NationStates Jolt Archive

You know for companies like Wal Mart or MacDonalds there are news of how it fires workers for attempting to form an organized labour union. So I said to myself, why dont the Government start making Unions mandatory in any large franchises like McDonalds. Basically the government has to monitor that the Unions do not be undermined or be so powerful that it could cripple the corporation and the corporation cant attempt in any way to dissolve or reduce the Union's power to an unnoticable force. This idea isnt a means to conflict with capitalist ideas but to improve human rights. Because I have heard stories where EA employees work 80 hours mandatory and no overtime pay.

If the workers vote for it, yes, definitely.

So I said to myself, why dont the Government start making Unions mandatory in any large franchises like McDonalds.

because the state is the executive committee of the ruling class, and the elite don't want unions messing up their little scam.

...why dont the Government start making Unions mandatory...

If the workers want to unionize, they can choose to any time that they want. We do NOT need the gub-mit telling people in a free country with whom and how to associate.

We are free to associate or not associate with who we will.

The hegemony of the big box retailers continues because they get workers to trade job security and working conditions for slightly higher wages. That is how Saturn keeps out the UAW, etc.

A country that mandates unions is not the coutnry I want to live in.

You know for companies like Wal Mart or MacDonalds there are news of how it fires workers for attempting to form an organized labour union. So I said to myself, why dont the Government start making Unions mandatory in any large franchises like McDonalds. Basically the government has to monitor that the Unions do not be undermined or be so powerful that it could cripple the corporation and the corporation cant attempt in any way to dissolve or reduce the Union's power to an unnoticable force. This idea isnt a means to conflict with capitalist ideas but to improve human rights. Because I have heard stories where EA employees work 80 hours mandatory and no overtime pay.

Well, if you take into consideration it was the government that helped large corportation trick people into the "right to work" laws that destroyed their unions in the first place, I would say the chances of that happening anytime soon are slim to none.

On the brighter side of the matter however, these things work on a pendelum that swings both ways. As unions became infliterated with corruption and contributed to their own demise, the coporations and government will most certainly do the same. Unions have their place in America and as employeers become more abusive, they will become more relevant. After the 2008 elections the democrats will be forced to face reality and come to the conclusion that their decision to abandon labor, and the subsequent decision to abandon the democratic party will leave them so weakened they will have no choice but to dump the leadership that has led them to the brink of the dust bin of history.

A country that mandates unions is not the coutnry I want to live in.that eliminates the United States, or at least California

When you are fired for attempting to unionize then government needs to step in and mandate a union.

OMG, what if McDonald's workers went on strike? No more McFlurries! *faints*

On a serious note, I think that if employees want to fund a union they should be entitled to have one.

When you are fired for attempting to unionize then government needs to step in and mandate a union.

Why? The business isn't owned by the employees (unless they own stock). Unions should only be allowed if the owners wish it. Why? Because they OWN the freakin' company and decide how things work in it. That's the nifty process of ownership. If the employees are doing something that the owners don't want done, guess what, just like any other activity, you are fired for it.

The employees are compensated by wage. If they don't like it, they can work somewhere else (perhaps learn some new skills as well). And yes, at least in the US (the only country I can speak for), the jobs ARE there. It may not be in the field that the particular person wants it to be, nor in the pay range that they want--but that was never guaranteed by anything.

I've seen it time and again--someone unproductive is always protected by the union, and ends up costing everyone more time, money, and wasted effort.

No, because the company has a right to make that decision. Forcing companies to unionize is unrealistic, unfair, and probably isn't constitutional.

If the workers want it, the company has the option to either do it or not. Forcing them would be a disaster for our economy, since 88% of workers don't belong to unions and many salaried employees don't want them, since unions interfere with their ability to move between companies and different sectors.

EA employees got their overtime pay. The question was more over whether or not they wanted stock options instead of overtime pay.

When you are fired for attempting to unionize then government needs to step in and mandate a union.

No, they don't. If only a few workers want the union, you are forcing everyone else who doesn't want it to be part of it against their will. Companies reserve the right to allow their companies to unionize or not.

If the workers vote for it, yes, definitely.

Seconded. I think that if the workers vote for it and it passes then it should be enacted.

If the majority of workers support it, then yes. You may say that the owners should have the only say, but the workers are the ones who actually work there. Don't they deserve acceptable conditions to work in?

When you are fired for attempting to unionize then government needs to step in and mandate a union.

it might be helpful, but it won't happen. the state is run by and for those doing the already illegal anti-union activities.

You know for companies like Wal Mart or MacDonalds there are news of how it fires workers for attempting to form an organized labour union. So I said to myself, why dont the Government start making Unions mandatory in any large franchises like McDonalds. Basically the government has to monitor that the Unions do not be undermined or be so powerful that it could cripple the corporation and the corporation cant attempt in any way to dissolve or reduce the Union's power to an unnoticable force. This idea isnt a means to conflict with capitalist ideas but to improve human rights. Because I have heard stories where EA employees work 80 hours mandatory and no overtime pay.

no to unions, unless workers are being treated like shit and management/ownership won't do anything about it. i mean people should be paid near industry average (at least) in terms of wages and benefits, they should be allowed to work a max 40-hour week (IE, no mandatory overtime or very little and infrequent mandatory OT), etc.

Wal-Mart workers are privy to some pretty good benefits, including an all-star employee stock purchase program. They have no reason to unionize -- they're being treated well. it'd piss the hell out of me if i were treating workers well and they unionized. I'd say "fuck you" and fire them and then hire new people. Having a job is a privelege, unless you own your own business.

88% of workers don't belong to unions

but not because they don't want to join them. surveys have shown that at least half of all workers want to join a union, and would vote in favor of unionization if it came up for a vote tomorrow - and that's with years of anti-union discrimination and propaganda to act as deterents.

what keeps this from happening is the state not enforcing its own labor laws, openly siding with the bosses in labor disputes, violating internationally recognized labor rights, and passing laws to undermine the existence and power of unions.

but not because they don't want to join them. surveys have shown that at least half of all workers want to join a union, and would vote in favor of unionization if it came up for a vote tomorrow - and that's with years of anti-union discrimination and propaganda to act as deterents.

what keeps this from happening is the state not enforcing its own labor laws, openly siding with the bosses in labor disputes, violating internationally recognized labor rights, and passing laws to undermine the existence and power of unions.
Just a question: Since when is a business supposed to be democratically-run?
It's not going to happen; the crux of property rights is exclusive use to your property, which means the ability to decide what you do with your own property.
Unless, of course, you don't believe in property rights. :p

Just a question: Since when is a business supposed to be democratically-run?
It's not going to happen; the crux of property rights is exclusive use to your property, which means the ability to decide what you do with your own property.
Unless, of course, you don't believe in property rights. :p

Since when does workers joining a union mean a business is being run democratically? I think you are confused, and btw, if you have not heard, we have no property rights in this country anymore. Anyone who wants your property and has deep enough pockets can buy it from your local government and have you removed by force.

