NationStates Jolt Archive

Today in US history, we talked about unions and strikes and what not..

Well the teacher asked me if I would join a union, I said yes. And then he asked if I support strikes and if I would take part in one. I guess I would..

Then he asked another student if he would join a union and he said no.

The teacher was surprised and asked him why not. Then he quickly changed his question to "Would you be a strike-breaker?" and the kid said yes because it's a job that pays.

What I want to know is.. what would you be? A union member.. or would you stay non-union?

Why?

I am a union member. The union has no teeth and is totally useless because the contract says that we don't have the right to strike or honor picket lines of other unions. I'm a member because we have a closed shop.

I might have been a union member in the early 1900's, but not today. All unions want now is a larger part of the pie, but the pie isn't getting any larger! Plus, in my state they take money from non-members, which is in my opinion robbery. My mother doesn't benefit from their "negotiations." So why ought she to pay dues?

I'm not a big fan.

If it were in my personal benefit, I would join a union. Because, after all, what are unions but small corporations? Instead of providing a good, they provide labor. I'd even go so far as to say that if the employer agrees to it, closed shop contracts should be allowed. At the same time, the union should be treated just like every other corporation out there. It makes sense to me.

I might have been a union member in the early 1900's, but not today. All unions want now is a larger part of the pie, but the pie isn't getting any larger! Plus, in my state they take money from non-members, which is in my opinion robbery. My mother doesn't benefit from their "negotiations." So why ought she to pay dues?

I'm not a big fan.
So instead, the shareholders should get a bigger chunk of the pie? Screw that--they're not doing any of the actual work.

Union man, loud and proud.

So instead, the shareholders should get a bigger chunk of the pie? Screw that--they're not doing any of the actual work.

Union man, loud and proud.

My point is that often there is no larger part for anyone to have. Or the pie may even be getting smaller! But still, the union marches on protecting the rights of the little man. :rolleyes:

Never mind that the union leaders often have more than the oppressive stock-holders.

My point is that often there is no larger part for anyone to have. Or the pie may even be getting smaller! But still, the union marches on protecting the rights of the little man. :rolleyes:

Never mind that the union leaders often have more than the oppressive stock-holders.
The pies are getting larger--that they aren't is part of the big lie. Or have you looked at CEO compensation packages lately--especially the value of their stock options? The focus in the US has shifted from workers to investors, and that's why unions are more important now than ever--because workers are getting shafted at every opportunity.

Talking about Unions on Labour Day? How... original.

Anyways, yes, yes I would... there's power in a union after all (kudos to any who get that reference)

If collective bargaining would enhance my position, then yes, I would join a union. If it would not enhance my position, or if it would hinder my position, I would not.

EDIT: For those who keep up with economics, is there some sort of economic law that that applies when the above opinion is assumed to the aggregate labor force?

The pies are getting larger--that they aren't is part of the big lie. Or have you looked at CEO compensation packages lately--especially the value of their stock options? The focus in the US has shifted from workers to investors, and that's why unions are more important now than ever--because workers are getting shafted at every opportunity.

Or you could just be spouting out union propoganda?

And you could say that I'm spouting out anti-union propoganda.

It'll never end.:(

Unions are about far more than income. I have been a member of a union. I believe that my community needs a union - in particular a nurses union.

Unions are about managing working conditions and making sure that the bottom line does not interfere with employee (and therefore customer) conditions. They are a collective bargaining tool which benefits employers as much as employees.

Many unions 'overreach' their usefulness resulting in often humerous conditions. However this is not a justification for scratching the system. It just needs repair.

Depends.

If I was working in some place like the Iron Range, i.e. heavy industry w/ heavily divergent wants between the management and employees, I'd end up joining, if only to save my self.

However, in some shops, the Union can be just a bad or worse for the guys as the boss.

Or you could just be spouting out union propoganda?

And you could say that I'm spouting out anti-union propoganda.

It'll never end.:(
The numbers don't lie--corporate profits are up across the board and real wages are down or stagnant. That's the result of a system where the worker doesn't have the power to effectively demand wage increases.

If the studio I work for ever gets big enough for anyone to start trying to unionize, I am fucking out of here. No way in hell am I gonna pay some overpriced union boss for the privilege of doing my job.

I will never hold any job that requires collective bargaining. In fact I’d rather die, but in the incredibly unlikely chance that I do find myself among the Proles, I would only if it would benefit me, and yes I would be a strike-breaker.

Aint unions them smelly but delicious in curry veges?

The pies are getting larger--that they aren't is part of the big lie. Or have you looked at CEO compensation packages lately--especially the value of their stock options? The focus in the US has shifted from workers to investors, and that's why unions are more important now than ever--because workers are getting shafted at every opportunity.
Without the investors, the unions wouldn’t have a reason to strike because there would be no jobs.

Without the investors, the unions wouldn’t have a reason to strike because there would be no jobs.

Without workers, there would be no investors because there would be no industry.

It works both ways.

Without the investors, the unions wouldn’t have a reason to strike because there would be no jobs.
Gee--businesses managed to survive the pre-investor age and the powerful union age, so I guess that means you're talking out of your ass.

i would join a union because i don't think an individual worker is afforded enough power to put in effect the changes that he/she wishes to see. a union offers this opportunity because the likelyhood is that most workers will want similar things out of their industry, e.g. higher pay, better working conditions, greater job security etc. if you want something that is a minority interest you will probably be able to find at least a few people in the union to support you in a private bid to the company, industry or union. i would never cross a picket line because i believe workers rights come before the rights of corporations, even if it meant i would not be getting paid. as far as i'm aware most good unions set aside an amount of funds to subsidise workers who go on strike.

Being unionized can be either beneficial or detrimental for you depending on your industry. The fact is, that unions add to the cost of doing business, which has the potential to kill your profitablity, or worse; ability to survive in a competitive marketplace.

Unions make sense for factory work, and large-scale projects, espescially where issues of safety are concerned. It makes it much easier to negotiate with a large corporation when you have a union backing you, then when you are a faceless peon in the crowd. However, smaller businesses can't hope to compete with other non-unionized business.

If my business was unionized, I'd shut it down. (We would being going bankrupt anyways...)

unions served their purpose a long time ago and now we dont need them anymore.

unions served their purpose a long time ago and now we dont need them anymore.
Of course todays nothing like back then, we have living wages, pensions, health insurance, an ever shrinking gap between rich and poor.... oh wait:rolleyes:

Of course todays nothing like back then, we have living wages, pensions, health insurance, an ever shrinking gap between rich and poor.... oh wait:rolleyes:
what do unions do to help employees? unions were needed during the industrial revolution when monopolies treated workers like dogs, but today we have all kinds of laws protecting employees. what do you want? someone to wipe your ass?

