to stop. Because CEO's of large corporations don't ever abuse their situations to get as much as possible whether they deserve it or not? It works both ways, chief. Edit: http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/ This link explains it all. Are CEO's really worth 10x more to a company now than they were in 1965? I think not. It's a case of people taking because they can.
Correct. Unions, CEOs, Corporations, dogs, policeman, mothers, vampires... anything can be corrupt.
Simply because one side is corrupt does not mean the other side is definitively in the right or wrong.
|
All unions do is inflate worth, with no considerable (if any) gain in productivity, and force companies to outsource to remain competitive or maintain certain profit margins.
|
First of all, yes they have been abusive. I do think they are necessary to prevent corporate abuse
However, whether or not they are necessary is utterly irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the right to organize and make agreements is a basic individual liberty. Even if it were somehow possible to make it so the right to unionize and bargain collectively for benefits and salary unnecessary, taking away the right to unionize would not be justified. Lack of necessity for a right or ability is never justification for government intervention To restrict that ability, like my esteemed Governor Scott Walker is attempting to do, constitutes an astounding overreach of government power.
|
On March 09 2011 06:39 Smurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 06:31 thebigdonkey wrote:On March 09 2011 06:26 Reason.SC2 wrote: If unions are used correctly in prevent exploitation of workers, then i'm 100% behind the idea. The fact of the matter is however that most unions just do whatever they can to abuse their situation and get as much as possible for the workers regardless of whether or not they deserve it. Its despicable and needs to stop. Because CEO's of large corporations don't ever abuse their situations to get as much as possible whether they deserve it or not? It works both ways, chief. Edit: http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/ This link explains it all. Are CEO's really worth 10x more to a company now than they were in 1965? I think not. It's a case of people taking because they can. Correct. Unions, CEOs, Corporations, dogs, policeman, mothers, vampires... anything can be corrupt. Simply because one side is corrupt does not mean the other side is definitively in the right or wrong. The option we have is either having only the interest of the shareholders heard, or having both the interests of the shareholders and the workers heard. With unions, there is at least a hint of democracy within corporations.
Republicans, Libertarians and others who want to keep corporations the way they are but reduce the size and influence of government, should love unions. If you want to get rid of a strong state with strong regulation then unions are the only alternative for keeping the corporations in check.
|
Unions are useful for a lot of things, such as providing legal aid for their members. They need to be better regulated though in my opinion: 1) Striking or any form of mass disruption should be illegal. 2) Union bosses shouldn't be allowed to earn more than 2 times the average wage of their member.
|
Unions are fine as long as they dont get power from the government. Let the free market work, and unions will exist as there is a demand for it, however there poweres wont be too insane, as seen in some countries.
|
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
On March 09 2011 04:17 Reptilia wrote: anyone else read "Are Onions necessary..."
I read this as "Are Unicorns necessary in the modern world"
|
On March 09 2011 06:48 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 06:39 Smurphy wrote:On March 09 2011 06:31 thebigdonkey wrote:On March 09 2011 06:26 Reason.SC2 wrote: If unions are used correctly in prevent exploitation of workers, then i'm 100% behind the idea. The fact of the matter is however that most unions just do whatever they can to abuse their situation and get as much as possible for the workers regardless of whether or not they deserve it. Its despicable and needs to stop. Because CEO's of large corporations don't ever abuse their situations to get as much as possible whether they deserve it or not? It works both ways, chief. Edit: http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/ This link explains it all. Are CEO's really worth 10x more to a company now than they were in 1965? I think not. It's a case of people taking because they can. Correct. Unions, CEOs, Corporations, dogs, policeman, mothers, vampires... anything can be corrupt. Simply because one side is corrupt does not mean the other side is definitively in the right or wrong. The option we have is either having only the interest of the shareholders heard, or having both the interests of the shareholders and the workers heard. With unions, there is at least a hint of democracy within corporations. Republicans, Libertarians and others who want to keep corporations the way they are but reduce the size and influence of government, should love unions. If you want to get rid of a strong state with strong regulation then unions are the only alternative for keeping the corporations in check.
No, unions are anathema to free marketers. Given that unions demand livable wages and normal benefits, things that free marketers don't want or care for, unions are a problem in a free market society. Combined with the ability to get nearly every worker in a specific trade behind them, unions are a problem. Unions effectively act as government regulation under a different name.
|
On March 09 2011 06:55 nemY wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:17 Reptilia wrote: anyone else read "Are Onions necessary..." I read this as "Are Unicorns necessary in the modern world"
Do you have any idea how much happier 4 year old girls would be? Vote yes on unicorns.
|
On March 09 2011 06:48 divito wrote: All unions do is inflate worth, with no considerable (if any) gain in productivity, and force companies to outsource to remain competitive or maintain certain profit margins.
Yep this is true. But who reaps the rewards from increased profit margins? Who drives the expectations for those profit margins, that is to say, who decides that a company is entitled to ever increasing profit margins. I'll just give you an example. I work for an IT company who bids for outsourced IT contracts. The company whose account I work on is always trying to drive down the outsourced contract costs. Theoretically, they're trying to be "leaner". But you know what it leads to? My company no longer hires people full time, they bring in temps from agencies to fill IT positions for not too much above minimum wage and with no benefits. Eventually, they do hire some of the people on to permanent positions, but in the mean time, these people are working for crap wages and can't afford to go to the doctor.
These are generally skilled and somewhat educated (most people have at least an associates and some certifications) people getting pinched so everyone at the top in the contractee company can get a fatter bonus. And you know what? These people don't have a choice but to take it because the supply of labor is so high right now that companies can pay anything and people have to take it because the only alternative is unemployment. This is your capitalism, folks.
|
As someone who comes from a small mining city, (which has known frequent strikes and union issues over the past 20 years that I've been living here), I have to say that I agree with the idea that there are generally a few bad (greedy) people in unions.
The nickel mines here in Sudbury, Ontario make on average over 6 figures, have dental, and optical plans, more vacations than anyone I know, plus nickel bonus. Minimum required education is a high school diploma. Yet here they are complaining that they need more.
Is it a high risk job? Sure, for the people who actually go underground, but a lot of these people are just support staff and never do.
I'm generalizing here, and I apologize because I know there are quite a few miners who don't fall into the stereotype I'm setting (even in the Sudbury area). However, these miners are the assholes with the hummers who box in the little guy at the grocery store and laugh. They're the jackasses who drive big Harlies at 100kph in a school zone. They spend all their money on toys, and when they get stuck going on strike, they complain that the mine is being unfair... I mean, who's fault is it REALLY that you're broke?
Like I said at the beginning of the post, unions are necessary and I'm not opposed to them existing in different sectors (because abuses are everywhere). That said, I think a lot of people are overly ambitious in their demands and should think about the real reason unions exist.
|
On March 09 2011 06:51 Klive5ive wrote: Unions are useful for a lot of things, such as providing legal aid for their members. They need to be better regulated though in my opinion: 1) Striking or any form of mass disruption should be illegal. 2) Union bosses shouldn't be allowed to earn more than 2 times the average wage of their member. Why should striking be illegal? How else are they going to get noticed?
EDIT: Sorry for the double post. It was unintentional, this post was supposed to go at the beginning of my previous one.
|
On March 09 2011 06:19 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 06:16 MethodSC wrote: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. Well, damn, let's all get on the work 60 hours a week for 1.5$/hour bandwagon. I mean, the Chinese are doing it, it's got to be a good idea. You first. Or do you not actually mean what you say, and are just aiming to show how things that you disagree with on a political basis, are a Bad Idea?
Plenty of people aren't in a Union. They don't work 60 hours a week and they make more then $1.5/hour.
|
It's a catch 22.
We can't get rid of unions, because individuals aren't properly protected without them. We need to improve the economy to get out of this slump, but unions are a cancer on the economy. Individuals and corporations/government both have metaphorical guns pointed at one another, and its causing problems for everybody.
However, by saying that unions should be abolished, you're essentially laying down the people's weapon, in the hopes that the corporations, and the government, will lay down theirs.
How confident do you feel of that?
|
On March 09 2011 07:00 Dugrok wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 06:51 Klive5ive wrote: Unions are useful for a lot of things, such as providing legal aid for their members. They need to be better regulated though in my opinion: 1) Striking or any form of mass disruption should be illegal. 2) Union bosses shouldn't be allowed to earn more than 2 times the average wage of their member. Why should striking be illegal? How else are they going to get noticed?
Striking is and should be illegal depending on the kind of work involved. People who are responsible for the wellbeing of others (teachers, medical workers, etc) are generally prohibited from striking.
Striking that just reduces a companies profits is fine.
|
On March 09 2011 06:19 Carras wrote:Show nested quote +
The more you unionize, the less competitive your economy becomes, and the more corporations will outsource.
globalization ROCKS! with no unions it means that no matter where you live.. you will be paid the lowest salary possible..just becouse somewhere where there are no labour laws and people get exploited, can do it cheaper =)
And the people who are willing to work for the lowest salary get the jobs. Justice served.
|
Think about it if your a teacher or any job really that age doesnt matter. If there arnt unions you can fire or not extend contracts just becasue of their age so you can hire someone just out of college who will come in at half to 3/4 pay. If you get injured at a job or even not at work and have to miss time with no union guess what, your gonna be looking for a job with no workmens comp.
|
On March 09 2011 06:51 Klive5ive wrote: Unions are useful for a lot of things, such as providing legal aid for their members. They need to be better regulated though in my opinion: 1) Striking or any form of mass disruption should be illegal. 2) Union bosses shouldn't be allowed to earn more than 2 times the average wage of their member. 1. Let's party like it's 1931 bring back the good old days, let's ban demonstrations just like they did in Egypt. I hope everyone in this thread realises the vital part organized labour played in the democracy uprising in egypt if not here's a piece from democracynow on the subject.+ Show Spoiler +http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/18/egyptian_uprising_fueled_by_striking_workers 2. It might be a sensible suggestion to regulate the pay of representatives, but the real wage discreapancy between owner's and the rest of the workers is what really needs to be regulated. While the Wisconsin workers are getting tax increases, the uber rich are getting tax cuts.
|
On March 09 2011 01:47 goiflin wrote: Yes, they are necessary, I think. While I won't disagree that unions are abusing their power, if unions didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be long until employers got to "have their way" with their employees again, regardless of legislation. Governments make rules in favour of big companies all the time, I don't see why this would be any different.
If anything, I think unions shouldn't be allowed to abuse their powers in the ways that they do, rather than banning them outright or whatever.
If employers would "have their way" with their employees then how come unions are paid more than their non-union counterparts? Union workers are paid way too much for their services imo and it is just driving costs up which we can't deal with in this economy.
Public sector unions should not have the right to wage bargain because they are paid by the american people through taxes and the taxpayer does not get a say in the bargaining process. The person who is representing the government can easily agree on a wage higher than what they would have done if it was a legitimate company that has to make a profit to survive because they can just raise taxes or add to the debt. Anytime people complain they will get a wage increase.
And the Wisconsin teachers are just so selfish. Complaining for more when the people who are paying for their already overpriced jobs are struggling economically and losing their jobs...
|
On March 09 2011 07:03 Phelski wrote: Think about it if your a teacher or any job really that age doesnt matter. If there arnt unions you can fire or not extend contracts just becasue of their age so you can hire someone just out of college who will come in at half to 3/4 pay. If you get injured at a job or even not at work and have to miss time with no union guess what, your gonna be looking for a job with no workmens comp.
You don't understand, benefits aren't solely because of unions. Non-unionized workers have had benefits before unions. It's just negotiated with the individual.
So many of you don't understand. You won't get fired because you aren't in a union, you'll get fired because you aren't working as hard as someone else will. Or you aren't as suited for the job as someone else is. It's a trade-off, if they pay less they get less-intelligent/suitable workers, and thus their company performs worse. Less efficient company, less customer satisfaction.
The reason non-unionized workers can still get paid great wages is because that's what they're worth to the company. And because they're getting paid exactly what they're worth, then there's no inefficiency involved in the hiring process.
Unions are built for equality. People don't want to work as hard as others with the same job, but want to be paid the same. They also want to still be able to work, even if they're severely underperforming. You can't blame people for feeling that, but it doesn't mean that unions are necessary.
Edit: In fact, here's a rudimentary example from my own life right now. I applied for a summer job, they phoned me offering $16/hour. That's a decent wage for the job, 50% more than minimum. Non-union job. I stated that I was going to decline the job, based on the fact it's a 40 minute drive from where I'll live, and gas cost would add up.
So they phoned back 20 min later, offering to add in mileage pay. I get a benefit offered, and a decent wage, based on the fact I'm a better candidate than any other applicants. Because they want the job done right, and they're willing to offer more for it.
|
At the time when Workers rights where becoming an issue and the birth of unions in the USA I'd say and so would most folks it was something needed. It ended dangerous and poor work conditions gave people the ability to survive on a wage and insured the end of child labour and slave like labour. The events where indeed bloody violent and brutal struggles.
However, that's no longer the case today.
If you want to know why the automotive industry blew up in the USA ask anyone in the union for the autoworkers. Companies like GM had deals to insure every worker gets his pension and health care after retirement. That's not a bad thing until you realize the baby boom retirement and suddenly you have so many retired plant workers to a point the majority of GM's income was going to pay this stuff. It wasn't sustainable(hey doesn't this sound like what people are saying about Social Security?) and in the end it imploded and the company had to be bailed out to stay afloat.
Union contracts caused that, the greed of union leaders caused that. Gm's ignorance for allowing it caused that. No ones clean of blame not even the workers as it doesn't take a suit and a economic degree to know that this was coming(it's a topic that was discussed sense the 90's).
Unions are good in theory but not so much when they end up killing the company and in turn the jobs they are supposed to protect.
For the private industry I am fine with unions so long as the leaders have a idea of sustainability in mind and ideally are not paid for being the leaders of said union.(Union leader greed rival's evil ceo's greed). For the government workers I just don't see the reason except to make sure the work conditions are fair and safe. The last thing a city needs is a police or teacher for striking and they shouldn't be able to.
|
+ Show Spoiler [LICD Comics] + As I said in my earlier reply... Unions over in america seem to be behaving alot worse than the unions in europe. And this seems to be a debate majorly dominated by Americans and Canadians, who I get the feeling sees the whole debate iether as black or white.
Did something happen recently in the US to spark the debate?
|
The big issue in Wisconsin and elsewhere is Public unions. Public unions have only existed since 1960 or so, and were only created as a political ploy by Democrats. It has been incredibly successful. AFSCME, the biggest public union, spends tens of million of dollars in every election, and about 95% (seriously) of it goes to Democrats.
Walker and other Republican governors are not only morally right to go after Unions and their abuses in order to balance state budgets, but politically savvy, as elimination of public unions would be a major body blow to Democratic campaigns.
|
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. SourceNow, 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?
some unions abuse their power, but how is that really a relevant argument when corporations abuse their power as well? And, without unions, What other force do you know of to counterbalance the corporate influence/corruption in this country?
"but maybe it's just that the people in them are bad."
How do you expect to be take seriously when you start your "idea" off with an offensive generalization of a few million people?
Unions are indeed necessary. The government can't force companies to raise their wages, change certain things, etc without being regulatory to the point of being asinine. to do that, you'd have more people working for the government than in private companies, just to keep an eye on private companies. Unions serve a necessary function
|
Rich people won't give up their unions; neither should anyone else.
|
United States7481 Posts
On March 09 2011 07:08 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 01:47 goiflin wrote: Yes, they are necessary, I think. While I won't disagree that unions are abusing their power, if unions didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be long until employers got to "have their way" with their employees again, regardless of legislation. Governments make rules in favour of big companies all the time, I don't see why this would be any different.
If anything, I think unions shouldn't be allowed to abuse their powers in the ways that they do, rather than banning them outright or whatever. If employers would "have their way" with their employees then how come unions are paid more than their non-union counterparts? Union workers are paid way too much for their services imo and it is just driving costs up which we can't deal with in this economy. Public sector unions should not have the right to wage bargain because they are paid by the american people through taxes and the taxpayer does not get a say in the bargaining process. The person who is representing the government can easily agree on a wage higher than what they would have done if it was a legitimate company that has to make a profit to survive because they can just raise taxes or add to the debt. Anytime people complain they will get a wage increase. And the Wisconsin teachers are just so selfish. Complaining for more when the people who are paying for their already overpriced jobs are struggling economically and losing their jobs... PLEASE get your facts right. the Wisconsin teachers are NOT NOT NOT complaining for more. They have accepted cuts. They are protesting because the governor wants to take away all power the union has to collectively bargain.
|
Unions are a way to change the power balance from the few to the plenty, that itself should be such a strong democratic incentive for western countries to allow them. Sure, they can be corrupt, sure sometimes they don't work well. However, they are not a cancer to the economy, there is alot of academic litterature that proves otherwise. Plenty of strong economies have strong unions, so it's not something that necessary hurts the economy. My guess is that strong unions might even save the US economy in the long run. The lack of unions and the destructiveness of the US way of running capitalism does waste alot of potential growth and social capital. The amount of poverty in the US is a huge problem and it's going away, it's increasing.
Unions might be able to raise the capital and give incentive to recreate an US heavy industrial economy again, in the footsteps of the spanish cooperative success Mondragon and several other latin american cooperatives.
|
Whoever has the power will abuse it. There is a natural ebb and flow in the rise and decline of unions. As businesses abuse employees (unpaid work, no healthcare or time off even for sickness, erratic scheduling, workplace abuse by management) unions become stronger. As unions abuse power (demanding unreasonable benefits/pay/vacation) unions begin to dissolve. I am totally for this give and take process but if I HAD to pick a side (gun to my head) id rather employees abuse the business. I would be really surprised if there have been many times in which union workers were uncompromising on demands that would put a company out of business, but I know businesses have NO problem being uncompromising when making demands that will make an employee homeless.
|
On March 09 2011 07:31 Antoine wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 09 2011 07:08 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 01:47 goiflin wrote: Yes, they are necessary, I think. While I won't disagree that unions are abusing their power, if unions didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be long until employers got to "have their way" with their employees again, regardless of legislation. Governments make rules in favour of big companies all the time, I don't see why this would be any different.
If anything, I think unions shouldn't be allowed to abuse their powers in the ways that they do, rather than banning them outright or whatever. If employers would "have their way" with their employees then how come unions are paid more than their non-union counterparts? Union workers are paid way too much for their services imo and it is just driving costs up which we can't deal with in this economy. Public sector unions should not have the right to wage bargain because they are paid by the american people through taxes and the taxpayer does not get a say in the bargaining process. The person who is representing the government can easily agree on a wage higher than what they would have done if it was a legitimate company that has to make a profit to survive because they can just raise taxes or add to the debt. Anytime people complain they will get a wage increase. And the Wisconsin teachers are just so selfish. Complaining for more when the people who are paying for their already overpriced jobs are struggling economically and losing their jobs... PLEASE get your facts right. the Wisconsin teachers are NOT NOT NOT complaining for more. They have accepted cuts. They are protesting because the governor wants to take away all power the union has to collectively bargain.
Really wanted to emphasize this point by Antoine. I've seen a few posts in the last couple of pages repeating the strawman that the teachers are demanding a pay raise.
|
i live in wisconsin and id have to say walker is the biggest asshole i've ever seen. some of our state senators are in illinois because they dont want this bill to pass. is not just unions, he wants to get rid of a ton of shit, including healthcare for those parents who just had kids. I for one use the healthcare and it would be bullshit if they took it away. He's now getting people to sign recalls for the senators to get back into wisconsin, or he'll start laying off. Wheres the fucking democracy in that??
edit: i did have my own insurance before my daughter was born, but my premium was 4k, wtf?
|
Just because unions aren't perfect doesn't mean they need to go. They just need to be reformed.
In the modern era, it's a bitch to ever have a legal fight with a mega company because they can afford to drag out your case and outspend you in court. Unions provide guidance and legal defense in these situations where a lone worker would otherwise could be fucked for no fault of his own.
|
On March 09 2011 07:21 Sephimos wrote: The big issue in Wisconsin and elsewhere is Public unions. Public unions have only existed since 1960 or so, and were only created as a political ploy by Democrats. It has been incredibly successful. AFSCME, the biggest public union, spends tens of million of dollars in every election, and about 95% (seriously) of it goes to Democrats.
Walker and other Republican governors are not only morally right to go after Unions and their abuses in order to balance state budgets, but politically savvy, as elimination of public unions would be a major body blow to Democratic campaigns.
Im sorry, do you have links to support this or are you just making up stuff? As someone who lives in Madison, this sounds like a ton of bullshit.
|
On March 09 2011 05:43 DoubleReed wrote: 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.
The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. The WI Governor is proposing that they ONLY be able to collectively bargain for their salary, and only up to the cost of living index. This has turned into an all-out flame war/pissing contest from both sides. And make no mistake, NEITHER side is willing to budge.
What you are dealing with in the Wisconsin teacher's union situation is a complete and utter spectacle drummed up by Democrats and the WI teacher's union. It's specifically designed to drum up this stupid argument about labor and corporate rights. That helps you to fit into one "side" so that you may in turn denounce the other "side".
It's all about WI teachers getting as much as they possibly can on the public dime. Teacher's unions are absolutely bad for the taxpayers that fund their salaries and for the students that get drug into these arguments and indoctrinated by their teachers. The Teacher's union protects good and bad teachers alike, and makes firing a teacher pretty damn hard. They're also in bed with the Democrat political organization, which capitulates to the union's wants because of the associated campaign donations.
The Democrats (or Liberals, choose your flavor) would love to have you believe that this is a Republican assault on unions (and by extension, the common man), and then they'll turn around and donate huge money to the next Democrat governor (and legislators). Next, those elected officials take part in the renegotiation of the union contracts and somehow "find it in the budget" to sweeten their deal a little bit. It's been going on in Wisconsin for YEARS... and the previous outgoing WI Governor Doyle actually rushed through passing SIX (6) separate public union contracts in December of 2010 before the current Gov. Walker could take office, despite requests from Gov. Walker to wait for him (this is why he's pissed and won't budge, right or wrong). http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/11/22/state_democrats_rush.php
An applicable approach to the subject of Wisconsin teachers being "underpaid", a common misconception brandied by the Unions: http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdf
It seems like we want to somehow link what we pay teachers, or what we spend on education, directly to how much achievement we get from students, while there are just too many other factors in play. Take a look at the census data from 2008 on how much we spend per pupil by state. ( http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf ) [page 14] I can assure you that while, DC tends to spend an enormous amount on their public education systems, it's continually labeled as one of the worst school systems in the country.
Don't even get me started about the bullshit legislators that ran from the state to prevent the due course of lawmaking, how is that for some childish shit. In fact, they ALL deserve a giant FUCK YOU AND GROW UP from every last one of us.
Politics, you gotta laugh at it because it keeps you from crying.
By the way, I only think unions are appropriate for low-wage, low-skilled jobs. But there they serve a definite and beneficial purpose that is not fundamentally slanted against the public interest.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but all the uneducated crap I read today made me want to lay it all down on the table.
|
also that asshole said NO to government money to build a monorail train connecting wisconsin, saying taxes would be too high to maintain it. guess he figured he didnt want MORE people in madison protesting. also he's not taking away bargaining rights to firefighters, local police, or state police because they backed him in his campaign, but now the firefighters are protesting because the writing is on the wall, he's going to get rid of everything.
|
On March 09 2011 07:16 Danjoh wrote:+ Show Spoiler [LICD Comics] +As I said in my earlier reply... Unions over in america seem to be behaving alot worse than the unions in europe. And this seems to be a debate majorly dominated by Americans and Canadians, who I get the feeling sees the whole debate iether as black or white. Did something happen recently in the US to spark the debate?