Why? The business isn't owned by the employees (unless they own stock). Unions should only be allowed if the owners wish it. Why? Because they OWN the freakin' company and decide how things work in it. That's the nifty process of ownership. If the employees are doing something that the owners don't want done, guess what, just like any other activity, you are fired for it.

But you see, thats all owners do, the only reason they have that power is because they had the money to aquire ownership, essentially they don't do anything else, nor do they have to, so they don't DESERVE the ability to fire employees on the spot.

Just a question: Since when is a business supposed to be democratically-run?

what does that have to do with what i wrote there?

i mean, yeah, i actually do think enterprises should be run on some sort of democratic system, as a logically necessary part of having a free society. but nothing in my post there made any mention of that whatsoever.

unions, especially the reformist ones so popular here, don't create democratic workplaces. they collectively bargain with the bosses on behalf of the workers to create contracts about working conditions and pay.

Why? The business isn't owned by the employees (unless they own stock). Unions should only be allowed if the owners wish it. Why? Because they OWN the freakin' company and decide how things work in it. That's the nifty process of ownership. If the employees are doing something that the owners don't want done, guess what, just like any other activity, you are fired for it.


That is just plain crazy. I'm a business owner and it is very much against the law to fire employees for joining a union. Union membership does not make unions strong. Unfair and abusive business owners do. By your line of reasoning a business has the right to dictate what their employees do off the job site. We have a word for that also. You give business owners a bad name. Please stop it.

That is just plain crazy. I'm a business owner and it is very much against the law to fire employees for joining a union. Union membership does not make unions strong. Unfair and abusive business owners do. By your line of reasoning a business has the right to dictate what their employees do off the job site. We have a word for that also. You give business owners a bad name. Please stop it.

No, anything outside of work is a person's private life. However, yes, a business owner can do pretty much anything they want at work (as far as work goes--racism, sexism, et al. those are completely different subjects). And yes, in a right-to-work state, anyone can be fired for any reason at any time (like Wisconsin) dealing with the work environment. Just like an employee can walk out the door and quit for any reason. If you really want it so an employer cannot fire for any reason, do you really want to balance the scales with not allowing someone to quit and be held to some sort of contract that way? You can't have it both ways.

Now, this bullshit about smoking outside of work, certain weight limits, and all the rest of the stuff that goes with personal decisions outside the office (within limits--people in the entertainment field and such have to deal with appearances, so you have some exceptions of course), those are not at work, so you shouldn't be able to be fired for those.

But you see, thats all owners do, the only reason they have that power is because they had the money to aquire ownership, essentially they don't do anything else, nor do they have to, so they don't DESERVE the ability to fire employees on the spot.

Deserve? Hoo boy....

Yeah, they do. They put up their own money (property) to create the business. They took the risk, so they get to make the decisions about their property. The employee can choose to work for this person or not. A "nicer" boss/owner generally gets a better and more productive crew, and it behooves them to behave in such a manner, but it's is by no means necessary.

When you are fired for attempting to unionize then government needs to step in and mandate a union.
No, the laws need to allow an attempt at organization. Ultimately, it should be the employees that decide whether they want to unionize.

Then, it's the right of the employer to close his doors and go out of business.

But you see, thats all owners do, the only reason they have that power is because they had the money to aquire ownership, essentially they don't do anything else, nor do they have to, so they don't DESERVE the ability to fire employees on the spot.
How'd they get all that wealth in the first place? Were they just in the "Money" line when all the rest of the losers* were in the "X-Box" line? Did the opportunity bus just get there too early in the morning for the unrich and unpowerful to get up?

Not hardly. Wealthy people are wealthy because they made good decisions. Getting the capital to start a business is a risk, but a calculated one. Hardly a gamble.



*Reference to Dick Gephardt's statement about those who have won life's lottery when referring to anyone successful.

No, the laws need to allow an attempt at organization. Ultimately, it should be the employees that decide whether they want to unionize.

Then, it's the right of the employer to close his doors and go out of business.

This is what I just saw you state (correct me if you didn't mean this):

People who took no risk in starting the business (didn't put any of their own funds or property into the business), and have nothing to lose (because they didn't contribute anything to the business that they were not compensated for already), get to force a business to go out of business because they didn't like the owner's decision as to how the owner's business was to be run?

That's ridiculous.

No one forces someone else to work for them (in the case of contracts, people still go into those willingly, the last time I checked). What right does an employee have to force an employer how to run a business they have NO STAKE in?

How'd they get all that wealth in the first place? Were they just in the "Money" line when all the rest of the losers* were in the "X-Box" line? Did the opportunity bus just get there too early in the morning for the unrich and unpowerful to get up?

Not hardly. Wealthy people are wealthy because they made good decisions. Getting the capital to start a business is a risk, but a calculated one. Hardly a gamble.



*Reference to Dick Gephardt's statement about those who have won life's lottery when referring to anyone successful.

It doesn't matter how they got the money, as long as it was obtained legally--either by work, luck with the lottery, or inheritance. It's theirs.

Yes, it is a calculated risk--but they're still the ones that lose if the business goes belly up. Sorry--they lose MORE.

When you are fired for attempting to unionize then government needs to step in and mandate a union.
The government shouldn't have to mandate unions - maybe it shoud step in and say you can't fire workers for unionizing (it's grey area for my ideals), but on the flip side workers don't have to unionize if they don't want to.

This is what I just saw you state (correct me if you didn't mean this):

People who took no risk in starting the business (didn't put any of their own funds or property into the business), and have nothing to lose (because they didn't contribute anything to the business that they were not compensated for already), get to force a business to go out of business because they didn't like the owner's decision as to how the owner's business was to be run?

That's ridiculous.

No one forces someone else to work for them (in the case of contracts, people still go into those willingly, the last time I checked). What right does an employee have to force an employer how to run a business they have NO STAKE in?
That is kind of what it looked like, isn't it?
Let's see if I can backtrack a little and make more sense. First, the government should never be able to mandate or prevent unions from forming. That leaves the employees and the employers. If the employees decide to vote to organize, is it legal for an employer to fire them and prevent the vote? No. This is just a repeat of what I've said already.

Should an employer be allowed to fire any employees that desire to organize? Sure, but it has always led to violence. I think the law that allows employees to vote for unionization is a much better alternative. The same law should, if it doesn't already, allow the employer to campaign just as strongly against unionization, however. I don't know enough about labor law to tell you that this is a fact, or not.