No, I wouldn't. The massive job cuts and bankruptcy at Delphi, the near bankruptcy of GM and Ford, and the massive corruption present in US labor unions confirm to me that I would never consider joining one. The greed and corruption of unions and the havoc they have wreaked on these companies in the past few decades is more than enough to convince me to stay well away from organized labor.

Plus, unions reduce your job mobility which is extremely undesirable in a modern economy with a lot of demand for talented employees. They're being rendered economically obsolete. Plus, their opposition to free trade and free competition shows me that they prefer to hurt both consumers and themselves in the long run to preserve short term benefits to themselves and their members.

Furthermore, unions are economically undesirable because they reduce overall employment and contribute to long term depression in wages in their sector as well as long term vulnerability of their own employment. Unions had a valuable role in the past, but they've become greedy and are hurting far more than they are helping these days.

This is speaking of US unions, not anywhere else in the world since I know nothing about foreign movements.

what do unions do to help employees? unions were needed during the industrial revolution when monopolies treated workers like dogs, but today we have all kinds of laws protecting employees. what do you want? someone to wipe your ass?
Yes, because those things I mentioned were the equivalent of having someone to wipe my ass:rolleyes: Unions are necesary to see t it that those laws stay in place.:rolleyes: Since the unions have lost power we have seen a steady decline in the real wages of the average person, we are seeing more and more companies trashing their pensions, ect. ect. just because these things were achieved in the past is no reason believe that they are set in stone and can't be lost.

No, I wouldn't. The massive job cuts and bankruptcy at Delphi, the near bankruptcy of GM and Ford, and the massive corruption present in US labor unions confirm to me that I would never consider joining one. The greed and corruption of unions and the havoc they have wreaked on these companies in the past few decades is more than enough to convince me to stay well away from organized labor.

Plus, unions reduce your job mobility which is extremely undesirable in a modern economy with a lot of demand for talented employees. They're being rendered economically obsolete. Plus, their opposition to free trade and free competition shows me that they prefer to hurt both consumers and themselves in the long run to preserve short term benefits to themselves and their members.

Furthermore, unions are economically undesirable because they reduce overall employment and contribute to long term depression in wages in their sector as well as long term vulnerability of their own employment. Unions had a valuable role in the past, but they've become greedy and are hurting far more than they are helping these days.

This is speaking of US unions, not anywhere else in the world since I know nothing about foreign movements.
Yep, because eveyone knows once something is currupt there's no fixing it thats why we got rid of capitalism with the robber barrons.

If you have 20 workers in a shop each making 8$ bucks and hour.... the total cost of your work force is 140 dollars an hour. The reason I started a buisness was to make money. I offerd the job to each worker for 8 bucks an hour. The workers unionize because they want higher wages even though i only offerd them a job at 8$.... So I say screw you I offerd you 8$ and fire them. I hire another set of workers... but the goverment says no... UNIONS and wages are THE RIGHT OF THE WORKER. So i have to raise the wage to lets say 10$ because the min wage is 10$... Im now lossing profit... So now i have to fire 6 workers so that i maintain a steady profit. OR i hire illegals who will work for 8 bucks and not complain... The reason people start buisnesses is to get rich. they trade job security for risk... they EARN EVEARY CENT. Workers earn eveary cent. IF YOU DONT LIKE YOUR WAGE DONE WORK THIER> Life is an entitlement>>>>>> find a higher paying job... you needed to get an education if you want to go anywhere. You shouldnt make a million dollars shoveling shit:headbang: :get a real job like an entrepenuer who takes risk eveary day or study in school go to colledge get a degree play the game right and become a CEO.
THIER IS NO COMPULSURARY LABOR MARKET. NOBODY FORCES YOU TO SHOVEL SHIT... GROW UP


comming back eveary 20 min to add to the rant really lost the jist yes?:headbang:

Of course todays nothing like back then, we have living wages, pensions, health insurance, an ever shrinking gap between rich and poor.... oh wait:rolleyes:

Unions today contribute to income inequality by distorting the labor market and creating an income gap between nonunion and union employees that is ultimately unsustainable and eventually drags down the entire sector of the labor market that has large numbers of unionized employees.

A healthy, competitive labor market can produce benefits to employees that are comparable if not as good as unions can but the difference is that these employees' employment is much more secure and independent of collective bargaining.

Yep, because eveyone knows once something is currupt there's no fixing it thats why we got rid of capitalism with the robber barrons.

The corruption is a growing trend rather than a declining one; the unions aren't fixable because they're not willing to make cuts that would save their employment as well as most of their benefits. They aren't totally to blame by any means, but they are a significant part of the problem.

Plus, unions do not work well in a healthy labor market can have a negative effect on productivity, employment, and overall income.

Rather than making a wage or as compliment to the wage unions should be tools to destribute profits through investment in the company stock. This ties the companies success directly to the worker. It makes the union / managment relations one of :fluffle:. It becomes an Us mentality rather than a worker vs boss mentality. The problem is union culture, thier is no :fluffle: or corporate pride just union adversity. Giving stock to workers rather than wage increases is good for evearyone worker and company. because it ties the workers destiny to the company as the corporation.

I would join a union but only under the right circumstances. Since unions end up being just as corrupt as corporations, I would favor a model where people come together and unionize over specific issues. It’s not always about money, it’s about control and who do you want to be in control of your life, you or the company? The corporations will stomp on your Constitutional rights all day long. I realize unions can end up being just as bad, but at least the members have some sort of say-so over the union.

I think a better solution would be for the people to take that same energy and make the government pass laws which force businesses to respect our rights at work. You don’t check in your rights at the workplace door.

Unions today contribute to income inequality by distorting the labor market and creating an income gap between nonunion and union employees that is ultimately unsustainable and eventually drags down the entire sector of the labor market that has large numbers of unionized employees. Yep, thats why the massive and steadly increasing income ap we see now a days is between union members and non union members, not upper managment/wealthy investors and everyone else. Yep them damn unions see to it that their members make more than those comparitive workers not in unions, that is in no way an indication that being in a union is in the best interest of their members, who apparently make more than those not in unions.

A healthy, competitive labor market can produce benefits to employees that are comparable if not as good as unions can but the difference is that these employees' employment is much more secure and independent of collective bargaining.
Yes, cause a "healthy" labor market favors the average worker, after all everyone knows that there are always more job openings than canidates. After all its in the best interests of workers to be working against each other for acess to desirable positions.

The corporations will stomp on your Constitutional rights all day long. \

WTF does that mean... and by that i mean i want the specific line in the constitution they are violating.

Yes, because those things I mentioned were the equivalent of having someone to wipe my ass:rolleyes:
wow, you completely missed the point. good job.