It's probably because there are generally more labor laws in Europe. Negotiation between employer and employee isn't as relevant. I've heard it's exceedingly difficult to fire someone in France.
|
On March 09 2011 07:08 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 01:47 goiflin wrote: Yes, they are necessary, I think. While I won't disagree that unions are abusing their power, if unions didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be long until employers got to "have their way" with their employees again, regardless of legislation. Governments make rules in favour of big companies all the time, I don't see why this would be any different.
If anything, I think unions shouldn't be allowed to abuse their powers in the ways that they do, rather than banning them outright or whatever. If employers would "have their way" with their employees then how come unions are paid more than their non-union counterparts? .
That's exactly his point. Without unions, workers would be paid even less.
|
On March 09 2011 07:31 Antoine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 07:08 Yergidy wrote:On March 09 2011 01:47 goiflin wrote: Yes, they are necessary, I think. While I won't disagree that unions are abusing their power, if unions didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be long until employers got to "have their way" with their employees again, regardless of legislation. Governments make rules in favour of big companies all the time, I don't see why this would be any different.
If anything, I think unions shouldn't be allowed to abuse their powers in the ways that they do, rather than banning them outright or whatever. If employers would "have their way" with their employees then how come unions are paid more than their non-union counterparts? Union workers are paid way too much for their services imo and it is just driving costs up which we can't deal with in this economy. Public sector unions should not have the right to wage bargain because they are paid by the american people through taxes and the taxpayer does not get a say in the bargaining process. The person who is representing the government can easily agree on a wage higher than what they would have done if it was a legitimate company that has to make a profit to survive because they can just raise taxes or add to the debt. Anytime people complain they will get a wage increase. And the Wisconsin teachers are just so selfish. Complaining for more when the people who are paying for their already overpriced jobs are struggling economically and losing their jobs... PLEASE get your facts right. the Wisconsin teachers are NOT NOT NOT complaining for more. They have accepted cuts. They are protesting because the governor wants to take away all power the union has to collectively bargain.
Please get your facts right, the Wisconsin teachers ARE ARE ARE complaining for more. They have "accepted cuts" that are still more beneficial than most private companies offer. They just got done last December rushing through a renegotiation of their contract with the previous (already beaten) Governor Doyle after being specifically asked by the incoming Governor Walker to wait for the renegotiation.
Check these out if you don't believe me:
http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdf
http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/11/22/state_democrats_rush.php
To say they have accepted cuts is misleading, their renegotiated contracts that just passed when the outgoing Democrat Governor called a special session in December definitely were not cuts.
|
Yes. Obviously 100% union-centralized power yields bad resulted but so does pure unmitigated capitalism. The motivations of capitalist entities doesn't shift simply because the centuries do. The point of economic regulation is to keep at bay the bubbles we've seen and hold off another Depression at all costs. If individual and more replaceable laborers have no negotiating power then the system is effectively treating them as valueless cogs.
|
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.
And you don't get it.
The reason those companies outsource in the first place is to get cheaper labor by abusing the naivete of the working class in third world countries. Unlike in most developed western countries, the working class in most asian countries work like dogs 7 days a week with very minimal pay. Why? Most of them don't have unions. In fact, most of them have this mentality that they should be thankful of their employers just for giving them a job and accept their suck ass low paying long hour jobs with gratitude and no complaints.
|
On March 09 2011 07:58 staxringold wrote: Yes. Obviously 100% union-centralized power yields bad resulted but so does pure unmitigated capitalism. The motivations of capitalist entities doesn't shift simply because the centuries do. The point of economic regulation is to keep at bay the bubbles we've seen and hold off another Depression at all costs. If individual and more replaceable laborers have no negotiating power then the system is effectively treating them as valueless cogs. I would see the right to unionize as a part of pure unmitigated capitalism.
|
The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. The WI Governor is proposing that they ONLY be able to collectively bargain for their salary, and only up to the cost of living index. This has turned into an all-out flame war/pissing contest from both sides. And make no mistake, NEITHER side is willing to budge.
Every single article on this has said that the Governor will budge on everything except collective bargaining rights. That's everything. He wants to make massive cuts that he can't make if he negotiates with unions. There is no way to compromise with that, because collective bargaining is essentially the power of the union. So saying "neither side is willing to budge" is a little silly, considering the republicans are holding the collective bargaining rights... which is the rights to compromise.
Your post had a lot misdirection in it, so it's a little difficult to argue with you. I don't care if "teachers are underpaid" or whatever. That doesn't have to do with this.
It seems like we want to somehow link what we pay teachers, or what we spend on education, directly to how much achievement we get from students, while there are just too many other factors in play. Take a look at the census data from 2008 on how much we spend per pupil by state. ( http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf ) [page 14] I can assure you that while, DC tends to spend an enormous amount on their public education systems, it's continually labeled as one of the worst school systems in the country.
Okay... this is done with capita per student, so being as DC is way smaller than everything else by far, this is not a fair comparison by any means.
Don't even get me started about the bullshit legislators that ran from the state to prevent the due course of lawmaking, how is that for some childish shit. In fact, they ALL deserve a giant FUCK YOU AND GROW UP from every last one of us.
Politics, you gotta laugh at it because it keeps you from crying.
"Fuck you and grow up"? This is about people's livelihood, wages, and jobs. Leaving the state to prevent obliteration of unions is not really childish. It's just extreme. Saying "Fuck you and grow up" is childish.
|
unions are a result of lack of competition.
unions arise because they need more power and leverage against the companies. But why did the companies get to hold all the cards to begin with?
lack of competition. companies lobby in government, to set up restrctive rules in order to errect barriers to entry. this results in a reduced number of competition for companies, and they get to boss around the workers more than they should.
if government was small and was precluded from meddling in business in such fashions, you'd have more competition, and as a result, more quality products, cheaper prices, and less worker "abuse".
Conversely, workers wouldn't get to be overbearing on companies either because there would be unhindered entry (and thus competition) into the labor force as well. supply and demand is a stabilizing force, if you don't go about creating huge waves, which have invariably always been the result of command economies going against natural market processes and price signals and curtailing voluntary transactions.
Hindrance to the natural market processes result in decreased productivity, decreased decreased wealth from what could potentially be.
Government's role is to protect and lay the foundation for the market process. Letting the market process work results in prosperity and deserved equality, whereas command economies, socialism, result in incomparably more stagnated economies, special rights and access and privileges for the few, based on connections and systematic large disparity in wealth. not only a large disparity in wealth, but poverty for the lowest level, whereas markets too result in disparity, but everyone is so much more well off and even the poorest are well off from an absolute scale.
|
On March 09 2011 07:42 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 07:21 Sephimos wrote: The big issue in Wisconsin and elsewhere is Public unions. Public unions have only existed since 1960 or so, and were only created as a political ploy by Democrats. It has been incredibly successful. AFSCME, the biggest public union, spends tens of million of dollars in every election, and about 95% (seriously) of it goes to Democrats.
Walker and other Republican governors are not only morally right to go after Unions and their abuses in order to balance state budgets, but politically savvy, as elimination of public unions would be a major body blow to Democratic campaigns. Im sorry, do you have links to support this or are you just making up stuff? As someone who lives in Madison, this sounds like a ton of bullshit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
It's pretty well known that public labor unions support Democratic politicians.
|
On March 09 2011 07:59 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +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. And you don't get it. The reason those companies outsource in the first place is to get cheaper labor by abusing the naivete of the working class in third world countries. Unlike in most developed western countries, the working class in most asian countries work like dogs 7 days a week with very minimal pay. Why? Most of them don't have unions. In fact, most of them have this mentality that they should be thankful of their employers just for giving them a job and accept their suck ass low paying long hour jobs with gratitude and no complaints.
Yea, it's better than subsistence agriculture. The fact that they wan't the job means its better than the alternative. But really, a mutually agreed upon deal between free individuals is quite frankly none of your damn business. It's when people like you, saying they know whats best for the naive people, that tyrannies arise. If you impose a global minimum wage or something of this sort, then those people simply won't get the jobs, and they will not be grateful of your well intentions. They'll hate you for it.
|
On March 09 2011 07:38 Glam wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 07:31 Antoine wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 09 2011 07:08 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 01:47 goiflin wrote: Yes, they are necessary, I think. While I won't disagree that unions are abusing their power, if unions didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be long until employers got to "have their way" with their employees again, regardless of legislation. Governments make rules in favour of big companies all the time, I don't see why this would be any different.
If anything, I think unions shouldn't be allowed to abuse their powers in the ways that they do, rather than banning them outright or whatever. If employers would "have their way" with their employees then how come unions are paid more than their non-union counterparts? Union workers are paid way too much for their services imo and it is just driving costs up which we can't deal with in this economy. Public sector unions should not have the right to wage bargain because they are paid by the american people through taxes and the taxpayer does not get a say in the bargaining process. The person who is representing the government can easily agree on a wage higher than what they would have done if it was a legitimate company that has to make a profit to survive because they can just raise taxes or add to the debt. Anytime people complain they will get a wage increase. And the Wisconsin teachers are just so selfish. Complaining for more when the people who are paying for their already overpriced jobs are struggling economically and losing their jobs... PLEASE get your facts right. the Wisconsin teachers are NOT NOT NOT complaining for more. They have accepted cuts. They are protesting because the governor wants to take away all power the union has to collectively bargain. Really wanted to emphasize this point by Antoine. I've seen a few posts in the last couple of pages repeating the strawman that the teachers are demanding a pay raise. I know they aren't demanding a pay raise they are crying over paying for part of some benefits which is a type of pay cut. They should be happy with keeping their jobs. Private sector workers are being laid off in times like this and their complaining about them PAYING part of some benefits that private sector jobs do already? Come on...
|
Accountability is needed, therefore unions are needed.
|
On March 09 2011 07:42 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 07:21 Sephimos wrote: The big issue in Wisconsin and elsewhere is Public unions. Public unions have only existed since 1960 or so, and were only created as a political ploy by Democrats. It has been incredibly successful. AFSCME, the biggest public union, spends tens of million of dollars in every election, and about 95% (seriously) of it goes to Democrats.
Walker and other Republican governors are not only morally right to go after Unions and their abuses in order to balance state budgets, but politically savvy, as elimination of public unions would be a major body blow to Democratic campaigns. Im sorry, do you have links to support this or are you just making up stuff? As someone who lives in Madison, this sounds like a ton of bullshit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html
At least do a casual google search before you call someone else's claims bullshit.
|
On March 09 2011 07:48 etherwar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 05:43 DoubleReed wrote: 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. The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. Ugh. Did you think about this for a minute? 30 seconds?
They pay for it by going to work everyday. It is part of their compensation. You do not, "pay towards your compensation" that is ridiculous. That is like giving your employer money on top of working.
And their salaries ARE REGULATED by the QEO law.
|
It's probably because there are generally more labor laws in Europe. Negotiation between employer and employee isn't as relevant. I've heard it's exceedingly difficult to fire someone in France.
It's much harder to fire someone anywhere in Europe compared to USA, but I have to say that also here public workers tend to have a better protection compared to the private ones, mainy cause they are a lot of votes in election time.
Anyway, you can't really compare EU and US, like I noticed in other political topics, in Europe we tend much more to socialism than US. We have totally different views, even the way of calculating the poverty line is very different between EU and US.
I don't think an European will ever start a discussion about closing the unions. (And I say this coming from probably the worse country in Europe from a social point of view).
|
On March 09 2011 07:42 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 07:21 Sephimos wrote: The big issue in Wisconsin and elsewhere is Public unions. Public unions have only existed since 1960 or so, and were only created as a political ploy by Democrats. It has been incredibly successful. AFSCME, the biggest public union, spends tens of million of dollars in every election, and about 95% (seriously) of it goes to Democrats.
Walker and other Republican governors are not only morally right to go after Unions and their abuses in order to balance state budgets, but politically savvy, as elimination of public unions would be a major body blow to Democratic campaigns. Im sorry, do you have links to support this or are you just making up stuff? As someone who lives in Madison, this sounds like a ton of bullshit.
Most unions traditionally support democrat candidates. The WI teacher's union getting brought down would be a giant boon for the Koch backed governor. The teachers protests can be framed as a Dem vs Rep debate because it's literally an attack on democrat financiers.
It's like we don't even pretend politicians aren't bribed to carry out special interest's will via the government anymore.
|
On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote: Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob.
Let me rephrase this paragraph for you:
If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week in a factory for less than $1/hour with absolutely no benefits, no pension, no insurance, no nothing, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man?
|
Well Ive seen plenty of people treat each other badly without money being involved. People WILL get treated badly by people in a higher position. Especially if there is money on the line. Unions are a great channel for these people to get their voice heard.
|
On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote: Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week for less than $1/hour, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man?
Without that company they're out of a job period. It might be horrible but if they are willing to work for that price then that's how it works as awful and crass as that sounds.
|
It isn't unions that make an economy uncompetitive, it is trade agreements such as NAFTA that allow companies to get lower production costs outsourcing jobs. It's seriously disturbing how in a time when income inequality is bigger than it has been in decades and there is unemployment of over 10% in the USA, someone would conclude the biggest problem is people organizing to get fair wages. There's such a big disparity in power, and growing, between the corporations and organized labor that really, more powerful unions are needed, not less.
|
In an ideal world, unions would not be necessary; however, capital exists, so unions are necessary as a counterbalance. Unions can also provide people with political power, since unions can be powerful enough that politicians care about their demands, since politicians today are not really in any way accountable to individual citizens, and are instead beholden primarily to the interests of business. In this way, unions are a counterbalance against business controlling the economy and the government in a dictatorial fashion.
|
On March 09 2011 08:04 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. The WI Governor is proposing that they ONLY be able to collectively bargain for their salary, and only up to the cost of living index. This has turned into an all-out flame war/pissing contest from both sides. And make no mistake, NEITHER side is willing to budge. Every single article on this has said that the Governor will budge on everything except collective bargaining rights. That's everything. He wants to make massive cuts that he can't make if he negotiates with unions. There is no way to compromise with that, because collective bargaining is essentially the power of the union. So saying "neither side is willing to budge" is a little silly, considering the republicans are holding the collective bargaining rights... which is the rights to compromise. Your post had a lot misdirection in it, so it's a little difficult to argue with you. I don't care if "teachers are underpaid" or whatever. That doesn't have to do with this. Show nested quote +It seems like we want to somehow link what we pay teachers, or what we spend on education, directly to how much achievement we get from students, while there are just too many other factors in play. Take a look at the census data from 2008 on how much we spend per pupil by state. ( http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf ) [page 14] I can assure you that while, DC tends to spend an enormous amount on their public education systems, it's continually labeled as one of the worst school systems in the country. Okay... this is done with capita per student, so being as DC is way smaller than everything else by far, this is not a fair comparison by any means. Show nested quote +Don't even get me started about the bullshit legislators that ran from the state to prevent the due course of lawmaking, how is that for some childish shit. In fact, they ALL deserve a giant FUCK YOU AND GROW UP from every last one of us.
Politics, you gotta laugh at it because it keeps you from crying. "Fuck you and grow up"? This is about people's livelihood, wages, and jobs. Leaving the state to prevent obliteration of unions is not really childish. It's just extreme. Saying "Fuck you and grow up" is childish.
Sorry but you need to read my post a little better, and while you may think that "collective bargaining" is everything, I assure you that you are wrong. Governor Walker also wants to take away the ability of the Wisconsin public teacher's union to take up dues directly, and halt the current process of the state withholding dues from the teacher's checks. I don't really fall on either side of this issue, other than knowing that public unions by their very nature are opposed to the public interest. I think ALL the politicians in WI right now need to be told FUCK YOU AND GROW THE FUCK UP, that includes Walker and the dumbasses who fled the state to prevent the state from doing business.
If you really read my post and still think I'm being childish, then that's your opinion. But you are coming off in your reply here to be rather uneducated about the issue and rather just parroting some cursory talking points from articles you've read (Prove me wrong, but that's the way it seems to me)
|
On March 09 2011 08:21 LuciD` wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote: Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week for less than $1/hour, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man? Without that company they're out of a job period. It might be horrible but if they are willing to work for that price then that's how it works as awful and crass as that sounds.
No, you are advocating for a system where that is how it works. There are other systems where that isn't how it works. But you are against such systems: for what reason, no one knows.
|
On March 09 2011 08:21 LuciD` wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote: Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week for less than $1/hour, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man? Without that company they're out of a job period. It might be horrible but if they are willing to work for that price then that's how it works as awful and crass as that sounds.
And this abuse by "companies" is why unions came to exist in the first place. People have to work to pay for food, shelter, etc.
|
On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote: Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week in a factory for less than $1/hour with absolutely no benefits, no pension, no insurance, no nothing, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man?
They should hire her. The more important question is, why do you wan't her to starve to death?
|
Well Union is just a cartel vs the corporate world. yeah they're pretty good
|
On March 09 2011 07:58 staxringold wrote: Yes. Obviously 100% union-centralized power yields bad resulted but so does pure unmitigated capitalism. The motivations of capitalist entities doesn't shift simply because the centuries do. The point of economic regulation is to keep at bay the bubbles we've seen and hold off another Depression at all costs. If individual and more replaceable laborers have no negotiating power then the system is effectively treating them as valueless cogs.
I'm so confused. You realize the Depression was caused by banks loaning out much more money than they had due to government policies allowing and supporting this? This is such a classic example of how capitalism takes the heat for government tinkering in the economy... we don't live in a capitalist country, people.
And yeah... a union of GOVERNMENT WORKERS. When the government hardly has to answer for the checks it writes the only loser in this situation is as always the taxpayer. Oh yeah and the quality of american education.
|
People arguing the about the individual facts regarding the WI teachers' contracts are all spouting propaganda in here. You need to assess the WHOLE compensation package to determine if it is fair. On paper 30k in benefits seems absurd but that would be a HUGE portion of their total salary. Basically the question is, is approx 80k a year too much for a teacher? Try to think objectively.
IMO that seems like a steal for a good, college educated professional with experience. We all have different standards though so we will see.
If there is ANYTHING I think we should be complaining about its accountability not compensation.
|
On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote: Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week in a factory for less than $1/hour with absolutely no benefits, no pension, no insurance, no thing, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man?
That is totally taken out of context and you know it... union's nowadays do not protect those kinds of things because labor laws exist. Its a concept of supply and demand.
|
On March 09 2011 08:16 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 07:48 etherwar wrote:On March 09 2011 05:43 DoubleReed wrote: 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. The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. Ugh. Did you think about this for a minute? 30 seconds? They pay for it by going to work everyday. It is part of their compensation. You do not, "pay towards your compensation" that is ridiculous. That is like giving your employer money on top of working. And their salaries ARE REGULATED by the QEO law.
So you look at my post and then you extract and misinterpret the first sentence, then ask me if I thought about this for a minute? or 30 seconds? cute...
Yeah, excuse me, they don't pay a PORTION OF THEIR SALARIES towards their benefits/pension... like I dunno, pretty much everyone else? The QEO law is an option for school boards to impose, not a mandate (as long as they stay within budget)... why not increase benefits and salaries for teachers and just cut programs then ask for more money from the public???
|
Unions are just corporations for laborers.
|
On March 09 2011 08:32 etherwar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:16 Romantic wrote:On March 09 2011 07:48 etherwar wrote:On March 09 2011 05:43 DoubleReed wrote: 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. The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. Ugh. Did you think about this for a minute? 30 seconds? They pay for it by going to work everyday. It is part of their compensation. You do not, "pay towards your compensation" that is ridiculous. That is like giving your employer money on top of working. And their salaries ARE REGULATED by the QEO law. So you look at my post and then you extract and misinterpret the first sentence, then ask me if I thought about this for a minute? or 30 seconds? cute... Yeah, excuse me, they don't pay a PORTION OF THEIR SALARIES towards their benefits/pension... like I dunno, pretty much everyone else? The QEO law is an option for school boards to impose, not a mandate
Employer provided pensions are payed for by the employee. Pitching in %0 or %100 percent is equivalent. It's subtracted from your wages. The employer only cares about the total cost of hiring someone.
|
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.
|
On March 09 2011 08:24 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:21 LuciD` wrote:On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote: Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week for less than $1/hour, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man? Without that company they're out of a job period. It might be horrible but if they are willing to work for that price then that's how it works as awful and crass as that sounds. No, you are advocating for a system where that is how it works. There are other systems where that isn't how it works. But you are against such systems: for what reason, no one knows.
I am advocating nothing of the sort nor do I morally agree with what companies like this do. It's simply the way shit works in countries without child labor laws and it's a tragedy. It won't stop, however, until their own country takes control of it. Their family depends on this money otherwise a 13 year old wouldn't be working for $1/hour in horseshit conditions.
Don't put words in my mouth and take off the rose-colored glasses. There is ugly shit in this world whether you like it or not.
|
On March 09 2011 08:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 07:59 Rashid wrote: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. And you don't get it. The reason those companies outsource in the first place is to get cheaper labor by abusing the naivete of the working class in third world countries. Unlike in most developed western countries, the working class in most asian countries work like dogs 7 days a week with very minimal pay. Why? Most of them don't have unions. In fact, most of them have this mentality that they should be thankful of their employers just for giving them a job and accept their suck ass low paying long hour jobs with gratitude and no complaints. Yea, it's better than subsistence agriculture. The fact that they wan't the job means its better than the alternative. But really, a mutually agreed upon deal between free individuals is quite frankly none of your damn business. It's when people like you, saying they know whats best for the naive people, that tyrannies arise. If you impose a global minimum wage or something of this sort, then those people simply won't get the jobs, and they will not be grateful of your well intentions. They'll hate you for it.
So technically, if a 13 year old starving girl is willing to work as a prostitute for me for breadcrumbs, then it's totally okay for me to hire her?
I don't no which county you're from, but i actually live in one of these countries. I tell you, you get better wages working at McDonalds in America than most working class and professional jobs in my country.
|
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?
|
Unions being politically active is a good thing.
Corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying governments to weaken labor laws, weaken safety rules, weaken enforcement agencies, and allow them to exploit workers because those policies would be good for business.
Unions may not represent everyone, but their lobbying is an important counterbalance to corporations.
|
capitalism is NOT people trading with one onother..capitalism is some guy gives you $5 hour to work.. but it turns out he sells what u produce in one hour at 7$ so theres a guy that makes $2 per hour,per worker.. AND DOESNT WORK,DOESNT DO SHIT FOR THE ECONOMY , thats capitalism
edit...btw , this is the definition.. NO IDEOLOGY INCLUDED
|
On March 09 2011 08:42 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On March 09 2011 08:41 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On March 09 2011 07:59 Rashid wrote: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. And you don't get it. The reason those companies outsource in the first place is to get cheaper labor by abusing the naivete of the working class in third world countries. Unlike in most developed western countries, the working class in most asian countries work like dogs 7 days a week with very minimal pay. Why? Most of them don't have unions. In fact, most of them have this mentality that they should be thankful of their employers just for giving them a job and accept their suck ass low paying long hour jobs with gratitude and no complaints. Yea, it's better than subsistence agriculture. The fact that they wan't the job means its better than the alternative. But really, a mutually agreed upon deal between free individuals is quite frankly none of your damn business. It's when people like you, saying they know whats best for the naive people, that tyrannies arise. If you impose a global minimum wage or something of this sort, then those people simply won't get the jobs, and they will not be grateful of your well intentions. They'll hate you for it. So technically, if a 13 year old starving girl is willing to work as a prostitute for me for breadcrumbs, then it's totally okay for me to hire her? I don't no which county you're from, but i actually live in one of these countries. I tell you, you get better wages working at McDonalds in America than most professional jobs in my country.