Once the vote is in, the employer can either abide by the decision to unionize, which is the choice most make. Or he can decide that it isn't worth the trouble and close. So, sure, if a bunch of employees are short-sighted enough to force an employer into closing his business, I guess they have the means to do it and the means should be protected by law. That doesn't mean it's right, or even that it would make sense. After all, where will they work if the employer shuts down and reopens in another part of town? He won't hire them back.

Remember Eastern Airlines? The pilots, machinists, and others vowed to break Frank Lorenzo. They did, after a 686 day strike that forced the airline to close. Here's a cartoon that sums up their 'victory'.

http://www.airlinesafety.com/images/EasternUnemploymentVictory.jpg

No, the laws need to allow an attempt at organization.

the laws in the u.s. do specifically protect the right to organize a union. at least for some workers - notable exceptions being people classified as supervisors and public employees except where the various levels of government say otherwise.

it's just that the government doesn't take enforcement of those laws to be important, and almost always sides with the bosses. which is entirely to be expected in a capitalist system, no matter what the delusional reformists think.

It doesn't matter how they got the money, as long as it was obtained legally--either by work, luck with the lottery, or inheritance. It's theirs.

Yes, it is a calculated risk--but they're still the ones that lose if the business goes belly up. Sorry--they lose MORE.
I think we're on the same side. I'm all for capitalism and wealth. I was trying to point out that wealth isn't something that is finite, with a few 'lucky' people getting the most of it. Wealth is something that is universally available, providing one is willing to put down the X-box or the six-pack and go out and work.

How about we allow the government to mandate general workplace conditions so that the things that unions were ORIGINALLY meant to fight for are secured? Unions, nowadays, go too far. We don't live in an age where you can be fired after maiming yourself with unsafe equipment anymore.

The workers have the right to unionize, that's freedom of association. But the employer has an equal right in deciding whether or not they can fire union-forming workers. We should inherently have the right to determine a fair contract. Unionization essentially holds employers at ransom when we have governmentally enforced basic protections - many things unions now ask for are unreasonable. The employers may have more power than the workers, but the government can even it out. The employer and the employee should be 50-50 in a business relationship.

You know for companies like Wal Mart or MacDonalds there are news of how it fires workers for attempting to form an organized labour union. So I said to myself, why dont the Government start making Unions mandatory in any large franchises like McDonalds. Basically the government has to monitor that the Unions do not be undermined or be so powerful that it could cripple the corporation and the corporation cant attempt in any way to dissolve or reduce the Union's power to an unnoticable force. This idea isnt a means to conflict with capitalist ideas but to improve human rights. Because I have heard stories where EA employees work 80 hours mandatory and no overtime pay.
Violates the "Freedom of Association" provisions of the Constitution.

That is kind of what it looked like, isn't it?
Let's see if I can backtrack a little and make more sense. First, the government should never be able to mandate or prevent unions from forming. That leaves the employees and the employers. If the employees decide to vote to organize, is it legal for an employer to fire them and prevent the vote? No. This is just a repeat of what I've said already.

Should an employer be allowed to fire any employees that desire to organize? Sure, but it has always led to violence. I think the law that allows employees to vote for unionization is a much better alternative. The same law should, if it doesn't already, allow the employer to campaign just as strongly against unionization, however. I don't know enough about labor law to tell you that this is a fact, or not.

Once the vote is in, the employer can either abide by the decision to unionize, which is the choice most make. Or he can decide that it isn't worth the trouble and close. So, sure, if a bunch of employees are short-sighted enough to force an employer into closing his business, I guess they have the means to do it and the means should be protected by law. That doesn't mean it's right, or even that it would make sense. After all, where will they work if the employer shuts down and reopens in another part of town? He won't hire them back.

Remember Eastern Airlines? The pilots, machinists, and others vowed to break Frank Lorenzo. They did, after a 686 day strike that forced the airline to close. Here's a cartoon that sums up their 'victory'.

http://www.airlinesafety.com/images/EasternUnemploymentVictory.jpg

Okee doke. You had me confused there for a second. You're suggesting that allow the "internal market" of the organization determine the outcome of the whole?

I favor right to work laws, anything that gives the INDIVIDUAL more freedom is good. Organized Labor is opposed to individual liberty or they wouldn't have closed shops and mandatory dues.

In fact it should be illegal for governmental employees to be in ANY union, lest they will continue to advocate unfettered federal/state/local spending to empower their members.

Government should be answerable to indviduals not groups.

I think we're on the same side. I'm all for capitalism and wealth. I was trying to point out that wealth isn't something that is finite, with a few 'lucky' people getting the most of it. Wealth is something that is universally available, providing one is willing to put down the X-box or the six-pack and go out and work.

My turn to backtrack. :) I was reenforcing your post--I should have put a Yeah, it doesn't matter where the cash came from.

How about we allow the government to mandate general workplace conditions so that the things that unions were ORIGINALLY meant to fight for are secured? Unions, nowadays, go too far. We don't live in an age where you can be fired after maiming yourself with unsafe equipment anymore.

The workers have the right to unionize, that's freedom of association. But the employer has an equal right in deciding whether or not they can fire union-forming workers. We should inherently have the right to determine a fair contract. Unionization essentially holds employers at ransom when we have governmentally enforced basic protections - many things unions now ask for are unreasonable. The employers may have more power than the workers, but the government can even it out. The employer and the employee should be 50-50 in a business relationship.
Let's see, we have OSHA, U/L, EPA, and how many other regulatory agencies? No one wants to run an unsafe business. But the numerous regulations make it darned hard to run a profitable one. Somewhere along the line, common sense was trumped by bureaucratic regulation and it was a bad thing.

I favor right to work laws, anything that gives the INDIVIDUAL more freedom is good. Organized Labor is opposed to individual liberty or they wouldn't have closed shops and mandatory dues.

In fact it should be illegal for governmental employees to be in ANY union, lest they will continue to advocate unfettered federal/state/local spending to empower their members.

Government should be answerable to indviduals not groups.

I'd concur with that.

Let's see, we have OSHA, U/L, EPA, and how many other regulatory agencies? No one wants to run an unsafe business. But the numerous regulations make it darned hard to run a profitable one. Somewhere along the line, common sense was trumped by bureaucratic regulation and it was a bad thing.

Exactly. Unions are no different. They do the same thing. So I believe the best way is to enforce the most basic of what we would consider worker rights ie 40-hour work week, overtime pay, etc. If you have basic protections in place, unions become redundant. It is BECAUSE of many unions, especially like closed shops and mandatory dues that some industries have become less competitive. The average worker doesn't realize that he's jeopardizing his future job security by asking for too much, and that there are plenty of people in foreign countries who'll do it just as well and cheaper.

I favor right to work laws, anything that gives the INDIVIDUAL more freedom is good. Organized Labor is opposed to individual liberty or they wouldn't have closed shops and mandatory dues.

bullshit.