Unions are necesary to see t it that those laws stay in place.:rolleyes: Since the unions have lost power we have seen a steady decline in the real wages of the average person, we are seeing more and more companies trashing their pensions, ect. ect. just because these things were achieved in the past is no reason believe that they are set in stone and can't be lost.
have you heard of law suits? companies have to deal with them, even from non-union workers. you know why some companies are trashing pensions? because past unions forced those companies to pay out the ass and now the companies either have to cut down on bullshit benefits or go out of business which means EVERYONE loses their job. which would you prefer? a free market wage or no job?

Today in US history, we talked about unions and strikes and what not..

Well the teacher asked me if I would join a union, I said yes. And then he asked if I support strikes and if I would take part in one. I guess I would..

Then he asked another student if he would join a union and he said no.

The teacher was surprised and asked him why not. Then he quickly changed his question to "Would you be a strike-breaker?" and the kid said yes because it's a job that pays.

What I want to know is.. what would you be? A union member.. or would you stay non-union?

Why?


As soon as I turn 21, I will try to join the longshoreman's union. Why? Because union jobs pay better than non-union ones, and it empowers the worker more to be in one. Would I participate in a strike? Yes, I would.

Yep, thats why the massive and steadly increasing income ap we see now a days is between union members and non union members, not upper managment/wealthy investors and everyone else. Yep them damn unions see to it that their members make more than those comparitive workers not in unions, that is in no way an indication that being in a union is in the best interest of their members, who apparently make more than those not in unions.

Union members are losing jobs and their members are aging; they simply can't attract new workers because unions have cost themselves hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Higher wages that are artificially high make a company unable to compete, which reduces their ability to invest in new products and reduces overall employment. Eventually, those benefits become unsustainable and that

Yes, cause a "healthy" labor market favors the average worker, after all everyone knows that there are always more job openings than canidates. After all its in the best interests of workers to be working against each other for acess to desirable positions.

There is a shortage of skilled workers that is driving up wages for positions that are in demand, but the problem is that many union members aren't qualified for these positions. An average worker is able to take advantage of those opportunities if they get the education, but if they don't they aren't able to.

It's the government's duty to cover the cost of education and its associated expenses for those who are willing to get the skills necessary to compete. If they don't want to, they don't deserve unsustainable benefits above those of others in their same field that reduce employment and overall wages.

Competition works; it drives up wages, keeps costs low and increases innovation and quality. An environment where noone competes is no different than a monopoly, and the undesirable effects of a monopoly eventually occur.

The corruption is a growing trend rather than a declining one; the unions aren't fixable because they're not willing to make cuts that would save their employment as well as most of their benefits. They aren't totally to blame by any means, but they are a significant part of the problem.

Plus, unions do not work well in a healthy labor market can have a negative effect on productivity, employment, and overall income.
You mean like with current buissness leadership and the ever widing gap between their real income and that of the average, non-unized( since they make up the vast majority of the work force now a days), worker? Huh, image that, unions are weak and the average real income is steadly decreasing compared to when the unions were at their strongest and it was at its highest. After all its not like companies put the bottom line and the well being of their top investors and board ahead of the well being of their workers. They would never shaft those they employ to improve their own profits thats why Wal-Mart with all its labour violations is doing so poorly.

wow, you completely missed the point. good job.


have you heard of law suits? companies have to deal with them, even from non-union workers. you know why some companies are trashing pensions? because past unions forced those companies to pay out the ass and now the companies either have to cut down on bullshit benefits or go out of business which means EVERYONE loses their job. which would you prefer? a free market wage or no job?
I'd prefer that those same companies weren't giving their top mangement massive benefits and gratuitous bonouses.

You mean like with current buissness leadership and the ever widing gap between their real income and that of the average, non-unized( since they make up the vast majority of the work force now a days), worker? Huh, image that, unions are weak and the average real income is steadly decreasing compared to when the unions were at their strongest and it was at its highest. After all its not like companies put the bottom line and the well being of their top investors and board ahead of the well being of their workers. They would never shaft those they employ to improve their own profits thats why Wal-Mart with all its labour violations is doing so poorly.
my god, we dont live in 1890 anymore. what do you want? a spa in every office? you do work, you get paid. unions artificiallly raise wages by limiting how many people the company can employ, which is bad for everyone.

Today in US history, we talked about unions and strikes and what not..

Well the teacher asked me if I would join a union, I said yes. And then he asked if I support strikes and if I would take part in one. I guess I would..

Then he asked another student if he would join a union and he said no.

The teacher was surprised and asked him why not. Then he quickly changed his question to "Would you be a strike-breaker?" and the kid said yes because it's a job that pays.

What I want to know is.. what would you be? A union member.. or would you stay non-union?

Why?

I just recently (two months ago) joined a union. There are several reasons for having done so, but they all boil down to my employers increasingly bad management practices and a loss of trust in the management as an hosest dealer. I'd note that in the past two years, union membership has gone from .5% to 10% of the workforce at the company I work for, and is increasing.

If you have 20 workers in a shop each making 8$ bucks and hour.... the total cost of your work force is 140 dollars an hour. The reason I started a buisness was to make money. I offerd the job to each worker for 8 bucks an hour. The workers unionize because they want higher wages even though i only offerd them a job at 8$.... So I say screw you I offerd you 8$ and fire them. I hire another set of workers... but the goverment says no... UNIONS and wages are THE RIGHT OF THE WORKER. So i have to raise the wage to lets say 10$ because the min wage is 10$... Im now lossing profit... So now i have to fire 6 workers so that i maintain a steady profit. OR i hire illegals who will work for 8 bucks and not complain... The reason people start buisnesses is to get rich. they trade job security for risk... they EARN EVEARY CENT. Workers earn eveary cent. IF YOU DONT LIKE YOUR WAGE DONE WORK THIER> Life is an entitlement>>>>>> find a higher paying job... you needed to get an education if you want to go anywhere. You shouldnt make a million dollars shoveling shit:headbang: :get a real job like an entrepenuer who takes risk eveary day or study in school go to colledge get a degree play the game right and become a CEO.
THIER IS NO COMPULSURARY LABOR MARKET. NOBODY FORCES YOU TO SHOVEL SHIT... GROW UP


comming back eveary 20 min to add to the rant really lost the jist yes?:headbang:
“Work or starve” is as much of a compulsion as a whip or a pistol.

Unions today contribute to income inequality by distorting the labor market and creating an income gap between nonunion and union employees that is ultimately unsustainable and eventually drags down the entire sector of the labor market that has large numbers of unionized employees.