I would say its morally wrong for you to do that, I would give the bread crumbs freely myself, but if she wan'ts to engage in such business, and its the only way she can eat, who am I to stop her?
|
On March 09 2011 08:44 Carras wrote: capitalism is NOT people trading with one onother..capitalism is some guy gives you $5 hour to work.. but it turns out he sells what u produce in one hour at 7$ so theres a guy that makes $2 per hour,per worker.. AND DOESNT WORK,DOESNT DO SHIT FOR THE ECONOMY , thats capitalism
QFT
|
On March 09 2011 08:45 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On March 09 2011 08:23 etherwar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:04 DoubleReed wrote:The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. The WI Governor is proposing that they ONLY be able to collectively bargain for their salary, and only up to the cost of living index. This has turned into an all-out flame war/pissing contest from both sides. And make no mistake, NEITHER side is willing to budge. Every single article on this has said that the Governor will budge on everything except collective bargaining rights. That's everything. He wants to make massive cuts that he can't make if he negotiates with unions. There is no way to compromise with that, because collective bargaining is essentially the power of the union. So saying "neither side is willing to budge" is a little silly, considering the republicans are holding the collective bargaining rights... which is the rights to compromise. Your post had a lot misdirection in it, so it's a little difficult to argue with you. I don't care if "teachers are underpaid" or whatever. That doesn't have to do with this. It seems like we want to somehow link what we pay teachers, or what we spend on education, directly to how much achievement we get from students, while there are just too many other factors in play. Take a look at the census data from 2008 on how much we spend per pupil by state. ( http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf ) [page 14] I can assure you that while, DC tends to spend an enormous amount on their public education systems, it's continually labeled as one of the worst school systems in the country. Okay... this is done with capita per student, so being as DC is way smaller than everything else by far, this is not a fair comparison by any means. Don't even get me started about the bullshit legislators that ran from the state to prevent the due course of lawmaking, how is that for some childish shit. In fact, they ALL deserve a giant FUCK YOU AND GROW UP from every last one of us.
Politics, you gotta laugh at it because it keeps you from crying. "Fuck you and grow up"? This is about people's livelihood, wages, and jobs. Leaving the state to prevent obliteration of unions is not really childish. It's just extreme. Saying "Fuck you and grow up" is childish. Sorry but you need to read my post a little better, and while you may think that "collective bargaining" is everything, I assure you that you are wrong. Governor Walker also wants to take away the ability of the Wisconsin public teacher's union to take up dues directly, and halt the current process of the state withholding dues from the teacher's checks. I don't really fall on either side of this issue, other than knowing that public unions by their very nature are opposed to the public interest. I think ALL the politicians in WI right now need to be told FUCK YOU AND GROW THE FUCK UP, that includes Walker and the dumbasses who fled the state to prevent the state from doing business. If you really read my post and still think I'm being childish, then that's your opinion. But you are coming off in your reply here to be rather uneducated about the issue and rather just parroting some cursory talking points from articles you've read (Prove me wrong, but that's the way it seems to me)
I can only assume you cooled off in time between this post and last, because you're attitude is completely changed.
And to be fair, parroting cursory talking points makes me sound way more educated about this issue than 90% of the people in this thread :D
|
On March 09 2011 08:44 Carras wrote: capitalism is NOT people trading with one onother..capitalism is some guy gives you $5 hour to work.. but it turns out he sells what u produce in one hour at 7$ so theres a guy that makes $2 per hour,per worker.. AND DOESNT WORK,DOESNT DO SHIT FOR THE ECONOMY , thats capitalism
edit...btw , this is the definition.. NO IDEOLOGY INCLUDED
One person is selling the product of their labor, and the other is buying it. Sounds like a trade to me.
|
Business transactions are always mutually beneficial, otherwise they wouldn't be made.
thats asumming everyones equal... in wich world do you live in where everyone gets the same chances,education, etc.. ? 10 pages into the post do we really need to discuss this ?
|
One person is selling the product of their labor, and the other is buying it. Sounds like a trade to me.
a trade where theres one guy who has to work..and one who doesnt..
|
Well I think it's like a balancing thing. If there is no union, employers are abusing their authority but unions also act like that. Also the government are so timid to interfere because of the loss of their support. Democrats!! But i think union is not really democratic, its more like communism
|
On March 09 2011 08:49 Carras wrote:Show nested quote + Business transactions are always mutually beneficial, otherwise they wouldn't be made.
thats asumming everyones equal... in wich world do you live in where everyone gets the same chances,education, etc.. ? 10 pages into the post do we really need to discuss this ?
I never said one doesn't benefit more than the other. Regardless, people ought to have freedom of choice. If they wan't to trade something of theirs, your an evil person to say that they can't. It comes down to property rights. Does a person own their body? Their labor, is that theirs to trade? Or is it yours? Are they your slave?
|
On March 09 2011 08:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:23 etherwar wrote:On March 09 2011 08:04 DoubleReed wrote:The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. The WI Governor is proposing that they ONLY be able to collectively bargain for their salary, and only up to the cost of living index. This has turned into an all-out flame war/pissing contest from both sides. And make no mistake, NEITHER side is willing to budge. Every single article on this has said that the Governor will budge on everything except collective bargaining rights. That's everything. He wants to make massive cuts that he can't make if he negotiates with unions. There is no way to compromise with that, because collective bargaining is essentially the power of the union. So saying "neither side is willing to budge" is a little silly, considering the republicans are holding the collective bargaining rights... which is the rights to compromise. Your post had a lot misdirection in it, so it's a little difficult to argue with you. I don't care if "teachers are underpaid" or whatever. That doesn't have to do with this. It seems like we want to somehow link what we pay teachers, or what we spend on education, directly to how much achievement we get from students, while there are just too many other factors in play. Take a look at the census data from 2008 on how much we spend per pupil by state. ( http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf ) [page 14] I can assure you that while, DC tends to spend an enormous amount on their public education systems, it's continually labeled as one of the worst school systems in the country. Okay... this is done with capita per student, so being as DC is way smaller than everything else by far, this is not a fair comparison by any means. Don't even get me started about the bullshit legislators that ran from the state to prevent the due course of lawmaking, how is that for some childish shit. In fact, they ALL deserve a giant FUCK YOU AND GROW UP from every last one of us.
Politics, you gotta laugh at it because it keeps you from crying. "Fuck you and grow up"? This is about people's livelihood, wages, and jobs. Leaving the state to prevent obliteration of unions is not really childish. It's just extreme. Saying "Fuck you and grow up" is childish. Sorry but you need to read my post a little better, and while you may think that "collective bargaining" is everything, I assure you that you are wrong. Governor Walker also wants to take away the ability of the Wisconsin public teacher's union to take up dues directly, and halt the current process of the state withholding dues from the teacher's checks. I don't really fall on either side of this issue, other than knowing that public unions by their very nature are opposed to the public interest. I think ALL the politicians in WI right now need to be told FUCK YOU AND GROW THE FUCK UP, that includes Walker and the dumbasses who fled the state to prevent the state from doing business. If you really read my post and still think I'm being childish, then that's your opinion. But you are coming off in your reply here to be rather uneducated about the issue and rather just parroting some cursory talking points from articles you've read (Prove me wrong, but that's the way it seems to me) I can only assume you cooled off in time between this post and last, because you're attitude is completely changed. And to be fair, parroting cursory talking points makes me sound way more educated about this issue than 90% of the people in this thread :D
I will agree with you on both points, but more-so on the second
|
On March 09 2011 08:44 Carras wrote: capitalism is NOT people trading with one onother..capitalism is some guy gives you $5 hour to work.. but it turns out he sells what u produce in one hour at 7$ so theres a guy that makes $2 per hour,per worker.. AND DOESNT WORK,DOESNT DO SHIT FOR THE ECONOMY , thats capitalism
edit...btw , this is the definition.. NO IDEOLOGY INCLUDED That person that makes 2$ an hour does more work than the worker who gets paid to work... just because they don't do manual labor doesn't mean they don't work... Your view on capitalism is just skewed and downright wrong. People who own their own business work their asses off.
|
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.
They're beneficial for the people trading, not necessarily the workers. And workers are the people to whom unions pertain.
|
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.
|
On March 09 2011 09:00 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:44 Carras wrote: capitalism is NOT people trading with one onother..capitalism is some guy gives you $5 hour to work.. but it turns out he sells what u produce in one hour at 7$ so theres a guy that makes $2 per hour,per worker.. AND DOESNT WORK,DOESNT DO SHIT FOR THE ECONOMY , thats capitalism
edit...btw , this is the definition.. NO IDEOLOGY INCLUDED That person that makes 2$ an hour does more work than the worker who gets paid to work... just because they don't do manual labor doesn't mean they don't work... Your view on capitalism is just skewed and downright wrong. People who own their own business work their asses off.
Yes, in fact, those employers really do work their asses off to earn their pay. I mean, somebody has to manage and supervise all those 13 year old indian girls in the sewing factory, right? Those girls aint gonna pimp slap themselves you know.
|
Hell yes unions are necessary. If I wasn't in a union (and there were none for my trade) I'd be making 20$ an hour as a journeyman. Because I'm in a union I get paid over 50$ an hour, that includes benefits like health and welfare, pension, etc. Unions have their place. A small company trying to pay out union wages might not be able to afford it, but big corporations that won't notice wages for labour should be paying what the labour is worth. In my trade, as a scaffolder, people's lives depend on me being able to do my job safely, and doing it right the first time. We take pride in our work, and make sure people are educated. Non-union workers (in the past) have refused to work on non-union built scaffolds, because they didn't feel safe. What's that tell you?
|
On March 09 2011 09:11 dANiELcanuck wrote: Hell yes unions are necessary. If I wasn't in a union (and there were none for my trade) I'd be making 20$ an hour as a journeyman. Because I'm in a union I get paid over 50$ an hour, that includes benefits like health and welfare, pension, etc. Unions have their place. A small company trying to pay out union wages might not be able to afford it, but big corporations that won't notice wages for labour should be paying what the labour is worth. In my trade, as a scaffolder, people's lives depend on me being able to do my job safely, and doing it right the first time. We take pride in our work, and make sure people are educated. Non-union workers (in the past) have refused to work on non-union built scaffolds, because they didn't feel safe. What's that tell you?
Exactly, cumbersome unions are necessary because they benefit you personally. What a convincing argument. And thank you for being in a construction union especially, skyrocketing the costs of home building and road repair.
|
everyone abuses everyone, will always be that way
|
On March 09 2011 09:07 Severedevil wrote: Unions are an ugly solution to an uglier problem. Perfectly stated.
|
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.
|
On March 09 2011 09:04 Piy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:47 smokeyhoodoo wrote: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. They're beneficial for the people trading, not necessarily the workers. And workers are the people to whom unions pertain.
They sell their labor, its a trade. And I wasn't talking about Unions, things got off topic.
|
On March 09 2011 09:15 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:11 dANiELcanuck wrote: Hell yes unions are necessary. If I wasn't in a union (and there were none for my trade) I'd be making 20$ an hour as a journeyman. Because I'm in a union I get paid over 50$ an hour, that includes benefits like health and welfare, pension, etc. Unions have their place. A small company trying to pay out union wages might not be able to afford it, but big corporations that won't notice wages for labour should be paying what the labour is worth. In my trade, as a scaffolder, people's lives depend on me being able to do my job safely, and doing it right the first time. We take pride in our work, and make sure people are educated. Non-union workers (in the past) have refused to work on non-union built scaffolds, because they didn't feel safe. What's that tell you? Exactly, cumbersome unions are necessary because they benefit you personally. What a convincing argument. And thank you for being in a construction union especially, skyrocketing the costs of home building and road repair.
So, you're saying it's okay to abuse and take advantage of workers like him if it means getting cheaper houses and cheaper road maintenance?
Let me tell you, the place i'm coming from, labor contractors hire Indonesian immigrants for general construction work for less than US$170 a MONTH. But the houses aint getting cheaper, cause all the money was meant to pay the pockets of their fat overpayed employers and certain government officials instead of being invested for better service. HAHA CAPITALISM IS AWESOME.
|
It's sort of sad how hostile we are to unions. Even people in this thread who are favorable to unions use language such as "it's a necessary evil", "an ugly solution to an uglier problem". Did anti-union propaganda really get so accepted you now have to preface a defense of unions by saying you do in fact hate them, but for some reason don't want to get rid of them?
There is nothing evil about the concept of a union: workers organizing themselves is very democratic and conductive to equality and worker's rights.
|
On March 09 2011 09:24 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:15 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:11 dANiELcanuck wrote: Hell yes unions are necessary. If I wasn't in a union (and there were none for my trade) I'd be making 20$ an hour as a journeyman. Because I'm in a union I get paid over 50$ an hour, that includes benefits like health and welfare, pension, etc. Unions have their place. A small company trying to pay out union wages might not be able to afford it, but big corporations that won't notice wages for labour should be paying what the labour is worth. In my trade, as a scaffolder, people's lives depend on me being able to do my job safely, and doing it right the first time. We take pride in our work, and make sure people are educated. Non-union workers (in the past) have refused to work on non-union built scaffolds, because they didn't feel safe. What's that tell you? Exactly, cumbersome unions are necessary because they benefit you personally. What a convincing argument. And thank you for being in a construction union especially, skyrocketing the costs of home building and road repair. So, you're saying it's okay to abuse and take advantage of workers like him if it means getting cheaper houses and cheaper road maintenance? Let me tell you, the place i'm coming from, labor contractors hire Indonesian immigrants for general construction work for less than US$170 a MONTH. But the houses aint getting cheaper, cause all the money was meant to pay the pockets of their fat overpayed employers and certain government officials instead of being invested for better service. HAHA CAPITALISM IS AWESOME.
It sounds like you need a less corrupt government. And if paying someone 20 dollars an hour is abusing them, I could personally stand a lot more abuse.
|
On March 09 2011 09:29 Grumbels wrote: It's sort of sad how hostile we are to unions. Even people in this thread who are favorable to unions use language such as "it's a necessary evil", "an ugly solution to an uglier problem", did anti-union propaganda really get so accepted you know have to preface a defense of unions by saying you do in fact hate them, but for some reason don't want to get rid of them?
There is nothing evil about the concept of a union: workers organizing themselves is very democratic and conductive to equality and worker's rights.
I think the UAW and the teacher's union give people a negative opinion about Unions.
|
On March 09 2011 09:11 dANiELcanuck wrote: Hell yes unions are necessary. If I wasn't in a union (and there were none for my trade) I'd be making 20$ an hour as a journeyman. Because I'm in a union I get paid over 50$ an hour, that includes benefits like health and welfare, pension, etc. Unions have their place. A small company trying to pay out union wages might not be able to afford it, but big corporations that won't notice wages for labour should be paying what the labour is worth. In my trade, as a scaffolder, people's lives depend on me being able to do my job safely, and doing it right the first time. We take pride in our work, and make sure people are educated. Non-union workers (in the past) have refused to work on non-union built scaffolds, because they didn't feel safe. What's that tell you?
My dad is a retired boilermaker. The horror stories he tells me about the shoddy work non-union workers would do on some of the jobs he was on makes me shudder. He's actually started walkoffs on jobs before because of how unsafe the non-union employees made the job for everyone else. Did the companies care? not at all, they were paying less than before.
solidarity my friend!
|
my buddy works at Trader Joes and they don't have Unions but he gets paid vacation, and part of his dental/health covered by the company. They also start you out at 10.50 which is above minimum wage. Are unions necessary? hell no. If a company like Trader Joes can do without it, then so can other companies. Keep in mind that TJ is a huge corporation now, maybe not as big as Safeway, Albertsons, Luckys or Foodmax, but it's doing a damn good job without needing unions.
|
On March 09 2011 09:29 Grumbels wrote: It's sort of sad how hostile we are to unions. Even people in this thread who are favorable to unions use language such as "it's a necessary evil", "an ugly solution to an uglier problem", did anti-union propaganda really get so accepted you know have to preface a defense of unions by saying you do in fact hate them, but for some reason don't want to get rid of them?
There is nothing evil about the concept of a union: workers organizing themselves is very democratic and conductive to equality and worker's rights.
QFT
I'm all for unions. I think they are very beneficial for the worker, in both assuring their safety, and assuring they won't be exploited.
|
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.
so if you, "the people", are paying them below what they should be getting, or their working conditions are horrid, they just need to deal with it? They aren't your emlpoyees. You personally don't get to decide anything about them because this is america, and we're a republic, not a mobocracy. You vote for people to be their employers, and if the need arises, they have every right to ask for better treatment/pay/conditions.
I've worked in CSEA jobs over the summer to pay for school, and seen first hand the bullshit that the city/state/university, what have you, puts the workers through. If they weren't in a union it would be 10 times worse.
|
On March 09 2011 09:00 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:44 Carras wrote: capitalism is NOT people trading with one onother..capitalism is some guy gives you $5 hour to work.. but it turns out he sells what u produce in one hour at 7$ so theres a guy that makes $2 per hour,per worker.. AND DOESNT WORK,DOESNT DO SHIT FOR THE ECONOMY , thats capitalism
edit...btw , this is the definition.. NO IDEOLOGY INCLUDED That person that makes 2$ an hour does more work than the worker who gets paid to work... just because they don't do manual labor doesn't mean they don't work... Your view on capitalism is just skewed and downright wrong. People who own their own business work their asses off.
nonono u dont understand... they are still making money off others people work..
anyway,you dont even need to manage your company..YOU CAN PAY PEOPLE TO DO IT TO EARN EVEN MORE MONEY! (CEOs anyone??) how many big , that really matter , companies are run by owners.. ? mmmm maybe..like 1% ?
|
On March 09 2011 09:33 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:19 Sephimos wrote: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. so if you, "the people", are paying them below what they should be getting, or their working conditions are horrid, they just need to deal with it? They aren't your emlpoyees. You personally don't get to decide anything about them because this is america, and we're a republic, not a mobocracy. You vote for people to be their employers, and if the need arises, they have every right to ask for better treatment/pay/conditions. I've worked in CSEA jobs over the summer to pay for school, and seen first hand the bullshit that the city/state/university, what have you, puts the workers through. If they weren't in a union it would be 10 times worse.
Idea: If working in the public sector is so crappy, they can find something else to do. Working in the public sector is not a God-given right.
|
On March 09 2011 09:33 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:29 Grumbels wrote: It's sort of sad how hostile we are to unions. Even people in this thread who are favorable to unions use language such as "it's a necessary evil", "an ugly solution to an uglier problem", did anti-union propaganda really get so accepted you know have to preface a defense of unions by saying you do in fact hate them, but for some reason don't want to get rid of them?
There is nothing evil about the concept of a union: workers organizing themselves is very democratic and conductive to equality and worker's rights. QFT I'm all for unions. I think they are very beneficial for the worker, in both assuring their safety, and assuring they won't be exploited.
I'd bet a decent sum that the people who are hostile to unions have never been on the receiving side of the rape-stick from some company trying to screw you out of your benefits, your pay, or your insurance. In the current system, companies are given a ridiculous amount of power and whether the public wants to believe it or not, they still like to exploit you, the middle and lower class as much as possible.
|
On March 09 2011 09:31 emc wrote: my buddy works at Trader Joes and they don't have Unions but he gets paid vacation, and part of his dental/health covered by the company. They also start you out at 10.50 which is above minimum wage. Are unions necessary? hell no. If a company like Trader Joes can do without it, then so can other companies. Keep in mind that TJ is a huge corporation now, maybe not as big as Safeway, Albertsons, Luckys or Foodmax, but it's doing a damn good job without needing unions.
Now please tell me how someone is going to encourage a private company to pay that out with benefits to its workers if it doesn't already. Obviously other companies can do it, no one is even arguing that they can't, or that unions bring this about. But how do you encourage the company to change its policy like that?
First the workers need to get together, then they need to collectively ask the owner for what they want, show solidarity, and negotiate. When they get it, they need to keep up with it. That's the most effective way, next to government intervention, to do that.
And then what do you have? A union.
|
On March 09 2011 09:20 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:04 Piy wrote:On March 09 2011 08:47 smokeyhoodoo wrote: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. They're beneficial for the people trading, not necessarily the workers. And workers are the people to whom unions pertain. They sell their labor, its a trade. And I wasn't talking about Unions, things got off topic.
They sell their labor because they have no choice. You just sell it to the highest bidder. The highest bidder can then exploit the worker in any way they need to in order to make a profit.
For example, McDonald's intentionally makes its job as easy and repetitive as possible so that workers can be paid low amounts and replaced easily. This is great for them, but not so great for the workers, who really only work to make McDonalds money. They of course need money to survive in the modern climate, but this system will always breed massive inequality, which is something that Unions attempt to assuage.
|
On March 09 2011 09:35 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:33 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 09:19 Sephimos wrote: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. so if you, "the people", are paying them below what they should be getting, or their working conditions are horrid, they just need to deal with it? They aren't your emlpoyees. You personally don't get to decide anything about them because this is america, and we're a republic, not a mobocracy. You vote for people to be their employers, and if the need arises, they have every right to ask for better treatment/pay/conditions. I've worked in CSEA jobs over the summer to pay for school, and seen first hand the bullshit that the city/state/university, what have you, puts the workers through. If they weren't in a union it would be 10 times worse. Idea: If working in the public sector is so crappy, they can find something else to do. Working in the public sector is not a God-given right.
You sound awfully bitter. No one is saying it's a right to work in the public sector, but they do have the right to proper work environments and fair pay, which unions help negotiate.
Plus, your idea of "they can go somewhere else" is really childish. In an economy with an unemployment rate of 9.5%, there aren't a whole lot of spare jobs sitting around. This is doubly true in more rural towns.
|
On March 09 2011 09:08 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:00 Yergidy wrote:On March 09 2011 08:44 Carras wrote: capitalism is NOT people trading with one onother..capitalism is some guy gives you $5 hour to work.. but it turns out he sells what u produce in one hour at 7$ so theres a guy that makes $2 per hour,per worker.. AND DOESNT WORK,DOESNT DO SHIT FOR THE ECONOMY , thats capitalism
edit...btw , this is the definition.. NO IDEOLOGY INCLUDED That person that makes 2$ an hour does more work than the worker who gets paid to work... just because they don't do manual labor doesn't mean they don't work... Your view on capitalism is just skewed and downright wrong. People who own their own business work their asses off. Yes, in fact, those employers really do work their asses off to earn their pay. I mean, somebody has to manage and supervise all those 13 year old indian girls in the sewing factory, right? Those girls aint gonna pimp slap themselves you know.