'right to work' laws infringe on a basic capitalist freedom, by outlawing an otherwise perfectly valid contract. for example, i intend to open a number of enterprises based on the wobbly shop model, which will include membership in the iww as a requirement for joining the enterprise. this is illegal in 'right to work' states. meanwhile other businesses in those states can include all sorts of other requirements for employment that actually infringe on individual freedom with government protection.

Okee doke. You had me confused there for a second. You're suggesting that allow the "internal market" of the organization determine the outcome of the whole?
Employers and employees have responsibilities to each other. So, I suppose there is an internal market that needs to be considered. Employees owe their employer a days work and the employer owes them a days pay. It goes a little beyond that, if you want a nice place to work, though. A little loyalty on both sides goes a long way. Holding back on layoffs builds some trust with the employees. Just like some off the clock work to make sure things go well builds some goodwill with the employers.

As far as union organization goes, there really does need to be the ability to choose on either side of the paycheck line. The alternative that we have seen during the heyday of capitalism and the birth of unionization isn't something that I would want repeated. The organization and union-busting that went on in those days caused some really shameful violence and a lot of unnecessary deaths.

Government should be answerable to indviduals not groups.

tell you what - you get the capitalists out of the government, and then maybe we'll talk about the currently imaginary power of the unions over it.

tell you what - you get the capitalists out of the government, and then maybe we'll talk about the currently imaginary power of the unions over it.
How about this? When you find a better way to run an economy than as a Capitalist economy, let me know.

tell you what - you get the capitalists out of the government, and then maybe we'll talk about the currently imaginary power of the unions over it.


In a free society all are capitalists, selling their goods, selling their services, etc. It is only in the idealistic (read impossible) societal structure called socialism that you can not have capitalists. In a free society those that aren't capitalists are those that choose not to engage in commerce. It is then incumbant upon the producers in society, capitalists, to decide whether they want to provide for the indigent. Thus far that has been the case.

How about this? When you find a better way to run an economy than as a Capitalist economy, let me know.

done and done. any of the following would be better in terms of freedom, social efficiency, and equality:
mutualism
anarcho-syndicalism
libertarian socialism in general
a modernized gift economy


but what does this have to do with my point that it is the bosses, not the workers, that run the government?

In a free society all are capitalists, selling their goods, selling their services, etc.

incorrect usage of the term. a capitalist is one who owns capital - specifically one who makes their living largely or totally through renting out the use of that capital. this is opposed to those who make their living by selling their labor.

but not because they don't want to join them. surveys have shown that at least half of all workers want to join a union, and would vote in favor of unionization if it came up for a vote tomorrow - and that's with years of anti-union discrimination and propaganda to act as deterents.
Anti-Union propaganda? So the last 4 conventions in Chicago that my dad went to the union employees there didn't attempt to shake him down for money? Instead it was one big joke? Unions are fucking bullshit. When you can't move your own equipment into and out of convention hall and have to use union workers something's wrong.

incorrect usage of the term. a capitalist is one who owns capital - specifically one who makes their living largely or totally through renting out the use of that capital. this is opposed to those who make their living by selling their labor.
Actually, labor is another form of capital.

Anti-Union propaganda? So the last 4 conventions in Chicago that my dad went to the union employees there didn't attempt to shake him down for money?

how does that (if true) relate to the existence of pervasive anti-union propaganda?

Actually, labor is another form of capital.

no, it isn't. they are distinct as factors of production.

Since when does workers joining a union mean a business is being run democratically? I think you are confused
Nah, I just failed to elaborate my point clearly. The decision as to whether or not a business will use union labor is decision (that should be) reserved to the business owner. Allowing 51% of the current employees to take that decision away from the business owner is a big violation of property rights.

btw, if you have not heard, we have no property rights in this country anymore. Anyone who wants your property and has deep enough pockets can buy it from your local government and have you removed by force.
Big government always walks the razor's edge between liberty and tyranny.

what does that have to do with what i wrote there?

i mean, yeah, i actually do think enterprises should be run on some sort of democratic system, as a logically necessary part of having a free society. but nothing in my post there made any mention of that whatsoever.

unions, especially the reformist ones so popular here, don't create democratic workplaces. they collectively bargain with the bosses on behalf of the workers to create contracts about working conditions and pay.
See above

Now, this bullshit about smoking outside of work, certain weight limits, and all the rest of the stuff that goes with personal decisions outside the office (within limits--people in the entertainment field and such have to deal with appearances, so you have some exceptions of course), those are not at work, so you shouldn't be able to be fired for those.
Why not? I should be able to make whatever decision I want regarding the business that was started with my money. We always give up a certain bit of our liberty when we enter contracts...and lifestyle choices aren't exactly despotic enough to be banned, unlike debt slavery.

Let's see, we have OSHA, U/L, EPA, and how many other regulatory agencies? No one wants to run an unsafe business. But the numerous regulations make it darned hard to run a profitable one. Somewhere along the line, common sense was trumped by bureaucratic regulation and it was a bad thing.

Edit that last line:
Somewhere along the line, common sense was trumped by bureaucratic regulation and it is a bad thing.


no, it isn't. they are distinct as factors of production.
True, although highly skilled labor is sometimes referred to as "human" capital. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

True, although highly skilled labor is sometimes referred to as "human" capital. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

yeah, but that mostly refers to the person's education and skills. because those, like capital, don't go away when used - unlike the labor and resources that are used to create products (and capital). it's more of a metaphorical extension of the term.

no, it isn't. they are distinct as factors of production.
Does a person own their own time and expertise? If the answer is yes then logically labor is a form of capital. Mind you, if you assume that a person is not in ownership of their own time, than you are correct.

If the answer is yes then logically labor is a form of capital.

no it isn't.

labor must be used to create capital, but labor isn't capital.

the difference between a hammer and the labor used with that hammer to create things is that when you are done, you still have the hammer. the labor is gone forever. that you still have more labor to use doesn't change the fact that that particular labor is no more. labor is more like resources than like capital, though it is distinct from that as well.


coincidentally, this also partially explains why it is nigh on impossible to get rich by merely selling your labor.

No one forces someone else to work for them (in the case of contracts, people still go into those willingly, the last time I checked). What right does an employee have to force an employer how to run a business they have NO STAKE in?

The problem arises when the employer either does not abide by their part of the contract or forces the employee to do things they did not agree to do in their contract.
Example :
Employer doesn't pay the person what they agreed when they agreed.
The employer insists that the employee works overtime for no extra pay.

Sure you can take it to court but when you've just been fired because you objected when your employer violated their end of the contract chances are you don't have the cash to take them to court with a risk of losing.
In short when there's no union to represent you you have no way of forcing your employer to live up to THIER end of the contract.