A healthy, competitive labor market can produce benefits to employees that are comparable if not as good as unions can but the difference is that these employees' employment is much more secure and independent of collective bargaining.Except that you're making one ludicrous assumption--that wages will increase without outside pressure to make them go up. Wages will stay as low as businesses can keep them, and it's only the organized pushback from labor unions that makes them go up. Yes--unions can go too far, but lately, they haven't gone far enough, and the middle class is decimated as a result.

I just recently (two months ago) joined a union. There are several reasons for having done so, but they all boil down to my employers increasingly bad management practices and a loss of trust in the management as an hosest dealer. I'd note that in the past two years, union membership has gone from .5% to 10% of the workforce at the company I work for, and is increasing.


SO why not quite... its not like you have the best intrest of the company at heart...What gives you the right to tell management what to do? I am of course assuming your the "fight the man" union

SO why not quite... its not like you have the best intrest of the company at heart...What gives you the right to tell management what to do? I am of course assuming your the "fight the man" union
What gives management the right to tell the worker what to do? You are aware of the point of a union, correct? Collective bargaining?

Union members are losing jobs and their members are aging; they simply can't attract new workers because unions have cost themselves hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Higher wages that are artificially high make a company unable to compete, which reduces their ability to invest in new products and reduces overall employment. Eventually, those benefits become unsustainable and that



There is a shortage of skilled workers that is driving up wages for positions that are in demand, but the problem is that many union members aren't qualified for these positions. An average worker is able to take advantage of those opportunities if they get the education, but if they don't they aren't able to.

It's the government's duty to cover the cost of education and its associated expenses for those who are willing to get the skills necessary to compete. If they don't want to, they don't deserve unsustainable benefits above those of others in their same field that reduce employment and overall wages..
Well its a good thing the goverment is so willing to pay for that educations.

Competition works; it drives up wages, keeps costs low and increases innovation and quality. An environment where noone competes is no different than a monopoly, and the undesirable effects of a monopoly eventually occur.
I guess thats why the average worker is being paid so much more in real wages than before, huh.

Union members are losing jobs and their members are aging; they simply can't attract new workers because unions have cost themselves hundreds of thousands of jobs.
You're acting like anti-labor regulations and the lack of enforcement of labor laws by Republican administrations over the last 25 years (and it wasn't great under Clinton either) haven't had anything to do with this phenomenon. You know better than that, Vetalia. There's been a concerted anti-union movement going on for a long time now, and it's been bearing fruit for a while now as well.

None of this matters in the greater scheme of the world, In the USA we have a lucrid job market, If you got brains you can move up. The poor will be the workers the middle class the entrepenuers and smarter workers, and the rich, the people who make it on thier own, who play the game perfectly and make the right choices... Almost all people including many of the "rich" have the same debt when they leave college as the poor. All that matters is the rich make good choices while the poor make bad ones... Thier own fault for not studying

I am union-neutral. If the market determines that unions will exist, they will exist. I think they made a lot more sense back in the 1900s when there was monospyny power, and people didn't have the kind of choices they do now. Nowadays, you can pretty much go to work for whomever you want. So I would have to say no to unions.

I am union-neutral. If the market determines that unions will exist, they will exist. I think they made a lot more sense back in the 1900s when there was monospyny power, and people didn't have the kind of choices they do now. Nowadays, you can pretty much go to work for whomever you want. So I would have to say no to unions.



:D I humbly agree with that sentiment

my god, we dont live in 1890 anymore. what do you want? a spa in every office? you do work, you get paid. unions artificiallly raise wages by limiting how many people the company can employ, which is bad for everyone.
No, what I want is for peopel like you to relize that the average wage in terms of real purchasing power for middle class and working class Americans has been in a steady decline for that past five years, while those of the rich in our society has been steadly increasing. That fifty years ago the average CEO made seventy times that of the average worker he employed, while today it one-hundred and seventy. That means that in a year the average CEO today make more than the average worker would in a hundred and seventy, and personaly I think there is a problem with that.

No, what I want is for peopel like you to relize that the average wage in terms of real purchasing power for middle class and working class Americans has been in a steady decline for that past five years, while those of the rich in our society has been steadly increasing. That fifty years ago the average CEO made seventy times that of the average worker he employed, while today it one-hundred and seventy. That means that in a year the average CEO today make more than the average worker would in a hundred and seventy, and personaly I think there is a problem with that.

That just means the average person is getting stuipider... seen by the 50% college drop out rate.

Most of these CEO's staterted as middle class kids whent to college and got rich they earned eveary cent

None of this matters in the greater scheme of the world, In the USA we have a lucrid job market, If you got brains you can move up. The poor will be the workers the middle class the entrepenuers and smarter workers, and the rich, the people who make it on thier own, who play the game perfectly and make the right choices... Almost all people including many of the "rich" have the same debt when they leave college as the poor. All that matters is the rich make good choices while the poor make bad ones... Thier own fault for not studying
:rolleyes: You realize the precentage of the rich that are self made is not even close to a majority.

That just means the average person is getting stuipider... seen by the 50% college drop out rate.

Most of these CEO's staterted as middle class kids whent to college and got rich they earned eveary cent
You got statistics to back up that claim? And ones to show that the colledge drop out rates were lower in the past?

:rolleyes: You realize the precentage of the rich that are self made is not even close to a majority.

And your getting this from where? if you state percentage you must have some statistical backing... My truth is subjective... you claim to have some objective evidence?

SO why not quite... its not like you have the best intrest of the company at heart...What gives you the right to tell management what to do? I am of course assuming your the "fight the man" union

When I signed on, I did so with a company who's management I trusted to honor their contract and the law. Increasingly, they have not done so. Surely you'd agree that I should be able to dispute that?

And your getting this from where? if you state percentage you must have some statistical backing... My truth is subjective... you claim to have some objective evidence?
Not internet just yet, if your willing to wait I'll do a check. You have a source for your claims?

When I signed on, I did so with a company who's management I trusted to honor their contract and the law. Increasingly, they have not done so. Surely you'd agree that I should be able to dispute that?


I dont know where your finances are at the moment but if such individuals are committing crime why are you still working for scum bags who break the law. If the management is trully breaking the law then you should report them to the police

heres what i found with 1 google search but in 1997 it was 54% ill find one fopr today

"Just 54 percent of students entering four-year colleges in 1997 had a degree six years later — and even fewer Hispanics and blacks did, according to some of the latest government figures. After borrowing for school but failing to graduate, many of those students may be worse off than if they had never attended college at all" -from msnbc http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053859/

Yes, I would. Labor unions are one of the mechanisms that increase public involvement in economic decision-making; while highly imperfect because of their very limited scope, they are at least a start.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,148968,00.html Veary good article on it


" Indeed, more than 4 in 10 public high school students who manage to graduate are unprepared for either college courses or anything beyond an entry-level job, the governors reported, requiring billions of dollars in remedial training to endow them with the skills "they should have attained in high school." "

The report calls for regular testing of high school students; No Child Left Behind doesn't require high school testing. States with graduation exams typically lower standards when it's clear that many students who've been passing their courses can't pass a test of 10th grade skills.