Ya cuz thats who people who own their own businesses hire...
|
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
+1 -_-*
|
little analogy... liberals say shit goes well and it even goes better and better the less stuff you do to control it... so lets say youy want to get better at starcraft.. is the way to improve not doing anythin ? absolutly nothing ?? lets asume nothings means just laddering.. is that the only or best way to improve ? are the greatest players only in ladder? ( except for athenewins LOL ) greatest players train,and do stuff the more stuff they do the better they get , they have training buddys , drills , practice in private games, tournaments, etc .-
|
On March 09 2011 09:29 Grumbels wrote: It's sort of sad how hostile we are to unions. Even people in this thread who are favorable to unions use language such as "it's a necessary evil", "an ugly solution to an uglier problem", did anti-union propaganda really get so accepted you know have to preface a defense of unions by saying you do in fact hate them, but for some reason don't want to get rid of them?
There is nothing evil about the concept of a union: workers organizing themselves is very democratic and conductive to equality and worker's rights. Teachers' Unions make it extremely difficult to fire crap teachers, or to pay better salaries to good teachers. The real solution is to improve conditions and compensation so that you can attract quality teachers, and throw off the shackles of union restrictions. The union is a way to keep skeezy employers from becoming abusive. It is a partial solution to the problem of skeezy employers...
For more examples of legal or legal-ish Union crap, see... CLOSED SHOPS Middle-class compensation for safe & easy jobs that any monkey could do Shutting down the entire fucking city metro if they don't get their way
|
On March 09 2011 09:40 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:35 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:33 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 09:19 Sephimos wrote: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. so if you, "the people", are paying them below what they should be getting, or their working conditions are horrid, they just need to deal with it? They aren't your emlpoyees. You personally don't get to decide anything about them because this is america, and we're a republic, not a mobocracy. You vote for people to be their employers, and if the need arises, they have every right to ask for better treatment/pay/conditions. I've worked in CSEA jobs over the summer to pay for school, and seen first hand the bullshit that the city/state/university, what have you, puts the workers through. If they weren't in a union it would be 10 times worse. Idea: If working in the public sector is so crappy, they can find something else to do. Working in the public sector is not a God-given right. You sound awfully bitter. No one is saying it's a right to work in the public sector, but they do have the right to proper work environments and fair pay, which unions help negotiate. Plus, your idea of "they can go somewhere else" is really childish. In an economy with an unemployment rate of 9.5%, there aren't a whole lot of spare jobs sitting around. This is doubly true in more rural towns.
I'm not bitter about anything, the alligator tears from union members just get to me. These people are pampered and from their rhetoric, you would think that they were getting blacklung in coal mines.
Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that.
And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. Fuck no. Public union members want their cake, your cake, and to eat it to. They're parasites on the body politic and they make me sick.
|
On March 09 2011 09:24 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:15 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:11 dANiELcanuck wrote: Hell yes unions are necessary. If I wasn't in a union (and there were none for my trade) I'd be making 20$ an hour as a journeyman. Because I'm in a union I get paid over 50$ an hour, that includes benefits like health and welfare, pension, etc. Unions have their place. A small company trying to pay out union wages might not be able to afford it, but big corporations that won't notice wages for labour should be paying what the labour is worth. In my trade, as a scaffolder, people's lives depend on me being able to do my job safely, and doing it right the first time. We take pride in our work, and make sure people are educated. Non-union workers (in the past) have refused to work on non-union built scaffolds, because they didn't feel safe. What's that tell you? Exactly, cumbersome unions are necessary because they benefit you personally. What a convincing argument. And thank you for being in a construction union especially, skyrocketing the costs of home building and road repair. So, you're saying it's okay to abuse and take advantage of workers like him if it means getting cheaper houses and cheaper road maintenance? Let me tell you, the place i'm coming from, labor contractors hire Indonesian immigrants for general construction work for less than US$170 a MONTH. But the houses aint getting cheaper, cause all the money was meant to pay the pockets of their fat overpayed employers and certain government officials instead of being invested for better service. HAHA CAPITALISM IS AWESOME.
Because your own trade union you were revering previously isn't a feature of the modern social capitalism you are referring to...
|
Before I graduated and got my MD I was an analytical chemist for a local environmental lab. I was a Lab Tech 5 which basically meant I had a B.A. in chemistry and two years experience and my pay was half of the median pay. There was absolutely no representation for the employees there and anyone who spoke up got penalized in reduced hours or in some cases indefinitely laid off.
Had I not experienced this first hand I would think that unions are bad, however, there are scumbag companies like the one i used to work for who make unions necessary.
|
On March 09 2011 09:51 starcraft911 wrote: Before I graduated and got my MD I was an analytical chemist for a local environmental lab. I was a Lab Tech 5 which basically meant I had a B.A. in chemistry and two years experience and my pay was half of the median pay. There was absolutely no representation for the employees there and anyone who spoke up got penalized in reduced hours or in some cases indefinitely laid off.
Had I not experienced this first hand I would think that unions are bad, however, there are scumbag companies like the one i used to work for who make unions necessary.
Your story seems unlikely seeing as Chemistry is a B.S. Also, the median pay for what? U.S. workers as a whole? South Korean workers a whole? Were there no other employment options? Where were the two years experience?
|
United States24354 Posts
On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote: Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. I did not see pfods make such an assertion.
An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. What about if you have been working for that employer for a long time? They should just set the wage arbitrarily to whatever they want? I don't think anyone is arguing that employers should have 0 control over the conditions, pay, benefits, etc of their workers.
And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. There is a difference between making some concessions and making whatever concessions some other people decide for you regardless of the long-term ramifications.
|
We have plenty of well documentted and infamous Labour Union episodes in the U.K. But the one I am going to talk about is with dock workers. + Show Spoiler +Brittain used to have thousands of dock workers that worked in every major port around the U.K and they ended up forming very strong unnions. I'm not sure about timimng but at some point in the 20th centuary the whole shipping industry was revolutionised by the developement of shipping contaniers that meant huge amounts of goods could be picked up quickly by one crane and loaded on to a ship with hardly any workers very quickly and cheaply. This revolutionzed the whole industry, at least in Amercia and most other coutnries where it caught on. But Brittish dock worker unions caused so much trouble that it took nearly 10-15 years longer for the U.K to modernize its docks and catch up with the rest of the world. Off course the dock workers had a right to be angry they where litterally losing thier jobs and thier lives and even thier communities they lived in. But because of unions Brittain's docks took much longer to modernize than most of the rest of the world and ended up costy the country so much money unnecessarily. Our ports went from been the pride of the world to been outdated costly disgraces that international shipping firms delbrately avoided as much as possible. Maybe more help needs to be provided to help people that end up in this situation where modern technology means that a whole line of work just disappears. However I don't think workers jobs should be protected to the point where they have the right to keep thier job even though the job shouldn't really naturally exists anymore.
A similar thing happended with miners across the U.K, it became much cheaper to get coal and other minerals from other countries as they had much cheaper labour and our mines where begging to run dry. Not to the point where there was no coal left just to the point where it became more expensive to extract it. The Labour Unions caused so much trouble in the shutting of the mines that doing the right thing and shutting them (they where subsidised so heavily they where costy the nation way more moeny than they where making) felt like the wrong thing to do. Its horrible for the workers again but it needed to happen.
A fine balance needs to be trod by unnions so they protect against explotation but don't get sufficiently powerful that they completely disrupt the natural process of supply and demand or end up trying to protect jobs that are simply not needed any more.
I don't really know anything about the situation with London tube drivers. But they are always going on strike and thier unions demanding things which seems really unnecessary and greedy to me when you consider they still make on average $80,000 a very tidy salary in a time when most other profesions are taking large pay cuts and these tube strikes cause so much missery and delays and trouble for eveyone else. It just seems to me they are very well paid yet always complaing and making points at everyone elses expense.
Yes I have a very negative view of trade unions and maybe they are necessary (not convinced) but they definately cause trouble when they abuse thier power.
LMAO. I read this as "Are onions necessary in the modern world?"
I was like: "whats wrong with onions?
I just woke up Lols
|
Things were fine until the guy had to go on and go after bargaining rights. Unions wouldn't be needed if employers were all upstanding awesome citizens but they are not.
|
On March 09 2011 09:57 Sephimos wrote: Your story seems unlikely seeing as Chemistry is a B.S.
Chemistry is BA or BS. Simply googling bachelor of arts chemistry will display some universities where this degree is offered.
|
On March 09 2011 09:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote: Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. I did not see pfods make such an assertion. Show nested quote +An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. What about if you have been working for that employer for a long time? They should just set the wage arbitrarily to whatever they want? I don't think anyone is arguing that employers should have 0 control over the conditions, pay, benefits, etc of their workers. Show nested quote +And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. There is a difference between making some concessions and making whatever concessions some other people decide for you regardless of the long-term ramifications.
I made the point that if public sector work is terrible, they don't have to do it. If someone is going to argue with that statement, they would need to believe that someone not only has the right to do public work, but do it on their own terms. There's no alternative here, and such a belief is incredibly childish and presumptive.
So what if you worked there a long time? You probably get a special cup with your number of years on it. Again, it doesn't make you a special snowflake and it doesn't give you some kind of special rights or bargaining authority. There are market limits on what they can set the wage to anyway, if the government offers too little money for public workers, people will really stop doing it instead of just crying their eyes out and sleeping in the Wisconsin capitol building like the filthy hippies they are.
What people don't grasp here is the corrupt nature of public unions. In a private union, there are a number of limiting factors when it comes to negotiation time. The employer has incentive to bargain vigorously, so they keep their costs down. The union has incentive to bargain vigorously for its members, but also has to keep an eye on the company being competitive in the market. An example of a union not keeping an eye on this would be any American car company being bled dry by the UAW.
In a public union, all these restraints go out the window. Public employees are extremely active politically, so politicians, the stand-in for the larger people (the employers) have every incentive to give big giveaways in pay and benefits in exchange for union support (many union contracts even have clauses excusing members from work for political advocacy). In addition, the unions realize that the government generally cannot go broke, so the sky is the limit as far as their demands go. Public unions are corrupt inside and outside, they aren't redeemable. They have only even existed for 50 years as a political ploy by Democrats seeking money and power. It has worked quite well, and it's time for it to stop.
|
On March 09 2011 10:09 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:57 Sephimos wrote: Your story seems unlikely seeing as Chemistry is a B.S.
Chemistry is BA or BS. Simply googling bachelor of arts chemistry will display some universities where this degree is offered.
No serious scientist would get a BA.
|
On March 09 2011 10:11 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:09 Signet wrote:On March 09 2011 09:57 Sephimos wrote: Your story seems unlikely seeing as Chemistry is a B.S.
Chemistry is BA or BS. Simply googling bachelor of arts chemistry will display some universities where this degree is offered. No serious scientist would get a BA. What's your point? If you want to insult him personally, take it to PM.
Having an MD is pretty serious lol.
|
United States24354 Posts
On March 09 2011 10:10 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:58 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote: Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. I did not see pfods make such an assertion. An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. What about if you have been working for that employer for a long time? They should just set the wage arbitrarily to whatever they want? I don't think anyone is arguing that employers should have 0 control over the conditions, pay, benefits, etc of their workers. And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. There is a difference between making some concessions and making whatever concessions some other people decide for you regardless of the long-term ramifications. I made the point that if public sector work is terrible, they don't have to do it. If someone is going to argue with that statement, they would need to believe that someone not only has the right to do public work, but do it on their own terms. There's no alternative here, and such a belief is incredibly childish and presumptive. This statement I just quoted is not the opposite of what you were accusing pfods of... not that it really matters.
So what if you worked there a long time? You probably get a special cup with your number of years on it. Again, it doesn't make you a special snowflake and it doesn't give you some kind of special rights or bargaining authority. There are market limits on what they can set the wage to anyway, if the government offers too little money for public workers, people will really stop doing it instead of just crying their eyes out and sleeping in the Wisconsin capitol building like the filthy hippies they are. The thing I'm confused about is whether or not you think it's good for important public services to be provided poorly or not at all...
What people don't grasp here is the corrupt nature of public unions. In a private union, there are a number of limiting factors when it comes to negotiation time. The employer has incentive to bargain vigorously, so they keep their costs down. The union has incentive to bargain vigorously for its members, but also has to keep an eye on the company being competitive in the market. An example of a union not keeping an eye on this would be any American car company being bled dry by the UAW.
In a public union, all these restraints go out the window. Public employees are extremely active politically Is this inherent to public unions or just the way things are? If the latter, you shouldn't punish public unions for this... if the former, then explain why.
so politicians, the stand-in for the larger people (the employers) have every incentive to give big giveaways in pay and benefits in exchange for union support (many union contracts even have clauses excusing members from work for political advocacy). Just because public unions don't have the same natural limiters as private unions doesn't mean there aren't forces compelling unions to be reasonable and the employers to hold their ground. I see this on a daily basis in my public job.
In addition, the unions realize that the government generally cannot go broke, so the sky is the limit as far as their demands go. Public unions are corrupt inside and outside, they aren't redeemable. They have only even existed for 50 years as a political ploy by Democrats seeking money and power. It has worked quite well, and it's time for it to stop.
This sounds highly exaggerated...
|
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.
|
On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:40 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 09:35 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:33 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 09:19 Sephimos wrote: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. so if you, "the people", are paying them below what they should be getting, or their working conditions are horrid, they just need to deal with it? They aren't your emlpoyees. You personally don't get to decide anything about them because this is america, and we're a republic, not a mobocracy. You vote for people to be their employers, and if the need arises, they have every right to ask for better treatment/pay/conditions. I've worked in CSEA jobs over the summer to pay for school, and seen first hand the bullshit that the city/state/university, what have you, puts the workers through. If they weren't in a union it would be 10 times worse. Idea: If working in the public sector is so crappy, they can find something else to do. Working in the public sector is not a God-given right. You sound awfully bitter. No one is saying it's a right to work in the public sector, but they do have the right to proper work environments and fair pay, which unions help negotiate. Plus, your idea of "they can go somewhere else" is really childish. In an economy with an unemployment rate of 9.5%, there aren't a whole lot of spare jobs sitting around. This is doubly true in more rural towns. I'm not bitter about anything, the alligator tears from union members just get to me. These people are pampered and from their rhetoric, you would think that they were getting blacklung in coal mines. Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here.
This is the second time you've put words in my mouth. I'm not saying anyone has a right to a specific job, I'm saying workers have a right to certain conditions in a job which unions help control.
On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that.
Do you really think the only thing unions negotiate is wages?
On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote: And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. Fuck no. Public union members want their cake, your cake, and to eat it to. They're parasites on the body politic and they make me sick.
Like in wisconsin where they offered to pay more of their benefits, take a second cut in wages, etc?
Please don't respond to me if you're just going to rage about unions and how mean and evil they are for a third time.
|
On March 09 2011 10:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:10 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:58 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote: Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. I did not see pfods make such an assertion. An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. What about if you have been working for that employer for a long time? They should just set the wage arbitrarily to whatever they want? I don't think anyone is arguing that employers should have 0 control over the conditions, pay, benefits, etc of their workers. And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. There is a difference between making some concessions and making whatever concessions some other people decide for you regardless of the long-term ramifications. I made the point that if public sector work is terrible, they don't have to do it. If someone is going to argue with that statement, they would need to believe that someone not only has the right to do public work, but do it on their own terms. There's no alternative here, and such a belief is incredibly childish and presumptive. This statement I just quoted is not the opposite of what you were accusing pfods of... not that it really matters. Show nested quote +So what if you worked there a long time? You probably get a special cup with your number of years on it. Again, it doesn't make you a special snowflake and it doesn't give you some kind of special rights or bargaining authority. There are market limits on what they can set the wage to anyway, if the government offers too little money for public workers, people will really stop doing it instead of just crying their eyes out and sleeping in the Wisconsin capitol building like the filthy hippies they are. The thing I'm confused about is whether or not you think it's good for important public services to be provided poorly or not at all... Show nested quote +What people don't grasp here is the corrupt nature of public unions. In a private union, there are a number of limiting factors when it comes to negotiation time. The employer has incentive to bargain vigorously, so they keep their costs down. The union has incentive to bargain vigorously for its members, but also has to keep an eye on the company being competitive in the market. An example of a union not keeping an eye on this would be any American car company being bled dry by the UAW.
In a public union, all these restraints go out the window. Public employees are extremely active politically Is this inherent to public unions or just the way things are? If the latter, you shouldn't punish public unions for this... if the former, then explain why. Show nested quote +so politicians, the stand-in for the larger people (the employers) have every incentive to give big giveaways in pay and benefits in exchange for union support (many union contracts even have clauses excusing members from work for political advocacy). Just because public unions don't have the same natural limiters as private unions doesn't mean there aren't forces compelling unions to be reasonable and the employers to hold their ground. I see this on a daily basis in my public job. Show nested quote +In addition, the unions realize that the government generally cannot go broke, so the sky is the limit as far as their demands go. Public unions are corrupt inside and outside, they aren't redeemable. They have only even existed for 50 years as a political ploy by Democrats seeking money and power. It has worked quite well, and it's time for it to stop.
This sounds highly exaggerated...
I don't know how I can put it any more simply. If the employee doesn't like the employers compensation package, they have the freedom to seek other work.
The thing I'm confused about is whether or not you think it's good for important public services to be provided poorly or not at all... Public services should be run effectively, nice framed question by the way. Government pay rates should be kept in line with market rates, considering skill, education, and difficulty.
Is this inherent to public unions or just the way things are? If the latter, you shouldn't punish public unions for this... if the former, then explain why. I said it's just the way they are. FDR himself was against public unions, as was the AFL-CIO as late as 1959. The incentives for both sides are corrupted when compared to a private union arrangement. There is too much temptation on both sides, politicians and labor.
What exactly are the restraints that still exist? Management has incentive to fold, union has incentive to ride the gravy train. And if you think it's exaggerated, why don't you look into it a little bit. Public unions started in the 1960's, they were all initiated while Democrats were in power, they continue to 69 with Democrats to this day. Do me a favor, find out who your union contributes money to. I guarantee you they spend on politics, and I guarantee you it all goes to Democrats//Liberal causes. Then come back and tell me how right I was.
|
On March 09 2011 10:32 Sephimos wrote: What exactly are the restraints that still exist? Management has incentive to fold, union has incentive to ride the gravy train. And if you think it's exaggerated, why don't you look into it a little bit. Public unions started in the 1960's, they were all initiated while Democrats were in power, they continue to 69 with Democrats to this day. Do me a favor, find out who your union contributes money to. I guarantee you they spend on politics, and I guarantee you it all goes to Democrats//Liberal causes. Then come back and tell me how right I was.
You're being hypocritical. Weren't you just telling me how you have the freedom to not accept a job? You have the freedom to not join a union, or to work a job that doesn't require union membership. You also have the freedom to quit your job if you don't like what your organization is contributing money to. You don't get to selectively argue the "freedom" angle. It applies universally or not a tall.
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.
|
On March 09 2011 10:27 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:40 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 09:35 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:33 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 09:19 Sephimos wrote: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. so if you, "the people", are paying them below what they should be getting, or their working conditions are horrid, they just need to deal with it? They aren't your emlpoyees. You personally don't get to decide anything about them because this is america, and we're a republic, not a mobocracy. You vote for people to be their employers, and if the need arises, they have every right to ask for better treatment/pay/conditions. I've worked in CSEA jobs over the summer to pay for school, and seen first hand the bullshit that the city/state/university, what have you, puts the workers through. If they weren't in a union it would be 10 times worse. Idea: If working in the public sector is so crappy, they can find something else to do. Working in the public sector is not a God-given right. You sound awfully bitter. No one is saying it's a right to work in the public sector, but they do have the right to proper work environments and fair pay, which unions help negotiate. Plus, your idea of "they can go somewhere else" is really childish. In an economy with an unemployment rate of 9.5%, there aren't a whole lot of spare jobs sitting around. This is doubly true in more rural towns. I'm not bitter about anything, the alligator tears from union members just get to me. These people are pampered and from their rhetoric, you would think that they were getting blacklung in coal mines. Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. This is the second time you've put words in my mouth. I'm not saying anyone has a right to a specific job, I'm saying workers have a right to certain conditions in a job which unions help control. Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. Do you really think the only thing unions negotiate is wages? Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote: And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. Fuck no. Public union members want their cake, your cake, and to eat it to. They're parasites on the body politic and they make me sick.
Like in wisconsin where they offered to pay more of their benefits, take a second cut in wages, etc? Please don't respond to me if you're just going to rage about unions and how mean and evil they are for a third time.
Do you really think the only thing unions negotiate is wages? If that was all it was there probably wouldn't be such an issue. The problem is that Unions get all sorts of goodies, such as free gold-plated health care, contribution-less guaranteed pensions, and sick days//overtime. Public worker salary is usually not out of line, it's everything else that puts them out of whack with everyone else.
Like in wisconsin where they offered to pay more of their benefits, take a second cut in wages, etc? Firstly, the cuts they're taking come after a big increase in their compensation from the last governor, so these cuts would really just put them back where they should have been anyhow. And Walker is smart enough to realize that if collective bargaining stays, the union is just going to regain everything they lost when Dems get back into power. He's trying for a lasting solution.
I don't need to resort to any base insults with the unions, they're merely self-interested, and that self-interest comes at the expense of every single taxpayer. Unions don't mind if working families have to deal with a few extra property tax points or if groceries get more expensive, they just want theirs, and to hell with everything else.
|
On March 09 2011 10:38 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:32 Sephimos wrote: What exactly are the restraints that still exist? Management has incentive to fold, union has incentive to ride the gravy train. And if you think it's exaggerated, why don't you look into it a little bit. Public unions started in the 1960's, they were all initiated while Democrats were in power, they continue to 69 with Democrats to this day. Do me a favor, find out who your union contributes money to. I guarantee you they spend on politics, and I guarantee you it all goes to Democrats//Liberal causes. Then come back and tell me how right I was. You're being hypocritical. Weren't you just telling me how you have the freedom to not accept a job? You have the freedom to not join a union, or to work a job that doesn't require union membership. You also have the freedom to quit your job if you don't like what your organization is contributing money to. You don't get to selectively argue the "freedom" angle. It applies universally or not a tall. 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.
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.
|
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.
|
On March 09 2011 10:38 Sephimos wrote: If that was all it was there probably wouldn't be such an issue. The problem is that Unions get all sorts of goodies, such as free gold-plated health care, contribution-less guaranteed pensions, and sick days//overtime. Public worker salary is usually not out of line, it's everything else that puts them out of whack with everyone else.
Which they negotiated for, and their employers agreed to pay. Why are you upset by this? If you want those benefits, join a union job.
Plus, not every job in a union, especially public unions, is guaranteed pension benefits with nothing withheld from pay.
On March 09 2011 10:38 Sephimos wrote: Firstly, the cuts they're taking come after a big increase in their compensation from the last governor, so these cuts would really just put them back where they should have been anyhow. And Walker is smart enough to realize that if collective bargaining stays, the union is just going to regain everything they lost when Dems get back into power. He's trying for a lasting solution.
No. Actually what he's doing is trying to break the unions so he can privatize their jobs, much like he did in his last job positions, where he invented a fake fiscal crisis in order to fire all the public-union security and hire private contractors. These same contractors were previously fired from their last shtick in afghanistan for hazing new members, using tax payer money to buy prostitutes, etc. He's attempting the same thing now, only with different jobs. Plus, he's going after unions that didn't support him. Not to mention that bill has provisions to basically sell public utilities to the koch brothers, and busting those pesky unions is the start of that. Corruption through and through.