You say the employees can quit any time- you've had far too easy a life if you think that's always an option.
If you have a Morgage to pay and other bills sure you can quit and go bankrupt and so find it next to impossible to get a loan ever again meaning you can never buy your own house.
walking out the door isn't always an option so people have to keep going while their legal rights are being crapped all over.

We should inherently have the right to determine a fair contract. Unionization essentially holds employers at ransom when we have governmentally enforced basic protections.

But the point is that governments DON'T enforce those basic protections and the Employers DON'T always abide by their contracts.

The employers may have more power than the workers, but the government can even it out.


thing is that the government doesn't do this most of the time.

You know for companies like Wal Mart or MacDonalds there are news of how it fires workers for attempting to form an organized labour union. So I said to myself, why dont the Government start making Unions mandatory in any large franchises like McDonalds. Basically the government has to monitor that the Unions do not be undermined or be so powerful that it could cripple the corporation and the corporation cant attempt in any way to dissolve or reduce the Union's power to an unnoticable force. This idea isnt a means to conflict with capitalist ideas but to improve human rights. Because I have heard stories where EA employees work 80 hours mandatory and no overtime pay.
Enforcing unions seems rather pointless to me. If someone doesn't want to engage in colelctive bargaining and such, I don't see why they should need to. It seems sort of like making voting mandatory; I don't see why someone who doesn't want to have a say should be made to.
And it's not likely that the government is going to do anything with unions, as the government seems to be quite happy paying off the corporations and such, and many unions seem not to be doing stuff that was as relevant as it was when they started. I wouldn't trust the government to do a good job mediating, as you suggested, and I wouldn't trust many current unions to actually make any useful change.
Well, if you take into consideration it was the government that helped large corportation trick people into the "right to work" laws that destroyed their unions in the first place, I would say the chances of that happening anytime soon are slim to none.

On the brighter side of the matter however, these things work on a pendelum that swings both ways. As unions became infliterated with corruption and contributed to their own demise, the coporations and government will most certainly do the same. Unions have their place in America and as employeers become more abusive, they will become more relevant. After the 2008 elections the democrats will be forced to face reality and come to the conclusion that their decision to abandon labor, and the subsequent decision to abandon the democratic party will leave them so weakened they will have no choice but to dump the leadership that has led them to the brink of the dust bin of history.
Were you one of the labor-Democrats who left when they felt the party abandoned them? If so, that's interesting, I wouldn't have guessed.

no, it isn't. they are distinct as factors of production.

Labor costs aren't. That's the "capital" part of labor.

Why? The business isn't owned by the employees (unless they own stock). Unions should only be allowed if the owners wish it. Why? Because they OWN the freakin' company and decide how things work in it. That's the nifty process of ownership. If the employees are doing something that the owners don't want done, guess what, just like any other activity, you are fired for it.
If the employers don't like the attitude of their staff, perhaps they could try doing the work themselves?

If the employers don't like the attitude of their staff, perhaps they could try doing the work themselves?

No, you are hired by the company to do work for them, and you agree to perform that work to their standards and expectations for a wage or salary from that company. If your work ethic or quality aren't up to the standards of the company, they have every right to fire you.

While I do belive that the right to form unions is essential it needs to be regulated just like the companies and employers with laws for how they can treat employers.

Yes it is disgraceful when unions go over the top. the worst example was when a local scout group decided to clean up a park nearby.
they applied for permission to do so to the local council.
they got permission and started cleaning up.
A day or so later the council insisted they stop.

What had happend was that the council workers union had heard about it and decided that by cleaning up the park the scouts where effectivly taking away someones job. they threatened to strike over it. Nobody ever did clean up the park.

it's the sort of disgusting behaviour which gave unions a bad name.

No, you are hired by the company to do work for them, and you agree to perform that work to their standards and expectations for a wage or salary from that company. If your work ethic or quality aren't up to the standards of the company, they have every right to fire you.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the employer also has responsibilities towards their employees. Unionisation is often the only way in which these latter can be enforced.

The problem arises when the employer either does not abide by their part of the contract or forces the employee to do things they did not agree to do in their contract.
Example :
Employer doesn't pay the person what they agreed when they agreed.
The employer insists that the employee works overtime for no extra pay.

Sure you can take it to court but when you've just been fired because you objected when your employer violated their end of the contract chances are you don't have the cash to take them to court with a risk of losing.
In short when there's no union to represent you you have no way of forcing your employer to live up to THIER end of the contract.

You say the employees can quit any time- you've had far too easy a life if you think that's always an option.
If you have a Morgage to pay and other bills sure you can quit and go bankrupt and so find it next to impossible to get a loan ever again meaning you can never buy your own house.
walking out the door isn't always an option so people have to keep going while their legal rights are being crapped all over.


Okay, I know all about it being difficult to walk away from a job. However, if you back yourself into that kind of a corner where you actually can't walk away without serious financial hardship, then that was a choice you made yourself. I've done it--I won't ever do it again, for certain.

Houses are not guaranteed in the Constitution, nor is work or money. You have the freedom to pursue happiness. People need to make better decisions on what they do (at least in the US, we need to) and how they go about things.

Now, being paid according to a contract (an agreement to work counts)--that is already covered by law.

If the employers don't like the attitude of their staff, perhaps they could try doing the work themselves?

They'd have to, if they fired a bunch. :)

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the employer also has responsibilities towards their employees. Unionisation is often the only way in which these latter can be enforced.
Your use of 'often' is awfully misleading. Isn't organized labor representing about 9 million workers in the US? That's what the AFL-CIO (http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheaflcio/)claims. That doesn't sound like a majority to me. Not even a really big minority. We're talking about 9 million union members out of 140+ million workers.

Sounds like an awful lot of employees are content with their employers.

Unions are a dying breed. Their power has been crushed, and their internal unity shattered (for example, when UAW and others left AFL-CIO). I can't remember the last time they won a major strike. And the US government couldn't mandate a union without invalidating the labor laws of most of the south, where right-to-work is the law. Under right-to-work, there is no closed shop, and without a closed shop, unions fail because those who join and pay dues and those who do not reap the same benefits. And right-to-work works... there's a reason the closed shop northern midwest is called the rust belt and can't attract any major companies while the south is the booming sun belt.

Unions had their time and place... now their just dinosaurs remaining of an era long passed. Compare GM (homebase in Detroit, MI, the home of the closed shop) with Toyota (plants mostly in right-to-work states). GM has to pay exorbitant union wages to get people to work an 8-hour day (though really it's about 6, once you factor in all the union breaks, lunches, etc.), buy into poorly planned out health-care plans and sketchy retirement programs run by ex-felons (whose main goal in picking the plans is lining their own pockets), and deal with organizations still rife with mob influence and corruption. Toyota, on the other hand does pay most of their employees a little less money outright, but still offers efficient healthcare and retirement plans, and has extras (like child-care onsite) that make up for any pay discrepancy, to discourage their employees from unionizing. And what difference does union labor make? Today, GM is teetering on bankruptcy, closing plants left and right, and suffering a huge decline in market share. Today, Toyota is the most likely purchaser of GM when it does go bankrupt, and it's market share is ever increasing as it makes more cars for less money.