I a forced to admit im having trouble finding the actuall drop out rate but dont worry give me a few min... I could be wrong this is something i read once and cant find..

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,148968,00.html Veary good article on it


" Indeed, more than 4 in 10 public high school students who manage to graduate are unprepared for either college courses or anything beyond an entry-level job, the governors reported, requiring billions of dollars in remedial training to endow them with the skills "they should have attained in high school." "

The report calls for regular testing of high school students; No Child Left Behind doesn't require high school testing. States with graduation exams typically lower standards when it's clear that many students who've been passing their courses can't pass a test of 10th grade skills.
You do realize that in many ways this constitutes an improvement, right?

Daresay, back in the 1900's, the golden days of capitalism, 3/4ths of the population would have been lucky to even go to high school, much less graduate.

I dont know where your finances are at the moment but if such individuals are committing crime why are you still working for scum bags who break the law. If the management is trully breaking the law then you should report them to the police

Actually it's the labor standards office that deals with matters of labor law, not so much the police. And the union is in a better position to deal with both management and the LSO. For example, there are issues of unfair dismisals. If the company fires someone illegitimately, there's very little an individual can do. However, through the collective effort of the union, we are able to employee lawyers and go before the LSO and stop such practices.

Actually it's the labor standards office that deals with matters of labor law, not so much the police. And the union is in a better position to deal with both management and the LSO. For example, there are issues of unfair dismisals. If the company fires someone illegitimately, there's very little an individual can do. However, through the collective effort of the union, we are able to employee lawyers and go before the LSO and stop such practices.

well then a unions for you... I think a buisness should be able to fire you for any reason at all exept political speach race creed or color/ disability/ ect. hence ill stop confronting you on the issue because my morality conflicts with yours.

I a forced to admit im having trouble finding the actuall drop out rate but dont worry give me a few min... I could be wrong this is something i read once and cant find..
Thats all right I'm having the same problem I remember the stats given in my current poli-sci class for self made wealth were only around a third of the top 10% or so, but I'm having trouble finding anything that even adresses the matter online.

edit:heck with it, I retract my claim, as I have finals to study for and really need to get back to that.

Thats all right I'm having the same problem I remember the stats given in my current poli-sci class for self made wealth were only around a third of the top 10% or so, but I'm having trouble finding anything that even adresses the matter online.
If we're counting offline sources, "Lies my teacher told me" had a bit on this.

You do realize that in many ways this constitutes an improvement, right?

Daresay, back in the 1900's, the golden days of capitalism, 3/4ths of the population would have been lucky to even go to high school, much less graduate.



But this isnt 1900's lol.... its a diffrent world. you dont think back then thier was a gap between rich and poor?? To a certain extend in any devloping society a trickle down model is necisary for development. Just how economics works. Devloping nations need efficentcy. Todays society has become middle class based. The service industry and the global economy have basicly made unions a drag on the entire economy. If you dont wanna pay union workers you go to another nation which allows for greater efficeny, larger prodution for cost, and of course avoiding labor crap to hire people who are willing to work for 5 cents a year lol

night phyck gl... I should go study too but tonights my break night lol

So instead, the shareholders should get a bigger chunk of the pie? Screw that--they're not doing any of the actual work.

Union man, loud and proud.Funny how different governments have different ways of neutralising unions. Here, for exampole, it's been a struggle to be allowed to join a different union from the one endorsed by my employer...

Sometimes the world's just so hopelessly corrupt & malicious, screaming in desperation is the only thing left to do.

All that said, I too am a union man, strong & proud.

If we're counting offline sources, "Lies my teacher told me" had a bit on this.
Wasn't the teacher, the statistics were in some of the material we were using and were backed by a repetable source, however, I know that hard copy sources are normaly not accebtable hence my saying I would check online and my retraction when that didn't prove as quickly fruitful as I hoped don't have the time to spend searching the net.

Unions :sniper:
Unions :gundge:
Unions :mp5: :mp5:

lol

But this isnt 1900's lol.... its a diffrent world. you dont think back then thier was a gap between rich and poor. To a certain extend in any devloping society a trickle down model is necisary for development. Just how economics works. Devloping nations need efficentcy. Todays society has become middle class based. The service industry and the global economy have basicly made unions a drag on the entire economy. If you dont wanna pay union workers you go to another nation which allows for greater efficeny, larger prodution for cost, and of course avoiding labor crap to hire people who are willing to work for 5 cents a year lol
And you don't think that there's a gap now? Helloooo, anyone home?

Take a look at the gini coefficient sometime. Roughly 50% of the CONSUMPTION in the united states is taken by the top 20%. 30% by the top 10%. Wealth is worse. The top 20% hold ~83% of the net wealth of the country. The top 1%? 40%. The vaunted middle class? 4.5%.

your right thier is a gap and its the fault of people not getting an education to get jobs that are high paying... people dont have the entrepenueral spirit... They dont have the will to learn as in the past... Thats why the gaps widening... Thiers the smart people who get an education and get good jobs and then the poor people who dont get good grades. Today high rates of droping out and stuipid people going to college.... Im not saying thier isnt a gap im just saying its a problem that is not solved by unions but by educating the youth.

your right thier is a gap and its the fault of people not getting an education to get jobs that are high paying... people dont have the entrepenueral spirit... They dont have the will to learn as in the past... Thats why the gaps widening... Thiers the smart people who get an education and get good jobs and then the poor people who dont get good grades. Today high rates of droping out and stuipid people going to college.... Im not saying thier isnt a gap im just saying its a problem that is not solved by unions but by educating the youth.
Most jobs - even those that require a high-level college degree, such as chem engineering, don't pay nearly as much as a high-level managers position. Hell, holders of doctorates don't make as much money as the mid-to-high level managers.

I question your statistics but thats ok.... depends on whos economic stuff you trust. the truth is the rich made choices which allowed them to earn thier wealth... thier is no inherit right to be rich... Its the choices you make that allow you to achieve wealth. Make bad choices dont achieve wealth. Thats how it works and thats the best system.. the consequences of a free society.

well then a unions for you... I think a buisness should be able to fire you for any reason at all exept political speach race creed or color/ disability/ ect. hence ill stop confronting you on the issue because my morality conflicts with yours.

Should an employer be able to fire someone in violation of the legal employment contract? Say, for example, the employment contract states that the employer may not dismiss an employee for missing a short period of work due illness. I catch the flu and take a sick day, and the company dismisses me in violation of the contract. Is that OK?