On March 09 2011 10:38 Sephimos wrote: I don't need to resort to any base insults with the unions, they're merely self-interested, and that self-interest comes at the expense of every single taxpayer. Unions don't mind if working families have to deal with a few extra property tax points or if groceries get more expensive, they just want theirs, and to hell with everything else.
Germany. Recently labeled the china of europe, has very strong unions.
You have no leg to stand on by saying that unions break the economy.
|
United States24354 Posts
On March 09 2011 10:32 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:21 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2011 10:10 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:58 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote: Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. I did not see pfods make such an assertion. An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. What about if you have been working for that employer for a long time? They should just set the wage arbitrarily to whatever they want? I don't think anyone is arguing that employers should have 0 control over the conditions, pay, benefits, etc of their workers. And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. There is a difference between making some concessions and making whatever concessions some other people decide for you regardless of the long-term ramifications. I made the point that if public sector work is terrible, they don't have to do it. If someone is going to argue with that statement, they would need to believe that someone not only has the right to do public work, but do it on their own terms. There's no alternative here, and such a belief is incredibly childish and presumptive. This statement I just quoted is not the opposite of what you were accusing pfods of... not that it really matters. So what if you worked there a long time? You probably get a special cup with your number of years on it. Again, it doesn't make you a special snowflake and it doesn't give you some kind of special rights or bargaining authority. There are market limits on what they can set the wage to anyway, if the government offers too little money for public workers, people will really stop doing it instead of just crying their eyes out and sleeping in the Wisconsin capitol building like the filthy hippies they are. The thing I'm confused about is whether or not you think it's good for important public services to be provided poorly or not at all... What people don't grasp here is the corrupt nature of public unions. In a private union, there are a number of limiting factors when it comes to negotiation time. The employer has incentive to bargain vigorously, so they keep their costs down. The union has incentive to bargain vigorously for its members, but also has to keep an eye on the company being competitive in the market. An example of a union not keeping an eye on this would be any American car company being bled dry by the UAW.
In a public union, all these restraints go out the window. Public employees are extremely active politically Is this inherent to public unions or just the way things are? If the latter, you shouldn't punish public unions for this... if the former, then explain why. so politicians, the stand-in for the larger people (the employers) have every incentive to give big giveaways in pay and benefits in exchange for union support (many union contracts even have clauses excusing members from work for political advocacy). Just because public unions don't have the same natural limiters as private unions doesn't mean there aren't forces compelling unions to be reasonable and the employers to hold their ground. I see this on a daily basis in my public job. In addition, the unions realize that the government generally cannot go broke, so the sky is the limit as far as their demands go. Public unions are corrupt inside and outside, they aren't redeemable. They have only even existed for 50 years as a political ploy by Democrats seeking money and power. It has worked quite well, and it's time for it to stop.
This sounds highly exaggerated... I don't know how I can put it any more simply. If the employee doesn't like the employers compensation package, they have the freedom to seek other work. Show nested quote +The thing I'm confused about is whether or not you think it's good for important public services to be provided poorly or not at all... Public services should be run effectively, nice framed question by the way. Government pay rates should be kept in line with market rates, considering skill, education, and difficulty. Show nested quote +Is this inherent to public unions or just the way things are? If the latter, you shouldn't punish public unions for this... if the former, then explain why. I said it's just the way they are. FDR himself was against public unions, as was the AFL-CIO as late as 1959. The incentives for both sides are corrupted when compared to a private union arrangement. There is too much temptation on both sides, politicians and labor. What exactly are the restraints that still exist? Management has incentive to fold, union has incentive to ride the gravy train. And if you think it's exaggerated, why don't you look into it a little bit. Public unions started in the 1960's, they were all initiated while Democrats were in power, they continue to 69 with Democrats to this day. Do me a favor, find out who your union contributes money to. I guarantee you they spend on politics, and I guarantee you it all goes to Democrats//Liberal causes. Then come back and tell me how right I was. My union is constantly under attack by certain politicians so I don't think they should be blamed for defending themselves. If you want to claim that the other politicians would leave them alone if they didn't get involved in politics then I'll tell you: I wish. That would be nice. Just so you know in the most recent election my union released a list of which politicians they 'endorse' and it was like 75%/25% split democrat/republican. Surprisingly far from 100/0. It's still not surprising that the democrats get more support since the republicans want to gut the amount of public money that goes towards the public service... which will mean a severe decrease in the quality of the service provided by the union workers (less workers and less pay will ultimately mean less quality). You said so yourself workers can leave if they don't like that (assuming they weren't already excessed) but this means lower quality of public service. This is a more complex issue than public unions=evil.
From what you said I see you do in fact not want public service to crumble... it was actually not clear from what you were saying until now. Asking someone who's been with an employer for many years to leave if (s)he doesn't like the new conditions sounds reasonable... and it IS reasonable when the reasons for why the new conditions are 'so bad' are in fact reasonable. This is not always the case. No public unions means the reasons for the degradation in conditions become less reasonable. This is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from how you would claim the demands of publicly unionized workers are unreasonable. Basically neither of us has a leg to stand on on this issue since we are are two sides of the same coin.
The people who negotiate with my union leaders every few years will be up shit's creek if they don't do a good job... I can't speak directly for other unions but they fight every bit as aggressively as employers of privately unionized workers in the area.
|
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.
|
On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote: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. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy.
|
On March 09 2011 07:48 etherwar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 05:43 DoubleReed wrote: 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. The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. The WI Governor is proposing that they ONLY be able to collectively bargain for their salary, and only up to the cost of living index. This has turned into an all-out flame war/pissing contest from both sides. And make no mistake, NEITHER side is willing to budge. What you are dealing with in the Wisconsin teacher's union situation is a complete and utter spectacle drummed up by Democrats and the WI teacher's union. It's specifically designed to drum up this stupid argument about labor and corporate rights. That helps you to fit into one "side" so that you may in turn denounce the other "side". It's all about WI teachers getting as much as they possibly can on the public dime. Teacher's unions are absolutely bad for the taxpayers that fund their salaries and for the students that get drug into these arguments and indoctrinated by their teachers. The Teacher's union protects good and bad teachers alike, and makes firing a teacher pretty damn hard. They're also in bed with the Democrat political organization, which capitulates to the union's wants because of the associated campaign donations. The Democrats (or Liberals, choose your flavor) would love to have you believe that this is a Republican assault on unions (and by extension, the common man), and then they'll turn around and donate huge money to the next Democrat governor (and legislators). Next, those elected officials take part in the renegotiation of the union contracts and somehow "find it in the budget" to sweeten their deal a little bit. It's been going on in Wisconsin for YEARS... and the previous outgoing WI Governor Doyle actually rushed through passing SIX (6) separate public union contracts in December of 2010 before the current Gov. Walker could take office, despite requests from Gov. Walker to wait for him (this is why he's pissed and won't budge, right or wrong). http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/11/22/state_democrats_rush.phpAn applicable approach to the subject of Wisconsin teachers being "underpaid", a common misconception brandied by the Unions: http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdfIt seems like we want to somehow link what we pay teachers, or what we spend on education, directly to how much achievement we get from students, while there are just too many other factors in play. Take a look at the census data from 2008 on how much we spend per pupil by state. ( http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf ) [page 14] I can assure you that while, DC tends to spend an enormous amount on their public education systems, it's continually labeled as one of the worst school systems in the country. Don't even get me started about the bullshit legislators that ran from the state to prevent the due course of lawmaking, how is that for some childish shit. In fact, they ALL deserve a giant FUCK YOU AND GROW UP from every last one of us. Politics, you gotta laugh at it because it keeps you from crying. By the way, I only think unions are appropriate for low-wage, low-skilled jobs. But there they serve a definite and beneficial purpose that is not fundamentally slanted against the public interest. Sorry for the lengthy post, but all the uneducated crap I read today made me want to lay it all down on the table.
Wow.... First of all, this is a direct assault on individual liberties. We could talk all day about whether or not public schooling/teachers, etc are good things but that would not affect this bill in any way. The primary issue with the legislation is that it is an attempt to strip the individual off the basic right to organize for a common interest.
As for Gov Doyle rushing through those bills...was he wrong? Yes. But could you expect any better from Walker? No. Was Walker just playing politics when he asked for them to be delayed? Yes
Nobody believes the teachers are underpaid--you will find a good portion of the people against this bill think teachers do get paid too much
Your argument about DC is irrelevant
Yeah, shame on those legislators for obstructing an unjust law that Walker is trying to force through without sufficient time for public discussion.
The WI Public Unions may be OP, but that does not in any way justify this sharp curtailing of basic liberties. Using "the public interest" as an excuse to do this is all fun and games until the government is pointing the barrel at you.
|
On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote: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. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy.
I think, sir, that you are mistaken. Yes, society needs to get off of its a** and start making pro-active choices like you argue, but that does not mean there isn't room for organizations like unions. In fact, such organizations are vital to this type of libertarian society. You quite a few whistleblowers to help draw attention to abuses
|
The debate with unions boils down to a few main points. Unions are economically inefficient, they create unemployment, (price/wage) inflation, and decreases productivity of workers. Unions do increase worker rights and conditions, they get better benefits, higher wages, and better work environment.
The question is whether the gain in worker benefits justifies the loss in efficiency.
It is my opinion that the gain in benefits does not justify the loss in efficiency. Especially in an economic recession. I'll provide a few examples to support my opinion.
First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
Second, we examine the role of unions in a labor rich market, such as now. Employers now have a lot of employees to select from, and they would like to hire more total workers which increases the efficiency of the firm but they can only hire at the marginal profit which is lower than the union mandated wage. In this case due to the high demands of the workers the firm is unable to hire otherwise out of work employees due to the high average cost and subsequent high marginal cost demanded by the union. The high marginal cost of the firm means less supply and higher prices, which inflates the price and decreases the output of the economy. In fact with the inflated prices and globalization it affects global prices which allows all competitors to raise prices, and in firms without unions those profits, due to the still labor rich market, will not transfer to the workers. The result is higher unemployment, higher prices, and in certain cases worse conditions for non-unionized workers.
The second case is why we generally see unions in unskilled industries. A union is in essence a collusion of workers working to promote their own interests and keep out competition. In economics collusion is always inefficient but sometimes necessary as the benefits it creates outweigh the costs.
Applied to the public sector unions become even more powerful and inefficient. Public jobs are highly inefficient because it is really hard to calculate their productivity and measure their worth. When you add unions the inefficiencies compound. This leads to government being one of the most inefficient type of organization we know of.
It is my opinion that unions should not be able to bargain with the employers. Employment agreements should be between the employee and the employer, it leads to the most efficient wages and benefits. Unions should serve as a lobbying organization for the problems workers face, and educating workers on market conditions so they can negotiate their own wages fairly. All worker rights resulted not because of individual unions but because of government regulation. Minimum wage, working hour regulations, working conditions, etc. are all the result of active oversight by the government, which as inefficient as it is, it is ideally unbiased, transparent, and accountable.
The best way to fight worker inequality is education, information, and worker awareness. I see a lot of misinformation regarding the principles of a free market, capitalism, and labor laws. With knowledge comes equality.
|
On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote: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. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy.
I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one.
We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society.
|
On March 09 2011 11:45 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:22 SharkSpider wrote: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. That's flat out false. If any of these companies could hire another worker, who, when all costs are allocated, adds an extra $1 to the company's net profit, they would do it. CEO's bonuses actually have literally nothing to do with this, because no matter how much a CEO makes, that cost is not allocated to a new hire. This is something you'd learn in a first-year economics course, so if you haven't taken one or don't know the basic supply and demand model, then you aren't really qualified to disagree.
Otherwise, if you do know what you're talking about and you're suggesting that companies can push down wages without losing their employees (remember that an organization can lose all of its employees if another one is hiring for more money) then you're suggesting that there's a supply overflow of labour. This means that the supply curve has shifted to the right. Either wages stay fixed and the new entrants to the labour market go unemployed, or wages go down and people looking for jobs find them. It's not zero-sum, though, because if the unions win and new entrants can't find jobs, the GDP stays the same, but if the wages lower, production is increased, and new entrants do find jobs, GDP increases.
|
On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote: First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH.
Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself?
|
On March 09 2011 12:00 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote: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. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy. I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one. We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society. With some things like oil, I agree, but the fact is that companies have tried being ethical and sustainable, and the problem is that prices are so high, it becomes a luxury for the rich. Can you afford to spend double on your shoes, or to only drink free-trade coffee? If you bought non-chemical toilet paper, ate vegetarian to preserve our farmland, ate only free-range eggs, bought electronics made in Japan or the US or Europe, etc. your standard of living would drop, and by a lot.
Show someone a picture of starving kids and sweat shops, and they will say "yes, I want this to end," but will they give up their savings, their ability to buy a nice house, their car, their TV, their morning coffee, just to save these people? If the answer is no, and it is, who is going to make that happen? I'd say it's being procrastinated because people are afraid of what would happen if things really did change like this. I sure as hell wouldn't like losing my internet, power, ability to fly to Europe and the Carribean, etc.
|
Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages.
|
On March 09 2011 12:12 Offhand wrote: Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages. Fixed economic demand is the same thing as overabundance of labour supply, which I've covered. The second you raise your wages after a good year, people are competing for your jobs, which drives the wages down over time.
|
On March 09 2011 12:11 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:00 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote: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. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy. I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one. We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society. With some things like oil, I agree, but the fact is that companies have tried being ethical and sustainable, and the problem is that prices are so high, it becomes a luxury for the rich. Can you afford to spend double on your shoes, or to only drink free-trade coffee? If you bought non-chemical toilet paper, ate vegetarian to preserve our farmland, ate only free-range eggs, bought electronics made in Japan or the US or Europe, etc. your standard of living would drop, and by a lot. Show someone a picture of starving kids and sweat shops, and they will say "yes, I want this to end," but will they give up their savings, their ability to buy a nice house, their car, their TV, their morning coffee, just to save these people? If the answer is no, and it is, who is going to make that happen? I'd say it's being procrastinated because people are afraid of what would happen if things really did change like this. I sure as hell wouldn't like losing my internet, power, ability to fly to Europe and the Carribean, etc.
These things are only affordable if you're a member of the upper class. Poor people don't shop at Luis Vinton or eat at Whole Foods. You can only afford these "guilt free" expensive purchases if you're a member of the elite, which precludes the majority of people.
This all supports my belief that we need to tax the fuck out of the rich. Wealth disparity in the US is ridiculous and the political systems in place do nothing but maintain the status quo.
On March 09 2011 12:15 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:12 Offhand wrote: Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages. Fixed economic demand is the same thing as overabundance of labour supply, which I've covered. The second you raise your wages after a good year, people are competing for your jobs, which drives the wages down over time.
This is only true in a no-growth economy (also the same as being not true).
|
On March 09 2011 12:10 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote: First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH. Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself?
Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. The excerpt you quoted refers to a labor scarce market, which in your case isn't. I also don't see how it applies.
I wouldn't work for $100/month and I doubt anyone I know would either. This is because I know I can get a better job that pays better. If I had a choice between not eating and working for $100/month then yes I would.
Simply stating that low wages exist and asking if I would like to do it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm sure the Indians working there would like to work for more money or be a CEO and live in a big house, but they can't because they don't have the skills or abilities to do it.
I'm sure you might have a valid opinion but I don't see one in this post or how it serves to further this discussion.
|
On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:15 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:12 Offhand wrote: Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages. Fixed economic demand is the same thing as overabundance of labour supply, which I've covered. The second you raise your wages after a good year, people are competing for your jobs, which drives the wages down over time. This is only true in a no-growth economy (also the same as being not true). I wasn't making the fixed-demand assumption, I was responding to someone who was doing so. I don't actually subscribe to the idea, because the truth is that it depends on how much people are making/how many people are employed and that gets complicated.
On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:11 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:00 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote: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. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy. I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one. We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society. With some things like oil, I agree, but the fact is that companies have tried being ethical and sustainable, and the problem is that prices are so high, it becomes a luxury for the rich. Can you afford to spend double on your shoes, or to only drink free-trade coffee? If you bought non-chemical toilet paper, ate vegetarian to preserve our farmland, ate only free-range eggs, bought electronics made in Japan or the US or Europe, etc. your standard of living would drop, and by a lot. Show someone a picture of starving kids and sweat shops, and they will say "yes, I want this to end," but will they give up their savings, their ability to buy a nice house, their car, their TV, their morning coffee, just to save these people? If the answer is no, and it is, who is going to make that happen? I'd say it's being procrastinated because people are afraid of what would happen if things really did change like this. I sure as hell wouldn't like losing my internet, power, ability to fly to Europe and the Carribean, etc. These things are only affordable if you're a member of the upper class. Poor people don't shop at Luis Vinton or eat at Whole Foods. You can only afford these "guilt free" expensive purchases if you're a member of the elite, which precludes the majority of people. This all supports my belief that we need to tax the fuck out of the rich. Wealth disparity in the US is ridiculous and the political systems in place do nothing but maintain the status quo. This is a valid viewpoint, but it comes with some speedbumps. First off, the US needs talent to be able to compete. It gets a talent inflow because of its good standards of living, tech companies, lowish taxes, etc. I've experienced this, as someone in math it's fully my intention to work in whatever country lets me earn the most and keep the most of what I earn, while also having a CPI that lets that wealth mean as much as it would elsewhere. Ie, I'll work for the highest bidder, on an international level, and so will many of the other actuaries, statisticians, economists, physicists, etc. who I study with. Taxing more will help in the short term, but it drives people away from your country in the long run.
|
On March 09 2011 11:18 Dogsi wrote: 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.
I sure wish we lived in a japanese society, with increasing hours and decreasing wages. Or china, where I can work for 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and risk dying in my 40s.
|
On March 09 2011 11:41 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:38 Vile Animus wrote: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.
Despite the fact that his numbers are wrong, this is exactly the case. Campaign finance reform needs to happen soon.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote: The debate with unions boils down to a few main points. Unions are economically inefficient, they create unemployment, (price/wage) inflation, and decreases productivity of workers. Unions do increase worker rights and conditions, they get better benefits, higher wages, and better work environment.
The question is whether the gain in worker benefits justifies the loss in efficiency.
It is my opinion that the gain in benefits does not justify the loss in efficiency. Especially in an economic recession. I'll provide a few examples to support my opinion.
First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
Second, we examine the role of unions in a labor rich market, such as now. Employers now have a lot of employees to select from, and they would like to hire more total workers which increases the efficiency of the firm but they can only hire at the marginal profit which is lower than the union mandated wage. In this case due to the high demands of the workers the firm is unable to hire otherwise out of work employees due to the high average cost and subsequent high marginal cost demanded by the union. The high marginal cost of the firm means less supply and higher prices, which inflates the price and decreases the output of the economy. In fact with the inflated prices and globalization it affects global prices which allows all competitors to raise prices, and in firms without unions those profits, due to the still labor rich market, will not transfer to the workers. The result is higher unemployment, higher prices, and in certain cases worse conditions for non-unionized workers.
The second case is why we generally see unions in unskilled industries. A union is in essence a collusion of workers working to promote their own interests and keep out competition. In economics collusion is always inefficient but sometimes necessary as the benefits it creates outweigh the costs.
Applied to the public sector unions become even more powerful and inefficient. Public jobs are highly inefficient because it is really hard to calculate their productivity and measure their worth. When you add unions the inefficiencies compound. This leads to government being one of the most inefficient type of organization we know of.
It is my opinion that unions should not be able to bargain with the employers. Employment agreements should be between the employee and the employer, it leads to the most efficient wages and benefits. Unions should serve as a lobbying organization for the problems workers face, and educating workers on market conditions so they can negotiate their own wages fairly. All worker rights resulted not because of individual unions but because of government regulation. Minimum wage, working hour regulations, working conditions, etc. are all the result of active oversight by the government, which as inefficient as it is, it is ideally unbiased, transparent, and accountable.
The best way to fight worker inequality is education, information, and worker awareness. I see a lot of misinformation regarding the principles of a free market, capitalism, and labor laws. With knowledge comes equality. Yes, we definitely need to protect business owners because they are getting fucking screwed right now.
Why don't you compare the education and opportunities of the wealthier people who own businesses versus their employees?
Totally fallacious post.
Yes, in a perfect world, each worker would contract with employers to provide services and the employers would never do anything to screw over their employees in self-interest. But, it doesn't work that way in the real world.
Your view point is that of the business owner, yet you try to present your argument as if it were for the common good.
As the private sector contracts, the government needs to expand to fill in the gaps. Is government perfect? No. But people rely on public services (hence their workers) to get by. Making those government jobs less attractive is only going to result in shittier people getting hired as the more talented workers go somewhere else.
|
They're very necessary. I live in North Carolina which is probably the most anti-union state in the country. I work at a grocery store and have for four years now. We used to let people hang up flyers and stuff for things like lost pets or community events or fund raisers for the local high schools or whatever. We even had a bulletin board to encourage this kind of thing because it was nice for people and it made sense, y'know? Two years ago our company suddenly adopted a policy that no one can hang any sort of flyer or whatever anywhere in our store. A woman wants to hang up something for a fashion show at a high school nearby? No you can't do that, fuck you. Some guy comes in with his two kids and asks if he can hang up a poster because their new puppy ran away? Sorry, can't.
Why can't we do these things? Because a few stores in the western part of the state tried to unionize and they put up information about it on the bulletin board we have. We have a huge posting in our break room that says very clearly that no talk of unions will be tolerated and then proceeds to explain how great our company is so we'll never need unions! At the start of 2010 our company stopped offering health insurance plans to part time workers, because they can.
In Charlotte, our state's largest city, only 3% of workers are unionized which is the lowest number in any city in America. Our state is one of only two states where public workers are prohibited by law from engaging in collective bargaining (AP article). Anti-unionism is rampant throughout the south and we have the poverty rates and low incomes to prove it.
My state, along with most states, have laws that make it possible for an employer to fire an employee for literally no reason whatsoever. Seriously, you don't even have to give a reason for why they're being terminated you can just do it. Oh and to top it off I can't think of a southern state that has it's own minimum wage, if it wasn't for the federal minimum wage I can't imagine myself being paid anymore than $5 an hour.
So while I can't speak for some states who maybe feel their unions aren't necessary anymore, living in a state that has never had much of a union presence I can tell you right now that hell yes unions are necessary in the modern world. Unless of course, you're already rich.
|
On March 09 2011 12:22 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:18 Dogsi wrote: 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. I sure wish we lived in a japanese society, with increasing hours and decreasing wages. Or china, where I can work for 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and risk dying in my 40s. I like how a lot of the hardcore "for union" people spout stuff that isn't relevant, and doesn't include all the facts if it is.
And btw, I can't think of the right word, but goods in Japan have been getting steadily cheaper for years. Wages falling at the same % as the price of goods are falling = same purchasing power. They can buy the exact same quantity of stuff as they could before.
And china isn't a developed country, so don't be retarded. Less developed countries have lower wages, period. It's like randomly saying, because Chile has a low wage, then America needs unions!