The real winners of union organizations are those who do the organizing... bet none of their pension plans ever went belly up.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the employer also has responsibilities towards their employees. Unionisation is often the only way in which these latter can be enforced.

No, actually the law now provides those protections. Anything not covered by law is the responsibility of the employee, although benefits are used as a lure to employment rather than a guranteed right (and for the better).

Unionization is no longer required, and in many cases no longer desired; the number of union members as a percent of the workforce has fallen every year since 1980. However, at the same time the real disposable income rose faster than it has since data was collected in the 1940's and unemployment reached record lows. Obviously, labor unions are no longer needed to ensure and protect high-paying jobs.

Sounds like an awful lot of employees are content with their employers.
I doubt that very many of them work at MacDonalds, however.

I doubt that very many of them work at MacDonalds, however.

That's why they don't want unions, because most of them don't.

That's why they don't want unions, because most of them don't.
It could be desirable for the poor sods who do, though.

It could be desirable for the poor sods who do, though.

But not for the people above them who would have to pay for the unions.

I doubt that very many of them work at MacDonalds, however.
I don't see why McDonald's regarded as a such an awful place. No one who starts work there should expect to retire in twenty years in the same position. I consider McDonalds a real boon to young workers that don't have any skill or experience. Doing a good job may not get you a nice salary at a fast food restaurant, but it will yield some good experience and some good references.

they don't want unions

evidence? cause even business week (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_43/b3805095.htm) disagrees.

"Fully half of all nonunion U.S. workers say they would vote yes if a union election were held at their company today, up from about 40% throughout the 1990s, according to polls by Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc."

But not for the people above them who would have to pay for the unions.
This is why MacDonalds seem so rabidly opposed to the notion of unions, in all likelihood.

evidence? cause even business week (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_43/b3805095.htm) disagrees.

"Fully half of all nonunion U.S. workers say they would vote yes if a union election were held at their company today, up from about 40% throughout the 1990s, according to polls by Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc. Yet unions lose about half of the elections they call."
You missed the last sentence in that paragraph. I've added it for you. That doesn't show overwhelming support, does it?

If Walmart and McDonalds were to unionize, that would be the end of a lot of entry level jobs. Those are the kind of jobs that we need for young workers that have no experience and don't know much about how to work. Unions would kill that off, in favor of higher paying, permanent jobs that exclude inexperienced workers.

You missed the last sentence in that paragraph. I've added it for you. That doesn't show overwhelming support, does it?

and you didn't read the following ones:

"One big reason: Over the past two decades, Corporate America has perfected its ability to fend off labor groups...companies facing labor drives routinely employ all the tactics Wal-Mart has used to get workers to change their minds. Many of these actions are perfectly legal, such as holding anti-union meetings or inundating workers with anti-union literature and videos.

Those that are illegal carry insignificant penalties, such as small fines or posting workplace notices about labor rights. Firing activists--as companies do in fully one-quarter of union drives, according to studies of NLRB cases--is difficult to prove and takes years to work through the courts. That's long after a drive has lost steam. Workers may want unions, 'but the question is whether [labor] can overcome the fear generated by an employer's campaign to get them to take the risk,' says Kate Bronfenbrenner, a Cornell University researcher who did the studies."


they lose because of union busting tactics, legal and illegal. the legal ones are still intimidating - and current labor law gives the companies plenty of time to use them by mandating certain bureaucratic procedures for organizing. and then the punishments for the illegal ones are negligible even if the bosses are actually called on it and the government actually enforces the ruling - which rarely happens. they also lose because of anti-union laws like taft-hartley (which truman called a "slave-labor bill" when it was passed over his veto) and the so-called "right-to-work" laws that significantly reduced the power of unions to fight, as well as the scope of what they could win.

If Walmart and McDonalds were to unionize, that would be the end of a lot of entry level jobs.

that's bullshit, plain and simple.

and you didn't read the following ones:

"One big reason: Over the past two decades, Corporate America has perfected its ability to fend off labor groups...companies facing labor drives routinely employ all the tactics Wal-Mart has used to get workers to change their minds. Many of these actions are perfectly legal, such as holding anti-union meetings or inundating workers with anti-union literature and videos.

Those that are illegal carry insignificant penalties, such as small fines or posting workplace notices about labor rights. Firing activists--as companies do in fully one-quarter of union drives, according to studies of NLRB cases--is difficult to prove and takes years to work through the courts. That's long after a drive has lost steam. Workers may want unions, 'but the question is whether [labor] can overcome the fear generated by an employer's campaign to get them to take the risk,' says Kate Bronfenbrenner, a Cornell University researcher who did the studies."


they lose because of union busting tactics, legal and illegal. the legal ones are still intimidating - and current labor law gives the companies plenty of time to use them by mandating certain bureaucratic procedures for organizing. and then the punishments for the illegal ones are negligible even if the bosses are actually called on it and the government actually enforces the ruling - which rarely happens. they also lose because of anti-union laws like taft-hartley (which truman called a "slave-labor bill" when it was passed over his veto) and the so-called "right-to-work" laws that significantly reduced the power of unions to fight, as well as the scope of what they could win.
I read them, it just appeared that management/ownership was acting within the same laws that govern unionization. I'm sure there are infractions on both sides, but the bottom line is that unions are losing votes in the very shops that they are seeking to unionize.

that's bullshit, plain and simple.
Not hardly. Every union boasts about how it will raise the wages. When that happens, employers have to be more selective in their hiring. Much like raising the minimum wage, paying that higher wage does away with their ability to hire unskilled, inexperienced labor and teach them on the job.

Not hardly. Every union boasts about how it will raise the wages. When that happens, employers have to be more selective in their hiring. Much like raising the minimum wage, paying that higher wage does away with their ability to hire unskilled, inexperienced labor and teach them on the job.

yes, yes - when the union comes the shop will close, the market will crash, and your children will starve.

it's bullshit. it's always been bullshit. it will always be bullshit.

I read them, it just appeared that management/ownership was acting within the same laws that govern unionization. I'm sure there are infractions on both sides, but the bottom line is that unions are losing votes in the very shops that they are seeking to unionize.

no. it said that they regularly violate the law to bust unions but the penalties are insignificant and it takes years for complaints to work their way through the system anyway, which is more than enough time to crush the union drive. and that's if the government was concerned with upholding those laws and their insignificant penalties in the first place. they aren't.

and when the bosses do act legally, that still gives them a significant advantage because of the way the law has been setup (largely drafted by the bosses of days gone by, if you want to get down to it) to overwhelmingly favor them over those attempting to unionize.