I question your statistics but thats ok.... depends on whos economic stuff you trust. the truth is the rich made choices which allowed them to earn thier wealth... thier is no inherit right to be rich... Its the choices you make that allow you to achieve wealth. Make bad choices dont achieve wealth. Thats how it works and thats the best system.. the consequences of a free society.
Getting back to the point - What have you got against a free association of labor to negotiate with capital?

Most jobs - even those that require a high-level college degree, such as chem engineering, don't pay nearly as much as a high-level managers position. Hell, holders of doctorates don't make as much money as the mid-to-high level managers.


yes but they didnt make the right choices.... if money is your goal if being rich is what you desire then you have eveary opertunity to become management. most ceo's have degrees in something.... unless thier really old. doctors, engeneers, ect arent necisarily the smartest people... but they made thier choice. my intelligence ranking is based on willingness to learn

yes but they didnt make the right choices.... if money is your goal if being rich is what you desire then you have eveary opertunity to become management.
So then education isn't the answer, getting an MBA and having the proper connections is.

Getting back to the point - What have you got against a free association of labor to negotiate with capital?

I have no problem with someone unionizing, but if you get rejected the employer can fire you for all he wants. I think the culture of unions has gone from a good idea to a bad one. US vs them mentality, rather than a corporate pride one. Corporations workers should say... GM MAN and PROUD not UNION MAN AND PROUD. see the diffrence.

My other beef is that it ruins thier own market. They cause thier own companies to lay off workers and go overses so that they at least squirt out a meanial profit margin of 10%

your right thier is a gap and its the fault of people not getting an education to get jobs that are high paying... people dont have the entrepenueral spirit... They dont have the will to learn as in the past... Thats why the gaps widening... Thiers the smart people who get an education and get good jobs and then the poor people who dont get good grades. Today high rates of droping out and stuipid people going to college.... Im not saying thier isnt a gap im just saying its a problem that is not solved by unions but by educating the youth.
Yes, but if everyone is managerial types who does the day to day stuff? Those jobs are necesary and thus deserve a livable, at least, wage. Furthermore, even smart people don't necesarily get paid much, the starting wage for a profesor at the college I go to is $35,000 not small, but also not much considering the time and money involved in earning the doctorate required, and it is almost $10,000 less than the ~$44,000 median given by the census beureu in this case at least things do improve, at least in terms of job security and benefits(tuition remission kicks ass). So a good education is in no way a guarentee of sucess or high wages. Besides, if everyone was a skilled worker than that would drive down the wages of skilled workers.

I have no problem with someone unionizing, but if you get rejected the employer can fire you for all he wants. I think the culture of unions has gone from a good idea to a bad one. US vs them mentality, rather than a corporate pride one. Corporations workers should say... GM MAN and PROUD not UNION MAN AND PROUD. see the diffrence.

My other beef is that it ruins thier own market. They cause thier own companies to lay off workers and go overses so that they at least squirt out a meanial profit margin of 10%
Yes, but unions aren't the reason for that its that companies are showing less and less loyalty to their workers so the workers reply in kind and than the companies show less loyatly and the workers do and so on and so on.

So then education isn't the answer, getting an MBA and having the proper connections is.

But your education level determins how you make those connection... (MBA is education by the way) ..... merit in education really deternines who you meet also.... Harvord grad vs a community college lad. (my friend who aint rich is going to yale... aint a legacy thing hes validictorian and going places)

I have no problem with someone unionizing, but if you get rejected the employer can fire you for all he wants. I think the culture of unions has gone from a good idea to a bad one. US vs them mentality, rather than a corporate pride one. Corporations workers should say... GM MAN and PROUD not UNION MAN AND PROUD. see the diffrence.

My other beef is that it ruins thier own market. They cause thier own companies to lay off workers and go overses so that they at least squirt out a meanial profit margin of 10%
That has to be the oddest statement I have ever read on these forums. You are fine with unions, but you don't want them to be strong.


So you'd rather have a corporate dictatorship or something? Loyalty til death (or at least until they come up with some excuse to fire you) to the company?



But hey, if corporations weren't notorious for trying to fuck over labor, I'd agree with you. Seeing how it stands...

But your education level determins how you make those connection... (MBA is education by the way) ..... merit in education really deternines who you meet also.... Harvord grad vs a community college lad. (my friend who aint rich is going to yale... aint a legacy thing hes validictorian and going places)
An MBA is many things. It is not a doctorate, which is generally considered to be the highest level of education, across all levels. And no, not all connections are of the education sort. You have a very naive understanding of how the world works if you think that everything is equal when you're born.

Yes, but unions aren't the reason for that its that companies are showing less and less loyalty to their workers so the workers reply in kind and than the companies show less loyatly and the workers do and so on and so on.

Well the reason they are so adversive is because the workers consider the boss to be the enemy. seems that way to me. Solution is to eliminate unions and give workers stock lol. I remember when my family used to go to the company picnics each year a long time ago. Great times.

Getting back to the point - What have you got against a free association of labor to negotiate with capital?This entire discussion seems to have turned into the usual liberal capitalism nightmare.

The problem with thhat lovely intellectual excercise is that people aren't payed according to the jobs they perform. No one are, and no one ever have been, anywhere - not on a general level anyway.

For the capitalist "trickle down" effect to actually work - employers competing for the grace of workers, by means of increased paychecks (among other things) - there has to be an abundancy of jobs that pay sufficiently to support at least a reasonable standard of living.
The opposite has always, and still is, the case. We workers compete for the jobs, not the other way around.

That's why we need things like taxes, unions & minimum wages. By free corporate capitalism alone, we workers are reduced to slavery.
It's all true that taxes are amoral, and that unions strongarming business is - at best - unethical. Unfortunately corporate capitalism can't even work without countermeasures like these. Blame the selfdestructive Holy Grail of capitalism we all seem to wortship.

That has to be the oddest statement I have ever read on these forums. You are fine with unions, but you don't want them to be strong.

So you'd rather have a corporate dictatorship or something? Loyalty til death (or at least until they come up with some excuse to fire you) to the company?

But hey, if corporations weren't notorious for trying to fuck over labor, I'd agree with you. Seeing how it stands...

nobody is forcing you to work for a corporation lol. I believe in safe labor laws to PROTECT workers. Corporations have to make a profit thats thier job and labor is the tool to do so. Dont like it dont work for them, thier purpose is to make investors happy and create profit, NOT HIRE PEOPLE. Plus they would only really fire you if A they couldnt pay for you or B you arent an asset to the company. Hence efficency suffers and you become a liability.