Think your argument through please.
|
On March 09 2011 12:23 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:41 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 09 2011 11:38 Vile Animus wrote: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. Despite the fact that his numbers are wrong, this is exactly the case. Campaign finance reform needs to happen soon. It's even worse with 527s and 501(c)3's. And since these organizations are spending money themselves, rather than donating it to candidates, they are essentially unchecked.
|
On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:11 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:00 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote: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. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy. I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one. We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society. With some things like oil, I agree, but the fact is that companies have tried being ethical and sustainable, and the problem is that prices are so high, it becomes a luxury for the rich. Can you afford to spend double on your shoes, or to only drink free-trade coffee? If you bought non-chemical toilet paper, ate vegetarian to preserve our farmland, ate only free-range eggs, bought electronics made in Japan or the US or Europe, etc. your standard of living would drop, and by a lot. Show someone a picture of starving kids and sweat shops, and they will say "yes, I want this to end," but will they give up their savings, their ability to buy a nice house, their car, their TV, their morning coffee, just to save these people? If the answer is no, and it is, who is going to make that happen? I'd say it's being procrastinated because people are afraid of what would happen if things really did change like this. I sure as hell wouldn't like losing my internet, power, ability to fly to Europe and the Carribean, etc. These things are only affordable if you're a member of the upper class. Poor people don't shop at Luis Vinton or eat at Whole Foods. You can only afford these "guilt free" expensive purchases if you're a member of the elite, which precludes the majority of people. This all supports my belief that we need to tax the fuck out of the rich. Wealth disparity in the US is ridiculous and the political systems in place do nothing but maintain the status quo.
That only serves to prove his point. Only the rich can afford to be "morally" righteous in their economic decisions. The next step is to force the rich who have worked for their money to turn around and support the rest of the country? Would you want to work hard and start a successful business only to have 99% of it taken away and spent on the drug-addicts on the street or the gangs roaming the ghettos? Social welfare doesn't fix the problem and wealth redistribution is theft with a prettier name.
On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:15 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:12 Offhand wrote: Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages. Fixed economic demand is the same thing as overabundance of labour supply, which I've covered. The second you raise your wages after a good year, people are competing for your jobs, which drives the wages down over time. This is only true in a no-growth economy (also the same as being not true).
First, I'd like to point out you've assumed a no-growth economy. Fixed supply = fixed demand.
Second, in a perfectly free market profits would be near zero. Competition between firms would drive down prices till they reached costs, with free labor market determining the wage.
So your argument of firms controlling wages is a fallacy. Wages are determined by the labor market not by the firm. Unless the labor market isn't free, like when there's unions, and minimum wage, and salary caps.
|
On March 09 2011 12:39 Shanlan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 12:11 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:00 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote: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. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy. I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one. We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society. With some things like oil, I agree, but the fact is that companies have tried being ethical and sustainable, and the problem is that prices are so high, it becomes a luxury for the rich. Can you afford to spend double on your shoes, or to only drink free-trade coffee? If you bought non-chemical toilet paper, ate vegetarian to preserve our farmland, ate only free-range eggs, bought electronics made in Japan or the US or Europe, etc. your standard of living would drop, and by a lot. Show someone a picture of starving kids and sweat shops, and they will say "yes, I want this to end," but will they give up their savings, their ability to buy a nice house, their car, their TV, their morning coffee, just to save these people? If the answer is no, and it is, who is going to make that happen? I'd say it's being procrastinated because people are afraid of what would happen if things really did change like this. I sure as hell wouldn't like losing my internet, power, ability to fly to Europe and the Carribean, etc. These things are only affordable if you're a member of the upper class. Poor people don't shop at Luis Vinton or eat at Whole Foods. You can only afford these "guilt free" expensive purchases if you're a member of the elite, which precludes the majority of people. This all supports my belief that we need to tax the fuck out of the rich. Wealth disparity in the US is ridiculous and the political systems in place do nothing but maintain the status quo. That only serves to prove his point. Only the rich can afford to be "morally" righteous in their economic decisions. The next step is to force the rich who have worked for their money to turn around and support the rest of the country? Would you want to work hard and start a successful business only to have 99% of it taken away and spent on the drug-addicts on the street or the gangs roaming the ghettos? Social welfare doesn't fix the problem and wealth redistribution is theft with a prettier name. Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 12:15 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:12 Offhand wrote: Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages. Fixed economic demand is the same thing as overabundance of labour supply, which I've covered. The second you raise your wages after a good year, people are competing for your jobs, which drives the wages down over time. This is only true in a no-growth economy (also the same as being not true). First, I'd like to point out you've assumed a no-growth economy. Fixed supply = fixed demand. Second, in a perfectly free market profits would be near zero. Competition between firms would drive down prices till they reached costs, with free labor market determining the wage. So your argument of firms controlling wages is a fallacy. Wages are determined by the labor market not by the firm. Unless the labor market isn't free, like when there's unions, and minimum wage, and salary caps. Except that in the US, the rich hardly pay any taxes in proportion to what they make as compared to the income brackets below them. So, please stop with your neo-conservative bullshit. What you're saying isn't reality.
We need to help everyone succeed, not just let people fend for themselves because assholes like you don't care about anyone else except yourself and people who think like you.
Capitalism should still be used to determine the distribution of resources, but what the US does to its poorest people is criminal. Yet, you're steamed because you have to pay taxes. Look, if you want to make the world a better place, it doesn't involve fucking over a group of people because you can.
|
On March 09 2011 12:36 ThaZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:22 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 11:18 Dogsi wrote: 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. I sure wish we lived in a japanese society, with increasing hours and decreasing wages. Or china, where I can work for 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and risk dying in my 40s. I like how a lot of the hardcore "for union" people spout stuff that isn't relevant, and doesn't include all the facts if it is. And btw, I can't think of the right word, but goods in Japan have been getting steadily cheaper for years. Wages falling at the same % as the price of goods are falling = same purchasing power. They can buy the exact same quantity of stuff as they could before. And china isn't a developed country, so don't be retarded. Less developed countries have lower wages, period. It's like randomly saying, because Chile has a low wage, then America needs unions! Think your argument through please.
Lower wages+low cost of goods(china)=same purchasing power.
Don't contradict your own arguments and then call me retarded.
Although I never said anything about wages in china anyways. I mentioned working conditions/hours.
|
On March 09 2011 12:39 Shanlan wrote: Second, in a perfectly free market profits would be near zero. Competition between firms would drive down prices till they reached costs, with free labor market determining the wage.
So your argument of firms controlling wages is a fallacy. Wages are determined by the labor market not by the firm. Unless the labor market isn't free, like when there's unions, and minimum wage, and salary caps. Perfect competition assumes unlimited resources, an infinite number of buyers and sellers, perfect information, no transaction costs, indistinguishable products, no economies of scale, perfect labor and capital mobility, as well as free entry and exit. It's a nice simplification to get people started, but ultimately it's like modeling a horse with a massless, frictionless sphere.
Most of our economic sectors tend to mirror monopolistic competition or oligopoly. Also information asymmetry is very high; firms have access to vastly more information than either their workers or their consumers.
Indeed the labor market without unions fall closer to the category of oligopsony or, rarely, monopsony (some public sector jobs may fit here). Because of this, firms are able to be price setters rather than price takers.
|
It's hard for me to not side with unions who are often fighting for better wages and job security when there people in the world getting million dollar bonuses yet other people still remain poor and dieing. Not only in their home country but in countries of the world. This world is passed Kings and Queens.
|
On March 09 2011 12:46 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:36 ThaZenith wrote:On March 09 2011 12:22 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 11:18 Dogsi wrote: 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. I sure wish we lived in a japanese society, with increasing hours and decreasing wages. Or china, where I can work for 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and risk dying in my 40s. I like how a lot of the hardcore "for union" people spout stuff that isn't relevant, and doesn't include all the facts if it is. And btw, I can't think of the right word, but goods in Japan have been getting steadily cheaper for years. Wages falling at the same % as the price of goods are falling = same purchasing power. They can buy the exact same quantity of stuff as they could before. And china isn't a developed country, so don't be retarded. Less developed countries have lower wages, period. It's like randomly saying, because Chile has a low wage, then America needs unions! Think your argument through please. Lower wages+low cost of goods(china)=same purchasing power. Don't contradict your own arguments and then call me retarded. Although I never said anything about wages in china anyways. I mentioned working conditions/hours.
When wages decrease in proportion to prices, like japan, purchasing power stays the same.
When wages are low and prices are low, there's no changing of anything so obviously purchasing power stays the same. There's no implied real value of purchasing power by saying "low". (no idea what you were arguing)
And your comment about hours working may have been true 20 years ago, but china is rapidly becoming more developed. Hundreds of millions pulled out of poverty in the last decade(s) there. With development comes better working conditions.
None of what you're pointing out relates to unions either. That's why I implied your lower intelligence, not because of the points themselves. Stay on topic? o.o
|
On March 09 2011 12:28 A3iL3r0n wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote: The debate with unions boils down to a few main points. Unions are economically inefficient, they create unemployment, (price/wage) inflation, and decreases productivity of workers. Unions do increase worker rights and conditions, they get better benefits, higher wages, and better work environment.
The question is whether the gain in worker benefits justifies the loss in efficiency.
It is my opinion that the gain in benefits does not justify the loss in efficiency. Especially in an economic recession. I'll provide a few examples to support my opinion.
First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
Second, we examine the role of unions in a labor rich market, such as now. Employers now have a lot of employees to select from, and they would like to hire more total workers which increases the efficiency of the firm but they can only hire at the marginal profit which is lower than the union mandated wage. In this case due to the high demands of the workers the firm is unable to hire otherwise out of work employees due to the high average cost and subsequent high marginal cost demanded by the union. The high marginal cost of the firm means less supply and higher prices, which inflates the price and decreases the output of the economy. In fact with the inflated prices and globalization it affects global prices which allows all competitors to raise prices, and in firms without unions those profits, due to the still labor rich market, will not transfer to the workers. The result is higher unemployment, higher prices, and in certain cases worse conditions for non-unionized workers.
The second case is why we generally see unions in unskilled industries. A union is in essence a collusion of workers working to promote their own interests and keep out competition. In economics collusion is always inefficient but sometimes necessary as the benefits it creates outweigh the costs.
Applied to the public sector unions become even more powerful and inefficient. Public jobs are highly inefficient because it is really hard to calculate their productivity and measure their worth. When you add unions the inefficiencies compound. This leads to government being one of the most inefficient type of organization we know of.
It is my opinion that unions should not be able to bargain with the employers. Employment agreements should be between the employee and the employer, it leads to the most efficient wages and benefits. Unions should serve as a lobbying organization for the problems workers face, and educating workers on market conditions so they can negotiate their own wages fairly. All worker rights resulted not because of individual unions but because of government regulation. Minimum wage, working hour regulations, working conditions, etc. are all the result of active oversight by the government, which as inefficient as it is, it is ideally unbiased, transparent, and accountable.
The best way to fight worker inequality is education, information, and worker awareness. I see a lot of misinformation regarding the principles of a free market, capitalism, and labor laws. With knowledge comes equality. Yes, we definitely need to protect business owners because they are getting fucking screwed right now. Why don't you compare the education and opportunities of the wealthier people who own businesses versus their employees? Totally fallacious post. Yes, in a perfect world, each worker would contract with employers to provide services and the employers would never do anything to screw over their employees in self-interest. But, it doesn't work that way in the real world. Your view point is that of the business owner, yet you try to present your argument as if it were for the common good. As the private sector contracts, the government needs to expand to fill in the gaps. Is government perfect? No. But people rely on public services (hence their workers) to get by. Making those government jobs less attractive is only going to result in shittier people getting hired as the more talented workers go somewhere else.
Business owners don't suffer as much from unions as does the public. They'll still earn profits and make a living, albeit less, but the public will receive inflated goods, less of it, and contend with a higher unemployment rate.
Education is based on merit, there's no obstacle for anyone to pursue education than their own abilities.
If the employee doesn't like the terms of the contract they can turn it down. You're saying workers are entitled to a certain level of living for just being willing to work, and that is arrogant and pompous thinking.
As the private sector contracts the government sector needs to contract too, where do you think the funding comes from? If there are less people working then there's less taxes, if there's less taxes then less people could/should work for the government. Unless you're in favor of expanding our public debt even further.
People don't work for the government because it pays well, they never will. The earning opportunity in the private sector is much higher. People work for the government because it is stable and has a higher purpose. Unions also oppose rewarding talent, they ask that all members are treated based on seniority not ability. So that brand-new teacher who was able to get the students to want to learn will still get paid less than the old teacher who hands out worksheets so he can take a nap.
Unions are a roadblock in the way of a free labor market, and they always will be. The question is do they generate more benefit to workers than they do harm to society?
Specifically in the case of public workers, I say no. The barrier to entry of new talent and the quagmire of old inefficient workers prevents progress in some of the most important industries.
|
Unions are nothing more than labor-side monopolies. If we recognize the harmful affects of monopolies relative to a free market on the business-side, why do we hold a double standard?
Exploiting an advantaged position in order to price-gouge: bad when business does it, good when labor does it?
|
On March 09 2011 12:22 SharkSpider wrote: This is a valid viewpoint, but it comes with some speedbumps. First off, the US needs talent to be able to compete. It gets a talent inflow because of its good standards of living, tech companies, lowish taxes, etc. I've experienced this, as someone in math it's fully my intention to work in whatever country lets me earn the most and keep the most of what I earn, while also having a CPI that lets that wealth mean as much as it would elsewhere. Ie, I'll work for the highest bidder, on an international level, and so will many of the other actuaries, statisticians, economists, physicists, etc. who I study with. Taxing more will help in the short term, but it drives people away from your country in the long run.
The poverty line for an individual living in the continental US is $10,890 as of 2010. This is about what you make working full time at McDonalds.
An Indian with a BS in CS can expect to earn anywhere from $10k-20k depending on their experience. This is upper middle class for India. For reference, a CS major fresh out of college in the US can expect to make $30k.
You must admit, there's no reason to hire anyone in a first world country if the job can be outsourced. Should labor in the US be restricted to jobs that only require a physical presence in the US? Under the current conditions and your belief that people should always work for what the lowest bidder is willing to do, why wouldn't they?
+ Show Spoiler +Mind you, this whole system will go tits up when peak oil is actually realized. The main reason outsourcing works is that the US constantly strives to keep transportation costs as low as possible via international diplomacy, wars, etc. The US' chief export is transportation after all.
|
On March 09 2011 11:49 RedBarchetta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 07:48 etherwar wrote:On March 09 2011 05:43 DoubleReed wrote: 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. The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. The WI Governor is proposing that they ONLY be able to collectively bargain for their salary, and only up to the cost of living index. This has turned into an all-out flame war/pissing contest from both sides. And make no mistake, NEITHER side is willing to budge. What you are dealing with in the Wisconsin teacher's union situation is a complete and utter spectacle drummed up by Democrats and the WI teacher's union. It's specifically designed to drum up this stupid argument about labor and corporate rights. That helps you to fit into one "side" so that you may in turn denounce the other "side". It's all about WI teachers getting as much as they possibly can on the public dime. Teacher's unions are absolutely bad for the taxpayers that fund their salaries and for the students that get drug into these arguments and indoctrinated by their teachers. The Teacher's union protects good and bad teachers alike, and makes firing a teacher pretty damn hard. They're also in bed with the Democrat political organization, which capitulates to the union's wants because of the associated campaign donations. The Democrats (or Liberals, choose your flavor) would love to have you believe that this is a Republican assault on unions (and by extension, the common man), and then they'll turn around and donate huge money to the next Democrat governor (and legislators). Next, those elected officials take part in the renegotiation of the union contracts and somehow "find it in the budget" to sweeten their deal a little bit. It's been going on in Wisconsin for YEARS... and the previous outgoing WI Governor Doyle actually rushed through passing SIX (6) separate public union contracts in December of 2010 before the current Gov. Walker could take office, despite requests from Gov. Walker to wait for him (this is why he's pissed and won't budge, right or wrong). http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/11/22/state_democrats_rush.phpAn applicable approach to the subject of Wisconsin teachers being "underpaid", a common misconception brandied by the Unions: http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdfIt seems like we want to somehow link what we pay teachers, or what we spend on education, directly to how much achievement we get from students, while there are just too many other factors in play. Take a look at the census data from 2008 on how much we spend per pupil by state. ( http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf ) [page 14] I can assure you that while, DC tends to spend an enormous amount on their public education systems, it's continually labeled as one of the worst school systems in the country. Don't even get me started about the bullshit legislators that ran from the state to prevent the due course of lawmaking, how is that for some childish shit. In fact, they ALL deserve a giant FUCK YOU AND GROW UP from every last one of us. Politics, you gotta laugh at it because it keeps you from crying. By the way, I only think unions are appropriate for low-wage, low-skilled jobs. But there they serve a definite and beneficial purpose that is not fundamentally slanted against the public interest. Sorry for the lengthy post, but all the uneducated crap I read today made me want to lay it all down on the table. Wow.... First of all, this is a direct assault on individual liberties. We could talk all day about whether or not public schooling/teachers, etc are good things but that would not affect this bill in any way. The primary issue with the legislation is that it is an attempt to strip the individual off the basic right to organize for a common interest.
Direct assault on individual liberties? You act like this is allowed all over the country. In fact, it's not. Lots of states don't allow their public employee unions the powers the WI one currently has. In fact, it's super rare to have a deal as sweet as those guys have, public or private sector.
As for Gov Doyle rushing through those bills...was he wrong? Yes. But could you expect any better from Walker? No. Was Walker just playing politics when he asked for them to be delayed? Yes
I'm not even taking sides (except against public unions which I explain in my post before)... I'm just trying to distill the predominantly Democratic talking points that have been offered here. There are two sides to every coin. I agree Walker was in the wrong, but you don't hear the other half of the story there either... Walker is unreasonable. Doyle was unreasonable. You hear about the former and not the latter.
Nobody believes the teachers are underpaid--you will find a good portion of the people against this bill think teachers do get paid too much
People have definitely offered the argument that teachers are underpaid, and that their median salary has decreased over the last 4-5 years (which is true), but their benefits have gotten better.
I'm not even against teachers earning more. I have high school teacher friends and I know how hard they work. I'm just against them having the right to organize against the state for more taxpayer dollars. Unions don't do as good a job protecting good teachers as they do bad ones.
Your argument about DC is irrelevant
Just pointing out that spending on education is not directly relevant to the education results achieved
Yeah, shame on those legislators for obstructing an unjust law that Walker is trying to force through without sufficient time for public discussion.
Yeah, shame on every Democrat or Republican who abandons his or her post in order to obstruct the business of the political body they were elected to represent. So you think it woulda been ok for Republicans to leave the country to prevent quorum during the health care package debate? (Talk about forcing through without sufficient time for public discussion)
Are you OK when Republicans prevent cloture in the US Senate and thus obstruct the legislative process?
I'm not ok with any of that bs. That extremist crap has got to go if we're ever going to get this country back on the right track imo
The WI Public Unions may be OP, but that does not in any way justify this sharp curtailing of basic liberties. Using "the public interest" as an excuse to do this is all fun and games until the government is pointing the barrel at you.
Wow? I think the bill is extreme myself, but I definitely think this will have a negligible effect on anyone's "basic liberties"... unless you consider the cushy union deal that WI teachers currently have a basic civil liberty
|
On March 09 2011 12:58 Magrath wrote: It's hard for me to not side with unions who are often fighting for better wages and job security when there people in the world getting million dollar bonuses yet other people still remain poor and dieing. Not only in their home country but in countries of the world. This world is passed Kings and Queens. 1) Do you really think anyone in public primary and secondary education is getting paid millions of dollars?
2) If you own a business you can pay yourself and your employees whatever you want. If you pay them too much, you'll lose money. If you don't pay them enough, another company will steal them from you by offering better pay/benefits.
|
On March 09 2011 13:00 ThaZenith wrote:
When wages decrease in proportion to prices, like japan, purchasing power stays the same.
When wages are low and prices are low, there's no changing of anything so obviously purchasing power stays the same. There's no implied real value of purchasing power by saying "low". (no idea what you were arguing)
I have the same question for you, given I never mentioned wages in china, you just seemed to bring it up, so I too made a non-sequitur
On March 09 2011 13:00 ThaZenith wrote: And your comment about hours working may have been true 20 years ago, but china is rapidly becoming more developed. Hundreds of millions pulled out of poverty in the last decade(s) there. With development comes better working conditions.
Why even discuss this with you when you deny reality so completely? Working conditions in china are less than ideal, empirical fact.
On March 09 2011 13:00 ThaZenith wrote: None of what you're pointing out relates to unions either. That's why I implied your lower intelligence, not because of the points themselves. Stay on topic? o.o
Well, it actually does, in relation to the original comment I made that you decided to take and run with about japanese purchasing power, etc. Perhaps you should worry about mannering up instead of back seat moderating?
Don't worry, I don't require a response
|
On March 09 2011 12:45 A3iL3r0n wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:39 Shanlan wrote:On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 12:11 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:00 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote: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. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy. I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one. We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society. With some things like oil, I agree, but the fact is that companies have tried being ethical and sustainable, and the problem is that prices are so high, it becomes a luxury for the rich. Can you afford to spend double on your shoes, or to only drink free-trade coffee? If you bought non-chemical toilet paper, ate vegetarian to preserve our farmland, ate only free-range eggs, bought electronics made in Japan or the US or Europe, etc. your standard of living would drop, and by a lot. Show someone a picture of starving kids and sweat shops, and they will say "yes, I want this to end," but will they give up their savings, their ability to buy a nice house, their car, their TV, their morning coffee, just to save these people? If the answer is no, and it is, who is going to make that happen? I'd say it's being procrastinated because people are afraid of what would happen if things really did change like this. I sure as hell wouldn't like losing my internet, power, ability to fly to Europe and the Carribean, etc. These things are only affordable if you're a member of the upper class. Poor people don't shop at Luis Vinton or eat at Whole Foods. You can only afford these "guilt free" expensive purchases if you're a member of the elite, which precludes the majority of people. This all supports my belief that we need to tax the fuck out of the rich. Wealth disparity in the US is ridiculous and the political systems in place do nothing but maintain the status quo. That only serves to prove his point. Only the rich can afford to be "morally" righteous in their economic decisions. The next step is to force the rich who have worked for their money to turn around and support the rest of the country? Would you want to work hard and start a successful business only to have 99% of it taken away and spent on the drug-addicts on the street or the gangs roaming the ghettos? Social welfare doesn't fix the problem and wealth redistribution is theft with a prettier name. On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 12:15 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:12 Offhand wrote: Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages. Fixed economic demand is the same thing as overabundance of labour supply, which I've covered. The second you raise your wages after a good year, people are competing for your jobs, which drives the wages down over time. This is only true in a no-growth economy (also the same as being not true). First, I'd like to point out you've assumed a no-growth economy. Fixed supply = fixed demand. Second, in a perfectly free market profits would be near zero. Competition between firms would drive down prices till they reached costs, with free labor market determining the wage. So your argument of firms controlling wages is a fallacy. Wages are determined by the labor market not by the firm. Unless the labor market isn't free, like when there's unions, and minimum wage, and salary caps. Except that in the US, the rich hardly pay any taxes in proportion to what they make as compared to the income brackets below them. So, please stop with your neo-conservative bullshit. What you're saying isn't reality. We need to help everyone succeed, not just let people fend for themselves because assholes like you don't care about anyone else except yourself and people who think like you. Capitalism should still be used to determine the distribution of resources, but what the US does to its poorest people is criminal. Yet, you're steamed because you have to pay taxes. Look, if you want to make the world a better place, it doesn't involve fucking over a group of people because you can.