Here's a view from current working stiff. Unions are only as good or as bad as the people running them. The biggest problems from unions in a work place is when you get competing shops in a single company, like an electricians union and a mechanics union, or when the union takes steps to prevent an industry from taking steps to remain competitive, like what happened to the steel industry here in the US.

An example of a competing shops being bad is when it takes 3 men to do one job. Lets say that a servo drive locks up, motor burns up and the encoder isn't getting any feedback. It’s a simple job to remove the old servo, install the encoder, wire up the motor and encoder to the QDs, and reinstall the unit.
When you have competing shops, a controls specialist has to install the encoder, an electrician has to wire up the QDs and then a mechanic has to install the whole unit. It then takes 3 men and a lot more time, downtime can run more than $10,000 an hour, to do a job that one man can easily do by himself

Also want to point out something that may or may not have been touched on in this post. All unions charge "union dues". In many instances it would not be practical for entry level (min. wage) to pay union dues. Therefore the urge to unionize would not be cost effective. The benefits would not outweigh the cost of running a union shop. Also it is easier for someone to be fired under a union shop. The rules are clear cut and can be used against an employee without much a union official can do. A contract is a contract as the business world goes. However if you are a non-union employee I believe that it is more difficult to get rid of you because of state worker rights laws. At least in the state of Washington where I run business it is.

no. it said that they regularly violate the law to bust unions but the penalties are insignificant and it takes years for complaints to work their way through the system anyway, which is more than enough time to crush the union drive. and that's if the government was concerned with upholding those laws and their insignificant penalties in the first place. they aren't.

and when the bosses do act legally, that still gives them a significant advantage because of the way the law has been setup (largely drafted by the bosses of days gone by, if you want to get down to it) to overwhelmingly favor them over those attempting to unionize.
I couldn't find anything that stated laws were _regularly_ violated. The closest that I could see had a much different meaning. The article stated that "... companies facing labor drives routinely employ all the tactics Wal-Mart has used to get workers to change their minds. Many of these actions are perfectly legal, such as holding anti-union meetings or inundating workers with anti-union literature and videos."
No mention of illegal activity there. Or how about in the following paragraph, when it stated, "Those that are illegal carry insignificant penalties, such as small fines or posting workplace notices about labor rights." That's hardly an accusation of widespread abuse of labor laws.

No, I think your in a losing battle here. That _is_ something you share with your unions.

Government and Unions together in the same sentence? Please! That is a recipe for disaster. Gov't=inept. Unions=corrupt.

The Gov't shold have NO ROLE in unions.

And I've belonged to a Union!!

When you have competing shops, a controls specialist has to install the encoder, an electrician has to wire up the QDs and then a mechanic has to install the whole unit. It then takes 3 men and a lot more time, downtime can run more than $10,000 an hour, to do a job that one man can easily do by himself
Good point. I do that as a part of the job. Just added value to the company.

My favorite union story is from when I worked at Lockheed. The engineers at Lockheed were smart enough not to unionize, unlike the clods at Boeing that decided representation and three percent raises were better than bonuses and stock options. Sorry, I'm getting off track.

We had to have a union member do any photocopying for us. Yes, a union secretary had to run the Xerox machine. Failing to get one was cause for a grievance. Our secretary was a practical woman and just granted us blanket permission to copy whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, as long as we used the copier in her office. Her requirement was for only for our protection.

There was a secretary in another department that was enormously successful at catching salaried workers at 'her' Xerox machine. The machine was located immediately in front of the women's head. This secretary would hide just inside the door to the head and wait for the sound of someone 'makin' copies'. Then she would burst out and look at the badge. If it was a blue(hourly) badge on the employee, she'd go back to her post. But if it were it were a red badge, she knew she had hit paydirt. She would get the name and fill out the grievance form and wait for her payment. Lord knows how she ever did any work from inside the ladies room, but she was union, so that wasn't important.

Good point. I do that as a part of the job. Just added value to the company.

My favorite union story is from when I worked at Lockheed. The engineers at Lockheed were smart enough not to unionize, unlike the clods at Boeing that decided representation and three percent raises were better than bonuses and stock options. Sorry, I'm getting off track.

We had to have a union member do any photocopying for us. Yes, a union secretary had to run the Xerox machine. Failing to get one was cause for a grievance. Our secretary was a practical woman and just granted us blanket permission to copy whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, as long as we used the copier in her office. Her requirement was for only for our protection.

There was a secretary in another department that was enormously successful at catching salaried workers at 'her' Xerox machine. The machine was located immediately in front of the women's head. This secretary would hide just inside the door to the head and wait for the sound of someone 'makin' copies'. Then she would burst out and look at the badge. If it was a blue(hourly) badge on the employee, she'd go back to her post. But if it were it were a red badge, she knew she had hit paydirt. She would get the name and fill out the grievance form and wait for her payment. Lord knows how she ever did any work from inside the ladies room, but she was union, so that wasn't important.

Exactly. Is there any specific reason, such as health or safety hazzard, that an employee working on a company project can't use the Xerox machine?

Exactly. Is there any specific reason, such as health or safety hazzard, that an employee working on a company project can't use the Xerox machine?
I never got an adequate explanation. Closest thing that made sense what that it infringed on the secretary's duties. That was still one of the most bizarre things that I ever saw. All-employee use of Xerox machines was allowed in a subsequent agreement, but up until 1996-7?, operating the copier was a union job.

I work for a non-union company now. So I can copy to my heart's content, fix servo systems, machine parts, do electrical and control system design, sell systems, manage projects, and all the other things that make work fun to do.

I never got an adequate explanation. Closest thing that made sense what that it infringed on the secretary's duties. That was still one of the most bizarre things that I ever saw. All-employee use of Xerox machines was allowed in a subsequent agreement, but up until 1996-7?, operating the copier was a union job.

I work for a non-union company now. So I can copy to my heart's content, fix servo systems, machine parts, do electrical and control system design, sell systems, manage projects, and all the other things that make work fun to do.

Same here. And will most likely never go back to a union shop.

I couldn't find anything that stated laws were _regularly_ violated.

"Firing activists--as companies do in fully one-quarter of union drives, according to studies of NLRB cases--is difficult to prove and takes years to work through the courts."

you should get your comprehension checked out. cause that's just one illegal tactic that is used in at least one quarter of all union drives (and is obviously used in more that don't make it through the largely anti-union government bureaucracy for one reason or another). if at least one time out of four isn't regularly occuring, then i don't know what is.

and again, that is but one of the illegal tactics companies use. illegal disciplining for union activities without firing is even more common, as is illegal surveillance on union activities, and illegally blocking or disrupting union activity like passing out information or entering a store wearing a pro-unionization shirt. not to mention illegally threatening the loss of benefits or privileges to those who join a union, or making illegal promises of favors to those that vote no.

this shit happens pretty much every time if the bosses are dead-set on opposing unionization. which probably works out fairly close to the percentage of union votes that fail. because it's not like people call for a union vote before they have the support for it - except in unusual cases, they already have a majority of the workers signed up before that even starts.