An MBA is many things. It is not a doctorate, which is generally considered to be the highest level of education, across all levels. And no, not all connections are of the education sort. You have a very naive understanding of how the world works if you think that everything is equal when you're born.


I believe in the idea of Tabula Rossa, (blank Slate) and that the individual has the ability to forge thier own destiny with the proper tools. Currently we are not giving out the proper tools of education to formulate sucess. Alot of meeting people is based on education.... Look at the Job highering rates of top universities.. The beter the university the better employment and starting saleries of a graduate. (Us news and world report on colledges) Check it out

This entire discussion seems to have turned into the usual liberal capitalism nightmare.

The problem with thhat lovely intellectual excercise is that people aren't payed according to the jobs they perform. No one are, and no one ever have been, anywhere - not on a general level anyway.

For the capitalist "trickle down" effect to actually work - employers competing for the grace of workers, by means of increased paychecks (among other things) - there has to be an abundancy of jobs that pay sufficiently to support at least a reasonable standard of living.
The opposite has always, and still is, the case. We workers compete for the jobs, not the other way around.

That's why we need things like taxes, unions & minimum wages. By free corporate capitalism alone, we workers are reduced to slavery.
It's all true that taxes are amoral, and that unions strongarming business is - at best - unethical. Unfortunately corporate capitalism can't even work without countermeasures like these. Blame the selfdestructive Holy Grail of capitalism we all seem to wortship.

i was under the assumtion that trickle down creates jobs it doesnt necisarly garentee higher wages... just more people put to work.... Thats sorta why the unemployment is the lowest (or one of the lowest) in our nations history.

nobody is forcing you to work for a corporation lol. I believe in safe labor laws to PROTECT workers. Corporations have to make a profit thats thier job and labor is the tool to do so. Dont like it dont work for them, thier purpose is to make investors happy and create profit, NOT HIRE PEOPLE. Plus they would only really fire you if A they couldnt pay for you or B you arent an asset to the company. Hence efficency suffers and you become a liability.Corporations cannot function without workers. Thus it stands to reason that since both the people who invest money & people who invest labour in a corporation, should reap the same benefits.

Otherwise a corporation is simply a means for enslaving the people capable of working, for the people able to affort the initial investment in the mechanism.

Corporations cannot function without workers. Thus it stands to reason that since both the people who invest money & people who invest labour in a corporation, should reap the same benefits.

Otherwise a corporation is simply a means for enslaving the people capable of working, for the people able to affort the initial investment in the mechanism.



workers are the willing recipiants of somone who has money for a service. Not slavery. Slavery implies forced. who determines what the worker is worth?? the investor. how can an individual decide how much they deserve to work I would say A MILLION DOLLARS. Thats a union... workers trying to decide how much thier worth rather than allowing the employer to decide.

your silence says it all

workers are the willing recipiants of somone who has money for a service. Not slavery. Slavery implies forced. who determines what the worker is worth?? the investor. how can an individual decide how much they deserve to work I would say A MILLION DOLLARS. Thats a union... workers trying to decide how much thier worth rather than allowing the employer to decide.

And the employer would decide $0.00, if he had the choice.

Workers do choose to work for someone, yes, but that does not prove anything. All it means is that, assuming complete knowledge and rationality, working there was the best of their options. If their options are universally bad, the mere fact of consent proves nothing regarding the system's justification.

And the employer would decide $0.00, if he had the choice.

Workers do choose to work for someone, yes, but that does not prove anything. All it means is that, assuming complete knowledge and rationality, working there was the best of their options. If their options are universally bad, the mere fact of consent proves nothing regarding the system's justification.

Then the question is why is the worker of a perticular skill a worker of that skill. Your assumption is the job market is terrible for that skill so the solution is Get a new skill to enter a job market that is promising. Plus all situations are not bad. Your assumption also that all possitions is bad is true in almost all shit shoveling industries.

That just means the average person is getting stuipider... seen by the 50% college drop out rate.

Most of these CEO's staterted as middle class kids whent to college and got rich they earned eveary cent

So in other words: Daddy paid for the best reputation and diploma money could buy.

workers are the willing recipiants of somone who has money for a service. Not slavery. Slavery implies forced. who determines what the worker is worth?? the investor. how can an individual decide how much they deserve to work I would say A MILLION DOLLARS. Thats a union... workers trying to decide how much thier worth rather than allowing the employer to decide.

Not exactly. Employement is a contractual matter between the employer and the employee. If the employee has no say, then it is slavery. (And are you going to answer the question I poited above regarding dismissals?)

So in other words: Daddy paid for the best reputation and diploma money could buy.

The key is of course getting into colledge which of course is not based on all the money you can buy.. Most people who get into good universities get good money if they are scholorship material, those are the people making molah. My friends going to Yale... On scholorship money. And why did he recieve scholorship money??? because he was validictorian highschool.


The only question of colledge cost is A how much debt are you willing to take on as a student afterwards and B how much are you going to have to work to pay off family plus loans during school. Student loans pay for college.

Your assumption is the job market is terrible for that skill so the solution is Get a new skill to enter a job market that is promising.

How? One reason many of those job markets are so "promising" is that not enough people have the opportunities to get the skills required for them.

your silence says it allSorry hon, I got cought up in something else.

The entirety of your argument rides on the false notion that workers can survive corporate capitalism without actually working. Since you're able operate a keyboard, I doubt I'll explain any further.

Currently we are not giving out the proper tools of education to formulate sucess. Alot of meeting people is based on education.... Look at the Job highering rates of top universities.. The beter the university the better employment and starting saleries of a graduate. (Us news and world report on colledges) Check it out

Oh, the irony.

Your assumption is the job market is terrible for that skill so the solution is Get a new skill to enter a job market that is promising.

How? One reason many of those job markets are so "promising" is that not enough people have the opportunities to get the skills required for them.

Gee--businesses managed to survive the pre-investor age and the powerful union age, so I guess that means you're talking out of your ass.
Wait what? Before investors workers were compelled by the state to work and most businesses were small. Investors have been around since at least the sixteenth century.

Yes, I am a union member. If we don't stick up for ourselves, who will? Certainly not the bosses.

Talking about Unions on Labour Day? How... original.

Anyways, yes, yes I would... there's power in a union after all (kudos to any who get that reference)

If no one has got this already: a Billy Bragg song, yes?

The one my dad jockingly called the "dinosaur song" when I asked him what it was about. I was 4 at the time, so i took him literally, and brought out my toy dinosaurs whenever the song was played.

Of course, over 17 years I have learnt what it is really about.

What I want to know is.. what would you be? A union memberYes, I am the member of two unions.

Why?One of them is the union at my workplace, and it is a union shop. The other is because it kicks ass and I agree with its goals.

unions served their purpose a long time ago and now we dont need them anymore.Not all businesses are worker-owned co-ops, so unions haven't served their purposes yet, and even worker-owned co-ops need to be unionized.