Tax brackets are proportional by definition, 40k of 100k is the same proportion as 120k of 300k. The end sum is the main difference. What you're suggesting is, no matter how hard you work you'll make the same amount of money.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.
I don't see how encouraging people to become successful "fucks over" the rest, when successful businesses offer more jobs and better wages.
Lastly, ad hominem arguments server no purpose in an academic debate. Also I'm a poor student who gets tax refunds because I can't even qualify for the lowest tax bracket. But I don't think it's fair for me to take other people's hard earned money just because I don't make as much.
|
On March 09 2011 12:20 Shanlan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:10 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote: First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH. Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself? Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. The excerpt you quoted refers to a labor scarce market, which in your case isn't. I also don't see how it applies. I wouldn't work for $100/month and I doubt anyone I know would either. This is because I know I can get a better job that pays better. If I had a choice between not eating and working for $100/month then yes I would.Simply stating that low wages exist and asking if I would like to do it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm sure the Indians working there would like to work for more money or be a CEO and live in a big house, but they can't because they don't have the skills or abilities to do it. I'm sure you might have a valid opinion but I don't see one in this post or how it serves to further this discussion.
That's the point. You yourself aren't willing to work for US$100 a month, and i'm pretty sure the guy who hired those indians isn't willing to do the same either, but for some reason you think it's ok for these indians to do the low-pay hard -labor job that you or even anybody you know isnt willing to do. But just because those indians are so desperate that they are willing to work for US$100 a month, doesn't mean that i should take advantage of them. JUST BECAUSE I CAN, DOESN'T MEAN I SHOULD.
As a socially responsible employer, if i wanted to hire them, I should pay them the proper salary and give them the proper benefits, REGARDLESS of what they is willing to sell himself for.
|
On March 09 2011 12:56 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:39 Shanlan wrote: Second, in a perfectly free market profits would be near zero. Competition between firms would drive down prices till they reached costs, with free labor market determining the wage.
So your argument of firms controlling wages is a fallacy. Wages are determined by the labor market not by the firm. Unless the labor market isn't free, like when there's unions, and minimum wage, and salary caps. Perfect competition assumes unlimited resources, an infinite number of buyers and sellers, perfect information, no transaction costs, indistinguishable products, no economies of scale, perfect labor and capital mobility, as well as free entry and exit. It's a nice simplification to get people started, but ultimately it's like modeling a horse with a massless, frictionless sphere. Most of our economic sectors tend to mirror monopolistic competition or oligopoly. Also information asymmetry is very high; firms have access to vastly more information than either their workers or their consumers. Indeed the labor market without unions fall closer to the category of oligopsony or, rarely, monopsony (some public sector jobs may fit here). Because of this, firms are able to be price setters rather than price takers.
Good points, but I think the main cause stems from labor surplus, which makes firms price setters. There weren't any of these problems with unions when the economy was expanding and there was a labor shortage.
That's why I advocate for unions to be a lobbying group that promotes education, combating information asymmetry, and lobbies for market reforms. I believe in solutions that drive towards a more ideal free market vs ad hoc solutions that don't work in the long term.
|
On March 09 2011 13:12 pfods wrote:Don't worry, I don't require a response Thank god. I shouldn't have bothered correcting the guy with no relevant point anyway. If you want me to explain more fully, pm me and I will.
On March 09 2011 13:11 trainRiderJ wrote: 2) If you own a business you can pay yourself and your employees whatever you want. If you pay them too much, you'll lose money. If you don't pay them enough, another company will steal them from you by offering better pay/benefits. This is basically the key. Even without unions, there's incentive to offer a higher wage to get the best workers, and thus be more efficient/profit more. Unions aren't "necessary", but I can see why people want them. Wages won't magically drop to $3/hour without them.
|
On March 09 2011 13:07 jdseemoreglass wrote: Unions are nothing more than labor-side monopolies. If we recognize the harmful affects of monopolies relative to a free market on the business-side, why do we hold a double standard?
Exploiting an advantaged position in order to price-gouge: bad when business does it, good when labor does it? Indeed we might get the best results if both corporations and unions did not exist. I'd rather see multiple unions in each sector that roughly equal the number of major firms competing in that sector. I forget the economic term for this estimate (effective firms competing, which takes into account the range over which smaller firms compete)... but like, if there are 3 major American auto manufacturers it would be nice if there were 3 American autoworker unions. This is why it's an ugly solution. A labor monopoly going against a small number of hiring firms is probably more fair than a perfect supply of labor going against a small number of firms, although neither is truly balanced.
Over the last 50-60 years, unionization rates in the United States have plummeted. During the same time, our nation's growth in GDP per capita has slowed, unemployment has increased, and our Gini coefficient (a measure of wealth inequality) has grown substantially - well beyond even what right-leaning economists were arguing for 20 years ago.
And what benefits have we seen in return? Are our products more competitive overseas than they were decades ago? Has inflation fallen in the long run?
Obviously economies are vastly complex systems and changes in the domestic labor market account for only part of the changes. (the trend for outsourcing is killing American labor) But I don't think we've gotten anything in return for the worsening of our labor markets; we need to rethink the policies we've changed to allow this to occur.
|
On March 09 2011 04:16 SharkSpider wrote: The problem, now, is that Unions have legal and contractual rights in most developed countries. This gives them the power to deny jobs to people who would accept them for less pay, who are often the people who need them the most. It's no longer a case of Unions working against the tyranny of business for the sake of the working man, it's a case of inside-groups working for their own self-interest at the expense of the outside-group. (Economically, higher wages plus termination restrictions force the net up, at the expense of higher total employment.)
Without unions, you get more short-term employment, better international competition, less oursourcing leading to long-term employment, and wages distributed among the workforce, albeit at a lower level. With unions, short-term unemployment increases, jobs are outsourced over time for countries with looser labour laws, companies are less profitable so international investors withdraw capital from the country, and income is concentrated on a smaller group of the workforce who have no defining characteristics other than seniority in an organization.
This is basically a key example of why supply-limiting wealth distribution is a bad idea. Cut union power, increase tax on profits and give that to the population in forms of infrastructure. For clarification on why this is better, the key is the marginal utility of a worker. Taxes will not bring the "worth" of hiring an extra worker below zero if it's not negative already. Upward pressure on wages will bring the worth of hiring an extra worker below zero. People are accusing businesspeople of being greedy, but any businessperson will hire a worker who costs less than the product he creates, in theory even if the difference is a dollar or two. The real, sickening greed is people who would both lower the money the government gets in taxes and put someone else out a job just for a wage increase that economics doesn't call for.
You need to be repeated. Unions create unemployment. They are a part of the HAVES and there are millions of HAVE NOTS who would take half of what they make to have a job.
|
On March 09 2011 13:22 Shanlan wrote: Good points, but I think the main cause stems from labor surplus, which makes firms price setters. There weren't any of these problems with unions when the economy was expanding and there was a labor shortage.
That's why I advocate for unions to be a lobbying group that promotes education, combating information asymmetry, and lobbies for market reforms. I believe in solutions that drive towards a more ideal free market vs ad hoc solutions that don't work in the long term. The 90s/tech boom were a nice time for most people indeed
And yes, unions could do a lot more to work on educating/improving their members as more skilled workers (that'd also give people more incentive to join). In many ways, unions have fought hard on a few issues that affect the workforce while completely ignoring others. A professor named Barry Pump pointed this out in contrasting state unionization vs state tax regressiveness and vs state welfare spending - his conclusion being that unions haven't done a good job making state/local taxes more fair for the lower class, but they may have helped people earn wages that get them off of welfare.
But I think, especially in sectors where firms are consolidating, some form of collective bargaining is probably a necessity.
|
On March 09 2011 13:24 ThaZenith wrote:Thank god. I shouldn't have bothered correcting the guy with no relevant point anyway. If you want me to explain more fully, pm me and I will. Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 13:11 trainRiderJ wrote: 2) If you own a business you can pay yourself and your employees whatever you want. If you pay them too much, you'll lose money. If you don't pay them enough, another company will steal them from you by offering better pay/benefits. This is basically the key. Even without unions, there's incentive to offer a higher wage to get the best workers, and thus be more efficient/profit more. Unions aren't "necessary", but I can see why people want them. Wages won't magically drop to $3/hour without them.
That kind of incentive only happens in the top brass of corporations, where companies would pay top dollar to have the right management team with the right skills. It rarely happens within the general working class of factory workers, construction workers, food service, etc.
Unions aren't necessary? Wages wont magically drop to $3/hour without unions? Lol, do some research on working condiitons in India and China. Or go back to your history books and read about the Industrial Revolution. Or better yet just wiki 'LAISSEZ FFAIRE'.
|
On March 09 2011 13:34 TributeBoxer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:16 SharkSpider wrote: The problem, now, is that Unions have legal and contractual rights in most developed countries. This gives them the power to deny jobs to people who would accept them for less pay, who are often the people who need them the most. It's no longer a case of Unions working against the tyranny of business for the sake of the working man, it's a case of inside-groups working for their own self-interest at the expense of the outside-group. (Economically, higher wages plus termination restrictions force the net up, at the expense of higher total employment.)
Without unions, you get more short-term employment, better international competition, less oursourcing leading to long-term employment, and wages distributed among the workforce, albeit at a lower level. With unions, short-term unemployment increases, jobs are outsourced over time for countries with looser labour laws, companies are less profitable so international investors withdraw capital from the country, and income is concentrated on a smaller group of the workforce who have no defining characteristics other than seniority in an organization.
This is basically a key example of why supply-limiting wealth distribution is a bad idea. Cut union power, increase tax on profits and give that to the population in forms of infrastructure. For clarification on why this is better, the key is the marginal utility of a worker. Taxes will not bring the "worth" of hiring an extra worker below zero if it's not negative already. Upward pressure on wages will bring the worth of hiring an extra worker below zero. People are accusing businesspeople of being greedy, but any businessperson will hire a worker who costs less than the product he creates, in theory even if the difference is a dollar or two. The real, sickening greed is people who would both lower the money the government gets in taxes and put someone else out a job just for a wage increase that economics doesn't call for. You need to be repeated. Unions create unemployment. They are a part of the HAVES and there are millions of HAVE NOTS who would take half of what they make to have a job.
what about companies that close branches/factories/etc or lay off people, but increase the salary/bonuses of their executives?
Unions may prevent anti-unionists from joining a job, but the good they provide far outweighs the bad. The same cannot be said for greedy corporations.
|
On March 09 2011 13:20 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:20 Shanlan wrote:On March 09 2011 12:10 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote: First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH. Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself? Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. The excerpt you quoted refers to a labor scarce market, which in your case isn't. I also don't see how it applies. I wouldn't work for $100/month and I doubt anyone I know would either. This is because I know I can get a better job that pays better. If I had a choice between not eating and working for $100/month then yes I would.Simply stating that low wages exist and asking if I would like to do it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm sure the Indians working there would like to work for more money or be a CEO and live in a big house, but they can't because they don't have the skills or abilities to do it. I'm sure you might have a valid opinion but I don't see one in this post or how it serves to further this discussion. That's the point. You yourself aren't willing to work for US$100 a month, and i'm pretty sure the guy who hired those indians isn't willing to do the same either, but for some reason you think it's ok for these indians to do the low-pay hard -labor job that you or even anybody you know is willing to do. But just because those indians are so desperate that they are willing to work for US$100 a month, doesn't mean that i should take advantage of them. JUST BECAUSE I CAN, DOESN'T MEAN I SHOULD. As a socially responsible employer, if i wanted to hire them, I should pay them the proper salary and give them the proper benefits, REGARDLESS of what he is willing to sell himself for.
You're assuming the employer can afford to pay them more. If the employer raises wages then he'll have to raise prices, which then makes the wage raise meaningless if we assume the price increase to affect the whole economy.
If the employer could afford to pay the workers more and keep the same price then it is the duty of the worker to ask for a higher wage, or find a job where he'll get paid more, ie another car wash where theoretically they could pay him more based on his performance. Alternatively, the worker can open his own car wash and charge a lower price and still earn a higher "wage".
You're example is really complicated because of the many factors affecting the wage and profits. The legality of the workers, and the competition of employers. These factors can force your example to be a non-ideal market which is inefficient and does not generate the most utility.
You're arguments are not ground in economic principles. If it was up to me I would pay everyone millions of dollars, but we live in a world of limited resources and we need a way to distribute it. I believe a free market is the most efficient way of doing it. Perhaps you have a better way, in which case I would love to hear it.
|
On March 09 2011 13:37 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 13:22 Shanlan wrote: Good points, but I think the main cause stems from labor surplus, which makes firms price setters. There weren't any of these problems with unions when the economy was expanding and there was a labor shortage.
That's why I advocate for unions to be a lobbying group that promotes education, combating information asymmetry, and lobbies for market reforms. I believe in solutions that drive towards a more ideal free market vs ad hoc solutions that don't work in the long term. The 90s/tech boom were a nice time for most people indeed And yes, unions could do a lot more to work on educating/improving their members as more skilled workers (that'd also give people more incentive to join). In many ways, unions have fought hard on a few issues that affect the workforce while completely ignoring others. A professor named Barry Pump pointed this out in contrasting state unionization vs state tax regressiveness and vs state welfare spending - his conclusion being that unions haven't done a good job making state/local taxes more fair for the lower class, but they may have helped people earn wages that get them off of welfare. But I think, especially in sectors where firms are consolidating, some form of collective bargaining is probably a necessity.
I agree, unions do act as a counter to monopolistic markets, but I think the goal there is to break up the monopoly not create another one. I have said before that unions do create benefits, but I don't think those benefits justify the harm they do. The ideal case would be for new policy to be implemented as unions are slowly limited to more of an activist group that influence policy making vs the decisions of firms.
To summarize, unions act on firms directly, when I believe the problems lay with the market. I believe the unions are addressing the issues at the result end vs the source.
Aside: I find it funny you point to Mr. Pump's papers when I have attended some of the same classes as he.
|
On March 09 2011 11:45 Offhand wrote: 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.
Actually it's worse than that. When adjusted for inflation, wages have declined since the late 70's. In the same time period, CEO pay has increased exponentially.
|
On March 09 2011 14:08 thebigdonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:45 Offhand wrote: 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. Actually it's worse than that. When adjusted for inflation, wages have declined since the late 70's. In the same time period, CEO pay has increased exponentially.
Thats what you get when you open up a vast labor pool to be taken advantage of. The Chinese slave labor pool has made CEO's and Communist China very rich. The middle class has gotten material goods that price did not go up with inflation, but neither have their wages.
|
On March 09 2011 13:53 Shanlan wrote: I agree, unions do act as a counter to monopolistic markets, but I think the goal there is to break up the monopoly not create another one. I have said before that unions do create benefits, but I don't think those benefits justify the harm they do. The ideal case would be for new policy to be implemented as unions are slowly limited to more of an activist group that influence policy making vs the decisions of firms.
To summarize, unions act on firms directly, when I believe the problems lay with the market. I believe the unions are addressing the issues at the result end vs the source.
Aside: I find it funny you point to Mr. Pump's papers when I have attended some of the same classes as he. The issue I have is - I don't doubt that policy changes can be made to increase the number of firms in a sector at equilibrium. Things like reducing subsidies to established firms, eliminating corporate tax loopholes, restricting offshore "tax shelter" accounts, etc could lessen the advantage that existing firms have over potential competitors.
Still, economies of scale play a major role in determining market equilibrium, particularly in markets involving production of physical goods. Even if government-imposed barriers to entry/competition are removed, or even if they go further to say subsidize start-up costs (reduce entry fees), I think we'll still end up with monopolistic competition or oligopoly due to scaling and the importance of branding in the consumer market, with more firms than before but still not a great situation for unorganized laborers who would face an imbalanced market. What policy changes could be made to bridge this gap?
Offhand, I could see implementing a real full-throttle free market system, maxing out domestic firm competitiveness regardless of how hard it skews pre-tax earnings, eliminating wage/health/pension and some other worker laws (not workplace/environmental/consumer safety, but things that can be corrected later), then providing these essentials as social programs to those who are making too little to afford them. But while I can see that working in theory, I can't see Americans going for it in practice. And I don't see it going anywhere with our political parties.
Alternatively, how would you feel about multiple unions in the same sector that basically compete against each other? (ie, the 3 companies / 3 unions hypothetical I gave to another poster)
Hah, what a small world it is that you actually know the guy who wrote those posts. Are you a student/professor at UW? I found his blog via Nate Silver's twitter.
|
Unions are good.. if you are in them. I don't personally have a problem with them in the private sector, but not for all jobs. For example, teachers in WI. Teachers union donates to campaign - politician get elected, gives in to union demands on salaries for votes/future donations. Who cares right, he'll be out of office before the state is bankrupt and its someone elses problem then.
I am sorry but this won't work. It eventually does have to end.
|
On March 09 2011 14:27 TributeBoxer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 14:08 thebigdonkey wrote:On March 09 2011 11:45 Offhand wrote: 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. Actually it's worse than that. When adjusted for inflation, wages have declined since the late 70's. In the same time period, CEO pay has increased exponentially. Thats what you get when you open up a vast labor pool to be taken advantage of. The Chinese slave labor pool has made CEO's and Communist China very rich. The middle class has gotten material goods that price did not go up with inflation, but neither have their wages.
What is this middle class you speak of?
|
its not really that 'necessary' in a sense that every worker with a brain would be smart enough to form a union for collective bargaining.
|
In this age of twitter, facebook, and social networking which was used to help organize protests in Egypt, labor unions seem rather obsolete. Furthermore, unions charge their members for their services, and this drives up their pay which drives up costs of goods and services. Companies could pay their workers less and the workers would still be earning more than they are in a union.
|
Damn this thread is one economic hyperbole after another. Anyone feel like backing up their posts? At all?
|
YES. Unless you want to live like simple manual labourers in China.
|
On March 09 2011 13:38 Shanlan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 13:20 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 12:20 Shanlan wrote:On March 09 2011 12:10 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote: First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH. Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself? Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. The excerpt you quoted refers to a labor scarce market, which in your case isn't. I also don't see how it applies. I wouldn't work for $100/month and I doubt anyone I know would either. This is because I know I can get a better job that pays better. If I had a choice between not eating and working for $100/month then yes I would.Simply stating that low wages exist and asking if I would like to do it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm sure the Indians working there would like to work for more money or be a CEO and live in a big house, but they can't because they don't have the skills or abilities to do it. I'm sure you might have a valid opinion but I don't see one in this post or how it serves to further this discussion. That's the point. You yourself aren't willing to work for US$100 a month, and i'm pretty sure the guy who hired those indians isn't willing to do the same either, but for some reason you think it's ok for these indians to do the low-pay hard -labor job that you or even anybody you know is willing to do. But just because those indians are so desperate that they are willing to work for US$100 a month, doesn't mean that i should take advantage of them. JUST BECAUSE I CAN, DOESN'T MEAN I SHOULD. As a socially responsible employer, if i wanted to hire them, I should pay them the proper salary and give them the proper benefits, REGARDLESS of what he is willing to sell himself for. You're assuming the employer can afford to pay them more. If the employer raises wages then he'll have to raise prices, which then makes the wage raise meaningless if we assume the price increase to affect the whole economy. If the employer could afford to pay the workers more and keep the same price then it is the duty of the worker to ask for a higher wage, or find a job where he'll get paid more, ie another car wash where theoretically they could pay him more based on his performance. Alternatively, the worker can open his own car wash and charge a lower price and still earn a higher "wage". You're example is really complicated because of the many factors affecting the wage and profits. The legality of the workers, and the competition of employers. These factors can force your example to be a non-ideal market which is inefficient and does not generate the most utility. You're arguments are not ground in economic principles. If it was up to me I would pay everyone millions of dollars, but we live in a world of limited resources and we need a way to distribute it. I believe a free market is the most efficient way of doing it. Perhaps you have a better way, in which case I would love to hear it.
No, i'm not saying that we should pay employees a kabajllion bucks. I'm saying that employers should pay their employees relative to how much they profit from their business. If business is making a lot of profit, companies should increase the pay of their employees in all levels, not just the top brass.
But this is rarely the case. Instead most employers strive to pay the least amount of salary to their employees as they can, regardless of how much they profit. That guy i mentioned who hired indians for US$100? He's got a big house and drives an S-Class now. What excuse does the guy have to not raise his employee's salaries to acceptable levels?
|
Unions are simply a way for workers to collectively bargain for their mutual interests. I don't see how anyone can be against that. The whole concept behind wage labor is that people are freely making an agreement to work based on their self interest, right? Unions are the logical way of promoting that self interest. Workers shouldn't have to prove they're being horrifically exploited to have the right to try and get the best terms possible in a negotiated contract.
Yes, unions push for higher pay and better benefits for their people, and try and protect their people from getting laid off. That's the whole point; they're just a tool for workers to fight for their own interests. Maybe you think sometimes they ask for things they don't "deserve," but how many times has your employer made a decision you thought was unfair? You don't have to support the things they are asking for to support their right to get together and decide to ask for them in the first place. Capitalism is about everyone trying to get as much for themselves as possible, not about everyone deciding what is fair for everyone else to have, right? If you oppose unions because they ask for too much, you should oppose corporations and private companies whenever they are "greedy" and try to make "too much" profit.
Also, it's easy to say things are pretty good now for workers in the west and they don't need unions anymore... But if you get rid of unions, workers next year or next decade may find some of those very freedoms and privileges you mention that unions helped earn for them withering away.
As for legislation to replace them... I like the idea of workers having a way to express their own demands and fight for them a lot better than trusting Congress to write one bill that anticipates every present and future need of every different worker perfectly. I don't even know what that bill would look like to begin with. Most of what unions do is negotiate pay and benefits. Are you suggesting it would be better to have Congress dictate how much every employer pays each of its employees? I think some people might object to that...
|
On March 09 2011 14:29 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 13:53 Shanlan wrote: I agree, unions do act as a counter to monopolistic markets, but I think the goal there is to break up the monopoly not create another one. I have said before that unions do create benefits, but I don't think those benefits justify the harm they do. The ideal case would be for new policy to be implemented as unions are slowly limited to more of an activist group that influence policy making vs the decisions of firms.
To summarize, unions act on firms directly, when I believe the problems lay with the market. I believe the unions are addressing the issues at the result end vs the source.
Aside: I find it funny you point to Mr. Pump's papers when I have attended some of the same classes as he. The issue I have is - I don't doubt that policy changes can be made to increase the number of firms in a sector at equilibrium. Things like reducing subsidies to established firms, eliminating corporate tax loopholes, restricting offshore "tax shelter" accounts, etc could lessen the advantage that existing firms have over potential competitors. Still, economies of scale play a major role in determining market equilibrium, particularly in markets involving production of physical goods. Even if government-imposed barriers to entry/competition are removed, or even if they go further to say subsidize start-up costs (reduce entry fees), I think we'll still end up with monopolistic competition or oligopoly due to scaling and the importance of branding in the consumer market, with more firms than before but still not a great situation for unorganized laborers who would face an imbalanced market. What policy changes could be made to bridge this gap? Offhand, I could see implementing a real full-throttle free market system, maxing out domestic firm competitiveness regardless of how hard it skews pre-tax earnings, eliminating wage/health/pension and some other worker laws (not workplace/environmental/consumer safety, but things that can be corrected later), then providing these essentials as social programs to those who are making too little to afford them. But while I can see that working in theory, I can't see Americans going for it in practice. And I don't see it going anywhere with our political parties. Alternatively, how would you feel about multiple unions in the same sector that basically compete against each other? (ie, the 3 companies / 3 unions hypothetical I gave to another poster) Hah, what a small world it is that you actually know the guy who wrote those posts. Are you a student/professor at UW? I found his blog via Nate Silver's twitter.