Is there any specific reason, such as health or safety hazzard, that an employee working on a company project can't use the Xerox machine?

because the boss wrote it in to a contract. or is that reason only good when used to excuse the non-union bullshit that goes on at work?

because the boss wrote it in to a contract. or is that reason only good when used to excuse the non-union bullshit that goes on at work?

As I said before, unions are only as good as the people running them, and I'm not a fan of huge national unions. A local union or one that represents the works from one company may not be bad, as long as it gets realizes that it does have to work with management on order to keep the company viable.

The copier was just an example of a union making stupid rules for no good reason.

This is why MacDonalds seem so rabidly opposed to the notion of unions, in all likelihood.

I'd rather keep them un-unionized and maximize the number of high-paying white collar jobs than sacrifice them to "protect" the minimum wage workers in the stores.

I'd rather keep them un-unionized and maximize the number of high-paying white collar jobs than sacrifice them to "protect" the minimum wage workers in the stores.

Most executives are borderline incompotent, and removing them would greatly help the company, how would unionizing help keep McDonalds or Wal-Mart competitive?

BTW, I agree that Wal-Mart should be sued for some of its labor pratices.

Most executives are borderline incompotent, and removing them would greatly help the company, how would unionizing help keep McDonalds or Wal-Mart competitive.

It wouldn't. It would reduce productivity and increase costs, which mean reduced profit and higher prices combined with lower quality service.

The copier was just an example of a union making stupid rules for no good reason.

i'd imagine there wasn't actually a specific part of the contract that said "non-union people can't touch the xerox", but rather a general rule about non-union people not being brought in to do work that is in the job descriptions of union workers, as a standard bit of job protection that was written to be overly broad. lots of stupid rules are like that, at first anyway. but then the bureaucracy gets a hold of them, and bureaucrats (and their wannabes) tend to fetishize such things and make them really ridiculous.

It would reduce productivity

evidence?

You know for companies like Wal Mart or MacDonalds there are news of how it fires workers for attempting to form an organized labour union. So I said to myself, why dont the Government start making Unions mandatory in any large franchises like McDonalds. Basically the government has to monitor that the Unions do not be undermined or be so powerful that it could cripple the corporation and the corporation cant attempt in any way to dissolve or reduce the Union's power to an unnoticable force. This idea isnt a means to conflict with capitalist ideas but to improve human rights. Because I have heard stories where EA employees work 80 hours mandatory and no overtime pay.

Or better yet, GET BETTER WORKPLACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION!

evidence?

For the auto industry (the most heavily unionized in the US):

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0506/05/A01-202894.htm
http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-press.pl?&&20051174&WN&&SME&

The non-union automakers spend 10 hours less per car with lower production costs, and are still better in overall quality. Don't forget the massive healthcare costs and the quality issues associated with GM/Ford products. This doesn't include Delphi, which has its own gigantic problems, the least of which is its $65 dollar per hour labor cost which drove the company in to bankruptcy.

Cato Institute (biased, but the numbers are correct):http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5218

I can provide more, in addition to circumstantial evidence from economic data and employment growth.

The largest (potential) union today is in the health industry. Scary to think about this because it would make for such a large union. Think about this. The health industry covers hospitals, nursing homes, home visit health care, etc. I cannot think of a city anywhere around me that does not have some type of health care facility. IT COULD BE HUGE!!!!

For the auto industry (the most heavily unionized in the US):

The non-union automakers spend 10 hours less per car with lower production costs, and are still better in overall quality. Don't forget the massive healthcare costs and the quality issues associated with GM/Ford products. This doesn't include Delphi, which has its own gigantic problems, the least of which is its $65 dollar per hour labor cost which drove the company in to bankruptcy.

of course, the japanese auto makers, for example, have their own labor unions (http://www.jaw.or.jp/e/)...

the actual data on unions and productivity is that the relationship varies widely from firm to firm, and thus there is probably no uniform relation between them. not without taking other factors into account. in any particular instance a union can actually increase productivity.

Government should be answerable to indviduals not groups.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, so I'm sure you will join me in calling for state and local governments to abolish all laws which confer upon corporations the legal rights of individuals.

because the boss wrote it in to a contract. or is that reason only good when used to excuse the non-union bullshit that goes on at work?

not to mention the cognitive dissonance necessary to believe it's bad for employees to form a bargaining collective, but perfectly okay for the company shareholders to do exactly the same thing.

or, for that matter, to have a company like Clearchannel to own 90% of a given radio market, and then claim their employee's can just "get another job."

and while I'm at it: to whomever posted that stuff about union membership declining every year since 1980 - Reagan not only absolutely gutted labor laws in this country, while simultaneously de-funding the agencies assigned to enforce the remining laws, he also overtly participated in union-busting when he fired 11,000 air traffic controllers, had many prosecuted for violating their contract, and fined their union a million dollars a day during the strike.

The notion that declining union membership is some kind of isolated, natural trend is silly in the extreme. 24 years of hyper business-friendly administrations in DC has sent a clear message to employers and employees alike that the federal government is hostile to labour.

and while I'm at it: to whomever posted that stuff about union membership declining every year since 1980 - Reagan not only absolutely gutted labor laws in this country, while simultaneously de-funding the agencies assigned to enforce the remining laws, he also overtly participated in union-busting when he fired 11,000 air traffic controllers, had many prosecuted for violating their contract, and fined their union a million dollars a day during the strike.

And that is just one of the many actions that made Reagan such a great President.

You know for companies like Wal Mart or MacDonalds there are news of how it fires workers for attempting to form an organized labour union. So I said to myself, why dont the Government start making Unions mandatory in any large franchises like McDonalds. Basically the government has to monitor that the Unions do not be undermined or be so powerful that it could cripple the corporation and the corporation cant attempt in any way to dissolve or reduce the Union's power to an unnoticable force. This idea isnt a means to conflict with capitalist ideas but to improve human rights. Because I have heard stories where EA employees work 80 hours mandatory and no overtime pay.
what a naive and ignorant thing to say... mandatory unions, like any government enforced union legislation cause unemployement (unemployed does not occur in a pure free market (except under certain short term phenomena), if you dont believe me spend some time studying economics (economic theory), not only would this cause unemployement, it would lower productivity, and again economic theory will tell you that you cant increase the standard of living of people (noteven with unions), without increasing productivity.