I'll point to high tech as an example of relatively competitive market. It faces a lot of the problems other markets face, the only difference is the cost of entry is lower, less hardware. It also has a different type of labor force, one that is better educated and well informed. But this example does show that the true limits on a free market is the cost of entry and possibly the "informed-ness" of the labor force.
I believe this is why in an economic boom, markets tend to become more open and free, the loans available for start-ups are greater, and in the short-run sunk costs are ignored when calculating production costs. When the market becomes open then the wages become more competitive and reach a more natural equilibrium. It is also in economic booms where unions are the most harmful, they hinder the speed and magnitude a firm can expand and adapt. It is my opinion that only in a recession will labor rights require protection. When the market contracts the dual factors of labor surplus and lowered production give firms an advantage and shift the equilibrium to where they become price setters vs price takers.
If that is true then we can determine when government intervention, or greater vigilance over the labor market should occur. I say this because as much as I believe in minimal government interference I do understand that any human system is imperfect and require a tune-up in times of trouble. I believe the periodic government intervention, and/or policy change can replace the role of unions in protecting labor rights.
In my opinion, as we understand things more we can get peel off old systems and institutions that were needed as stop gap solutions to problems. I believe it is especially important in times of crisis to take the time to examine what we can get rid of. The less laws and barriers we have the smoother things can run, and that applies to everything in an ever more complex world.
I'm a senior at UW. I don't know Mr. Pump personally, but I've friends who've had him as a TA or maybe instructor.
|
On March 09 2011 12:39 Shanlan wrote: That only serves to prove his point. Only the rich can afford to be "morally" righteous in their economic decisions. The next step is to force the rich who have worked for their money to turn around and support the rest of the country? Would you want to work hard and start a successful business only to have 99% of it taken away and spent on the drug-addicts on the street or the gangs roaming the ghettos? Social welfare doesn't fix the problem and wealth redistribution is theft with a prettier name.
This is such a bad argument. I might as well go to the other political extreme and say that property is theft. Letting capitalism run amok is not a fair way of distributing resources in the first place. Wealth redistribution is no more theft than wealth distribution is. Our entire economic system is just one big game we have designed. If we don't like the outcomes of that game, we can change the rules at any time.
|
To weak unions lead to harsh work conditions for employes which can lead to a ton of "bad" stuff like uprisings. To strong unions lead to low profits for the business which leads probably to an unfair and posible to big advantage for organisations that are not "bound" by unions.
As long as neither side is "overdoing" it, everything is fine and unions wouldn't be needed... But that there are unions should tell you something .
|
On March 09 2011 16:03 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 13:38 Shanlan wrote:On March 09 2011 13:20 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 12:20 Shanlan wrote:On March 09 2011 12:10 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote: First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH. Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself? Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. The excerpt you quoted refers to a labor scarce market, which in your case isn't. I also don't see how it applies. I wouldn't work for $100/month and I doubt anyone I know would either. This is because I know I can get a better job that pays better. If I had a choice between not eating and working for $100/month then yes I would.Simply stating that low wages exist and asking if I would like to do it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm sure the Indians working there would like to work for more money or be a CEO and live in a big house, but they can't because they don't have the skills or abilities to do it. I'm sure you might have a valid opinion but I don't see one in this post or how it serves to further this discussion. That's the point. You yourself aren't willing to work for US$100 a month, and i'm pretty sure the guy who hired those indians isn't willing to do the same either, but for some reason you think it's ok for these indians to do the low-pay hard -labor job that you or even anybody you know is willing to do. But just because those indians are so desperate that they are willing to work for US$100 a month, doesn't mean that i should take advantage of them. JUST BECAUSE I CAN, DOESN'T MEAN I SHOULD. As a socially responsible employer, if i wanted to hire them, I should pay them the proper salary and give them the proper benefits, REGARDLESS of what he is willing to sell himself for. You're assuming the employer can afford to pay them more. If the employer raises wages then he'll have to raise prices, which then makes the wage raise meaningless if we assume the price increase to affect the whole economy. If the employer could afford to pay the workers more and keep the same price then it is the duty of the worker to ask for a higher wage, or find a job where he'll get paid more, ie another car wash where theoretically they could pay him more based on his performance. Alternatively, the worker can open his own car wash and charge a lower price and still earn a higher "wage". You're example is really complicated because of the many factors affecting the wage and profits. The legality of the workers, and the competition of employers. These factors can force your example to be a non-ideal market which is inefficient and does not generate the most utility. You're arguments are not ground in economic principles. If it was up to me I would pay everyone millions of dollars, but we live in a world of limited resources and we need a way to distribute it. I believe a free market is the most efficient way of doing it. Perhaps you have a better way, in which case I would love to hear it. No, i'm not saying that we should pay employees a kabajllion bucks. I'm saying that employers should pay their employees relative to how much they profit from their business. If business is making a lot of profit, companies should increase the pay of their employees in all levels, not just the top brass. But this is rarely the case. Instead most employers strive to pay the least amount of salary to their employees as they can, regardless of how much they profit. That guy i mentioned who hired indians for US$100? He's got a big house and drives an S-Class now. What excuse does the guy have to not raise his employee's salaries to acceptable levels?
Employers have a constraint on them, the market, they can't pay more than they'll make from the product, and the reason they aim for lower wages is so they can produce the product at the cheapest price possible. You want cheaper goods? Then that means companies need to push for lower wages, simple as that. The employee needs/does push for higher wages, but when gathered together they can collude to raise wages above the equilibrium level, meaning more expensive product and less of it for everyone. Also when a company does well it generally pays it out to the employees as bonuses of some sort, stock, bond, etc.
For your example there are multiple costs you haven't considered. If the employer is caught with illegal workers he can be fined, and/or jailed. How much is a year in jail worth to you? 5 years? 10? 20? Also he's not saying you have to work here, and I'm only going to pay you $100. He gave them a choice, he can afford to pay them $100, and they accepted.
You're also effectively saying that people shouldn't be allowed to have X amount of money, because there are others who could use it. Well maybe you shouldn't have a computer, that money could've gone to feed the hungry in Africa. Why don't you take a pay cut so the janitor can make more? Or donate it to charity? Also have you thought about what would happen to luxury companies if everyone earned the same? All those workers that make Mercedes would be out of a job, all those people who build large houses would be out of a job.
If you're so against him making money, you should open a car wash and steal him workers over, since you're willing to earn less that means you're willing to pay them more.Instead of bashing on people who've found a way to make money and be successful, go out and make things better.
|
On March 09 2011 17:10 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:39 Shanlan wrote: That only serves to prove his point. Only the rich can afford to be "morally" righteous in their economic decisions. The next step is to force the rich who have worked for their money to turn around and support the rest of the country? Would you want to work hard and start a successful business only to have 99% of it taken away and spent on the drug-addicts on the street or the gangs roaming the ghettos? Social welfare doesn't fix the problem and wealth redistribution is theft with a prettier name.
This is such a bad argument. I might as well go to the other political extreme and say that property is theft. Letting capitalism run amok is not a fair way of distributing resources in the first place. Wealth redistribution is no more theft than wealth distribution is. Our entire economic system is just one big game we have designed. If we don't like the outcomes of that game, we can change the rules at any time.
Nice job of saying absolutely nothing useful.
I would like to hear you explain your reasoning behind "property is theft".
Wealth distribution via free markets doesn't involve forcefully taking something from someone and giving it to another, simply because the mob says so.
|
On March 09 2011 17:22 Shanlan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 17:10 DrainX wrote:On March 09 2011 12:39 Shanlan wrote: That only serves to prove his point. Only the rich can afford to be "morally" righteous in their economic decisions. The next step is to force the rich who have worked for their money to turn around and support the rest of the country? Would you want to work hard and start a successful business only to have 99% of it taken away and spent on the drug-addicts on the street or the gangs roaming the ghettos? Social welfare doesn't fix the problem and wealth redistribution is theft with a prettier name.
This is such a bad argument. I might as well go to the other political extreme and say that property is theft. Letting capitalism run amok is not a fair way of distributing resources in the first place. Wealth redistribution is no more theft than wealth distribution is. Our entire economic system is just one big game we have designed. If we don't like the outcomes of that game, we can change the rules at any time. Nice job of saying absolutely nothing useful. I would like to hear you explain your reasoning behind "property is theft". Wealth distribution via free markets doesn't involve forcefully taking something from someone and giving it to another, simply because the mob says so. I don't want to go too far off topic since this is a thread about unions but if you are interested, I was referring to Proudhon's book "What is Property?" and Atheist political philosophy in general.
In his 1849 treatise What is Property?, Pierre Proudhon answers with "Property is theft!" In natural resources, he sees two types of property, de jure property (legal title) and de facto property (physical possession), and argues that the former is illegitimate. Proudhon's conclusion is that "property, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition."
His analysis of the product of labor upon natural resources as property (usufruct) is more nuanced. He asserts that land itself cannot be property, yet it should be held by individual possessors as stewards of mankind with the product of labor being the property of the producer. Proudhon reasoned that any wealth gained without labor was stolen from those who labored to create that wealth. Even a voluntary contract to surrender the product of labor to an employer was theft, according to Proudhon, since the controller of natural resources had no moral right to charge others for the use of that which he did not labor to create and therefore did not own.
Proudhon's theory of property greatly influenced the budding socialist movement, inspiring anarchist theorists such as Mikhail Bakunin who modified Proudhon's ideas, as well as antagonizing theorists like Karl Marx.
|
Property is an odd beast. It's obvious why a person who makes a thing should get to decide who can have that thing. But land and natural resources have no inherent owner.
|
Slavery has economic benefits too. Purely analyzing it from that perspective is pointless, as moral issues are of higher importance. You can't look at the state of the economy and ignore income inequality, wealth should only matter if it can actually be aquired by more than the top few %.
|
|
This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.
The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government?
The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.
This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.
Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.
Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.
Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.
Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.
Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector.
|
What trade unions do is creating unemployment. There is a trade-off between bargaining and unemployment. Sorry if this has already been said but I did not read the entire thread. The problem is that unions only negotiate for people that are in the union and don't give a damn for anybody else. It works like this: Unions negotiate higher wages, a shock occurs and people get laid off, now that there are less people in the union they don't care about outsiders and say that because there are now less worker every worker is worth more which gives further rise to wages; the result is that people who have been unemployed before and people that just now got unemployed will not find the jobs because firms now have to pay (unnecessarily) high wages and have no more space for employing additional labor. Sure you need a way to keep up your wage with inflation and increased productivity but if you think about it the economy would not work/ grow if this weren't happening. People would not have the money to consume and invest -> less growth. Pretty much a simple case to me. And: I agree that trade unions have been necessary in the past but in todays world we do not need them and would be better off, especially since mostly all developed countries (of which we speak here only I guess) don't have problems with inflation anymore.
|
On March 09 2011 18:23 Severedevil wrote: Property is an odd beast. It's obvious why a person who makes a thing should get to decide who can have that thing. But land and natural resources have no inherent owner.
The traditional justification for someone owning land is the labor they put into it. ie. a family that has farmed the same piece of land for 5 generations owns it, or something of this sort. That would only determine initial ownership though, its then free to be traded. This was the rationale behind the homesteading act.
|
On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote: This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.
The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government?
The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.
This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.
Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.
Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.
Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.
Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.
Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector. 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?
|
On March 09 2011 18:25 Grumbels wrote: Slavery has economic benefits too. %. Slaver does not have economic benefits. Economies based on free labor are almost always more powerful than those based on slave labor.
|
I love all the absolutes being thrown around with nothing to back up the claims.
|
On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote: This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.
The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government?
The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.
This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.
Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.
Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.
Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.
Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.
Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector.
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.
|
They will always be necessary so that the workers can be protected. Yes they may demand more but it's better for everyone if everyone gets a decent salary and acceptable work hours.
Even in a modern society companies try to cut corners as much as they can but unions prevent them of going overboard in a way which is great.
|
On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote: This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.
The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government?
The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.
This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.
Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.
Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.
Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.
Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.
Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector. 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.
Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes.
|
On March 09 2011 22:55 meadbert wrote:Slaver does not have economic benefits. Economies based on free labor are almost always more powerful than those based on slave labor. Not in theory, at least. If you took an exact copy of the US, but every noncontributor (homeless or wellfare w/o dependents) worked slave labour for the government, it would have more infrastructure growth without a decline anywhere else, meaning a stronger economy. (Note: not actually suggesting we do this, don't want to go down that road here)
|
On March 09 2011 22:55 meadbert wrote:Slaver does not have economic benefits. Economies based on free labor are almost always more powerful than those based on slave labor.
What do you mean slavery doesn't have economic benefits? I consider having a workforce that i can force and abuse without having to pay for as a great benefit. That's how the Pharoahs get to have their sweet sweet pyramids thousands of years ago, and thats how Nike gets to sell you shoes at a third the cost today.
|
On March 09 2011 23:38 Wazabo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote:On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote: This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.
The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government?
The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.
This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.
Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.
Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.
Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.
Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.
Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector. 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. Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes. This statement is false. Unions increase wealth disparity by diverting income from otherwise employed people to people who benefit from the unions. It's a fact that higher income means lower total percentage as consumption. This means that the net result is lower consumption, but a diversion of consumption expenditure from "cheap" goods to expensive ones. Ie, unions probably help iPad sales but hurt cheap desktop sales by a greater amount. (Assuming a union salary can afford an iPad and wellfare can net you a cheap desktop, it's an example, I don't care if it's true or not)
|
On March 09 2011 23:45 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 23:38 Wazabo wrote:On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote:On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote: This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.
The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government?
The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.
This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.
Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.
Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.
Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.
Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.
Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector. 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. Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes. This statement is false. Unions increase wealth disparity by diverting income from otherwise employed people to people who benefit from the unions. It's a fact that higher income means lower total percentage as consumption. This means that the net result is lower consumption, but a diversion of consumption expenditure from "cheap" goods to expensive ones. Ie, unions probably help iPad sales but hurt cheap desktop sales by a greater amount. (Assuming a union salary can afford an iPad and wellfare can net you a cheap desktop, it's an example, I don't care if it's true or not)
In Europe there aren't workers who aren't protected by unions, even if a single company doesn't have its union, there are still national unions. The salaries are pretty much similar in every company in the same business.
By the way the problem is not the difference between people who get 30k a year compared to who get 60k. The problem is the difference between the top 5% of the popoluation and the rest. Atleast here in Italy 10% of the population owns aprox. 48% of the wealth. The sad part is that the rest 90% of population pay aprox. 90% of the taxes. THIS is the real issue. And I guess US are on a similar situation if not even worse. Wealth distribuition is a big problem, and unions are the rapresentative of the weaker side.
|
Hi Guys,
nice discussion about unions is going on over here.
At first i got to say that im a unionist, aswelll in workers council at the company im working in. Workers council is really accepted in this concern and its like giving and taking from each other. The biggest reason for me to be in Union is the conflict of interest between the Company and Employe!
Im working in well paying company with 35h/week. And my target as unionist is to benefit from the profit of the firm im working in. This must not be money for the Workers!
In germany the trade unions do a lot things e.g.
- job perservation - safety and health in the workplace - conditions of employment - the take-over from trainees after apprenticeship ......
this makes life easyer for Employes and gives safety to their private life
if you know you wont be fired tomorrow, you maybe feel more well going to spend your money
I do know a lot of examples from Companies that neither got Workers council or a contract with a trade union And in most of this examples workers did not get payed well, have no job perservation, no overtime gets payed, less vacations....
so in my oppinion unions are really need to represent the interests of the working class but also should not forget about the buisiness objectives.
Finally i got to say that i think the system how unions and workers council operate is a bit different in every country and i hope that i could gave you some good examples.
greeez
PS: don´t mess up because of my bad english
|
I've been living in Toronto for the past few years, and just recently found out that bus drivers here make ~100k/year. How fucked up is that?
I think the concept of Unions in great, but generally speaking, people or groups in positions of power will abuse those powers if they're able to.
|
On March 10 2011 00:07 Wazabo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 23:45 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 23:38 Wazabo wrote:On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote:On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote: This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.
The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government?
The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.
This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.
Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.
Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.
Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.
Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.
Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector. 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. Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes. This statement is false. Unions increase wealth disparity by diverting income from otherwise employed people to people who benefit from the unions. It's a fact that higher income means lower total percentage as consumption. This means that the net result is lower consumption, but a diversion of consumption expenditure from "cheap" goods to expensive ones. Ie, unions probably help iPad sales but hurt cheap desktop sales by a greater amount. (Assuming a union salary can afford an iPad and wellfare can net you a cheap desktop, it's an example, I don't care if it's true or not) In Europe there aren't workers who aren't protected by unions, even if a single company doesn't have its union, there are still national unions. The salaries are pretty much similar in every company in the same business. By the way the problem is not the difference between people who get 30k a year compared to who get 60k. The problem is the difference between the top 5% of the popoluation and the rest. Atleast here in Italy 10% of the population owns aprox. 48% of the wealth. The sad part is that the rest 90% of population pay aprox. 90% of the taxes. THIS is the real issue. And I guess US are on a similar situation if not even worse. Wealth distribuition is a big problem, and unions are the rapresentative of the weaker side. 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.
|
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.
|
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.
probably the most generalizations i've yet to see in this thread. If they are in fact lazy, he should bring it to the attention of the union rep at the job. I also highly doubt the paralyzed thing, since people can fire union employees for far lesser injuries without the unions getting uppity. I highly doubt a fully paralyzed woman(requiring an aid at all times to be present)is some how working at a waste water treatment plant.
|
Lol i read "are onions necessary in the modern world" lol XD i was so confused reading op and then figured it said unions XD
|
some unions are more powerful than others. Some unions are so weak they lie down taking a beating, while others are so strong they can potentially do whatever they want. Unions aren't bad, but there may be bad unions out there for sure. Tho' even strong unions are most often respectable as far as I've cared to follow these issues.
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?" -.-
|
On March 10 2011 00:28 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 00:07 Wazabo wrote:On March 09 2011 23:45 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 23:38 Wazabo wrote:On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote:On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote: This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.
The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government?
The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.
This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.
Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.
Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.
Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.
Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.
Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector. 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. Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes. This statement is false. Unions increase wealth disparity by diverting income from otherwise employed people to people who benefit from the unions. It's a fact that higher income means lower total percentage as consumption. This means that the net result is lower consumption, but a diversion of consumption expenditure from "cheap" goods to expensive ones. Ie, unions probably help iPad sales but hurt cheap desktop sales by a greater amount. (Assuming a union salary can afford an iPad and wellfare can net you a cheap desktop, it's an example, I don't care if it's true or not) In Europe there aren't workers who aren't protected by unions, even if a single company doesn't have its union, there are still national unions. The salaries are pretty much similar in every company in the same business. By the way the problem is not the difference between people who get 30k a year compared to who get 60k. The problem is the difference between the top 5% of the popoluation and the rest. Atleast here in Italy 10% of the population owns aprox. 48% of the wealth. The sad part is that the rest 90% of population pay aprox. 90% of the taxes. THIS is the real issue. And I guess US are on a similar situation if not even worse. Wealth distribuition is a big problem, and unions are the rapresentative of the weaker side. 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
On March 10 2011 03:03 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
|
no unions are not nessacary, unless there power is scaled down to a much smaller extent. there is no reason for other people to suffer just because one clown in charge of the union is a whiny baby.
|
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.
Unless you live in Hawaii, or some other random island.
|
This is a bit of a rant I guess, but whatever...
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.
|
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
|
On March 10 2011 03:17 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 03:03 Rashid wrote: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? 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.
|
On March 10 2011 04:03 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
|
On March 10 2011 04:09 Joementum wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 03:17 SharkSpider wrote:On March 10 2011 03:03 Rashid wrote: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? 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.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I wish my country has an actual and proper union that really represents the majority of our workers. Apart from some minor unions that have little to no collective bargaining power and one outlier in the national airline's pilot union where they have real power, we have just one so-called massive "union" that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the government and their leaders are stuck under the thumb of the owners of our nepotist government.
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.
|
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?
|
On March 10 2011 03:17 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 03:03 Rashid wrote: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? 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.
|
Unions are important, just unions have become too powerful. They have too much weight, and throw it around.
|
On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote: This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.
The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government?
The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.
This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.
Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.
Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.
Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.
Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.
Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector. 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.
|
On March 10 2011 05:45 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Haha, I read the title as "Are Unicorns necessary in the modern world?"
|
On March 10 2011 06:56 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 19:40 xM(Z wrote:On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila 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.
Manufacturing consent is the name of the game.
|
unions are necessary. do you know why you have a 2 day weekend? why we have lunch breaks? the unions. they are the last stand against corporations who only see labor as a tool and an expense (wages) that can be cut down if we let them do it. rich people don't give a fuck about you. never forget it.
|
On March 10 2011 06:59 ICA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 05:45 Rashid wrote: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. 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.
|
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.
|
Yes. Without unions we wouldn't have out minimum wage. It isn't as important as back when the steel industry was around, but it is important nonetheless.
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.
|
On March 10 2011 08:11 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 06:59 ICA wrote:On March 10 2011 05:45 Rashid wrote: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. 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.
Go tell someone with a PhD in economics that minimal wage doesn't cause unemployment...they will certainly set you straight.
|
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.
|
Canada5565 Posts
The U.S. hasn't been the same since Truman said he was going to draft and take away the seniority rights of protesters.
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.
|
Unions are necessary to balance the power of corporations. Corporations, including governments, exploit their workers as much as they can. A single worker cannot change or challenge a corporation, but if the workers unionize they can ensure that they get a fair deal.
|
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.
|
The problem is that there are too many parties involved in the process. There's the business, the employees, the union, the stockholders, the government, and the consumers. Someone is always going to get the short end of the stick, and usually it's the consumers and/or the employees. When the Union gets higher wages for workers, some workers may be laid off and/or prices are hiked up for the consumer. Government imposes healthcare reform and then health care payments go up for employees and/or prices go up for consumer. Consumers refuse to pay higher prices, business loses money, employees are laid off. Stockholders want the company to go in one direction, and the company overextends and ends up declaring bankruptcy (Borders, Car manufacturers, etc.) and many workers get laid off. We need less parties involved in this process. Either the government or unions need to back off a bit. (stockholders need to shut up regardless).
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.
|
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.
|
are unions necessary in the modern world?
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
|
One argument I see tossed around here is "look at what they've done," and then they proceed to cite minimum wage, lunch breaks, two day weekends, the whole nine yards. I think that's a slight misunderstanding of what's being asked though. I'm not denying they did those things and that they were necessary, but are they doing enough good in the present day that they're worth having? And just for the record, I think that (in my limited knowledge) they are still necessary and very relevant to the modern day. I just wanted to point out that talking about what they've done in the past doesn't make them more relevant today.
|
|
|
|