It makes the union / managment relations "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common."

I think it ought to be clear by now that Trytonia has probably 1) never held a job, 2) never applied for a job, and 3) has no concept of what it's like to try to survive on his/her own.

God no, they whine and stick together to suck all of a company's money out from its structure and wonder why it topples over due to budget losses and is forced to can hundreds of workers a year.

I think it ought to be clear by now that Trytonia has probably 1) never held a job, 2) never applied for a job, and 3) has no concept of what it's like to try to survive on his/her own.

Ya think maybe... :)

Ya think maybe... :)
I figure I was stating the obvious, but you know, sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. :p

I'd join if the union was honest... And didn't make me wear certain clothes or cut my hair.

I figure I was stating the obvious, but you know, sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. :pYups. Sort of like having to point out that having a job isn't optional for us ordinary mortals.

*Tsk* I'll never understand how the liberal brain works, faced with reality.

Man, what a thread.


I live in Australia, and our IR climate is very different to the US's, so consider that before you flame me.

I am a member of two unions, the Teachers Union and the Civil and Public Servants Union (CPSU). I stopped teaching a few years back but still maintain my membership.

I am also a Union Delegate for the CPSU, and I represent close to 70 members when I meet with the DG, the Operations Committee and the various directors I have to deal with. I see my role within the Union structure as highly important, obviously, or I wouldn't be doing it. Currently, we are going through the hoopla to renegotiate our Award, or basic employment conditions, with the State Govt. The offer the government put on the table initially would have given us no pay rise at all, stripped back our conditions dramatically and would have essentially made us worse off.

To cut a long story short, without needing to take industrial action as yet, we have been able to maintain our current conditions, add a few more in, and get a pay rise that matches inflation. We are having a Member's ballot next week to decide if we will accept the Govt's offer. Without the Union, the workers would have been worse off. End of story.



Regarding the issue of education level vs wage, I'm going to add my bit. I work in a place where there is a mixture of people who have had formal university education (scientists) and those who have learnt a trade or played the game and worked their way up the ladder. The scientists earn less, on average, than those who haven't had a formal education. If I had left school at 17, learnt a trade and gained 10 years of "on the job experience" before starting this job, I would be 15 grand a year better off than doing what I did, going to uni earning a Bachelor of Science and 2 Post Grad quals before starting this job. Industry experience is more desirable than formal education in this organisation. Education doesn't necesarily equal better outcomes. And before you flame me for not working hard enough, i busted a gut to get my qualifications.

Unions can't be blamed for businesses going under. If a business can't meet its legislative requirements for a profit, then it has no business being in business :P

There is an ever increasing gap between rich and poor, the unions can't be blamed for that. They work tirelessly to keep increasing the minimum wage here in Australia.

People have also touched on the 'old money' vs 'new money' argument. One thing I'll say on this is that old money is a lot harder to whittle away than new money. In my city, 'old money' had been invested in property, businesses and the like, whereas 'new money' tends to be invested in higher risk ventures.

Sorry, such a rant, but now I can go to sleep, its midnight here!!!!

I'd join if the union was honest... And didn't make me wear certain clothes or cut my hair.

Which unions make you cut your hair & have a dress policy? Sounds weird to me.

I killed this thread huh

Yups. Sort of like having to point out that having a job isn't optional for us ordinary mortals.

*Tsk* I'll never understand how the liberal brain works, faced with reality.
There aren't too many liberals who don't have to work--often more than one job to make ends meet. But hey, don't let a little thing like reality challenge your view of the world.

Should be noted that the employment situation is much the same for conservatives--diference is that conservatives often vote against their economic self-interests, whether it's in politics or in the workplace.

The economic effect unions alweays have is to reduce real wages. The reason is that unions arbitrarily increase the costs of labour, and labour accounts for a large portion of everything we buy. This cost increase means increased retail prices. For everyone. Unions sometimes do gain benefits for their members, but they can only do it at the expense of the rest of society, and they ultimately destroy wealth generally.

If unions did not arbitrarily increase costs (that is if union rates corresponded to the free market price), they would not exist because they would not be necessary.

I would like to address the myth that unions solved all the problems in 19th centrury capitalism. There is simply no logic to the notion that a union could bring about improvements. It is a praxeological impossibility. What did (and the only thing that can) improve real wages, and conditions is increases in productivity, and increases in productivity most frequently come from increased capital accumulation.

Increased productivity means more is produced for less cost. This means prices going down, and real wages rising (as long as the government doesn't destroy the gains through taxation, or central banking shenanigans)

Another problem I have with unions is that they are simply not a free market entity. The efforts os a union to arbitrarily increase prices, and restrict production are simply not in the interests of the employer. It is in the employer's interests to refrain from buying union labour. Unions (at some level) understand this, so they try to get government protection. History has shown that when government protection is withdrawn from unions, they quickly collapse.

A union is simply a pack of rent-seekers looking to profit at the expense of others. In this, they are thoroughly unlike the entrepeneur, who profits only when he provides people what they want. The entrepeneur makes mutually beneficial trades. The unionist threatens, and cajoles precisely because he is not looking to make a mutually beneficial trade.

Should be noted that the employment situation is much the same for conservatives--diference is that conservatives often vote against their economic self-interests, whether it's in politics or in the workplace.

Don't use euphemisms. What you mean by voting against "economic interests" is that conservatives generally don't employ the government as a professional thief, stealing from the productive to give to them.

Unions can't be blamed for businesses going under. If a business can't meet its legislative requirements for a profit, then it has no business being in business :P

That is utter nonsense. Unions serve to arbitrarily increase the costs of business. They can be blamed.

There is an ever increasing gap between rich and poor, the unions can't be blamed for that. They work tirelessly to keep increasing the minimum wage here in Australia.

The same minimum wage that destroys jobs, and reduces real wages for Australians.

Sorry, chalk up another one against the unions.

So instead, the shareholders should get a bigger chunk of the pie? Screw that--they're not doing any of the actual work.

Union man, loud and proud.

the shareholders -- the risk of the founding entrepreneur(s) and that which shareholders take on with ownership of the company -- are the reason the workers have jobs.

Unions were necessary 70 years ago, but now that nearly every full-time union-type job comes with full (or fairly full..) benefits, good pay, etc., unions don't seem to do a whole lot of good for workers or businesses... and when businesses are hurt, people lose jobs.

that's the simplistic rant of the morning, carry on.

If the studio I work for ever gets big enough for anyone to start trying to unionize, I am fucking out of here. No way in hell am I gonna pay some overpriced union boss for the privilege of doing my job.

imagine being the owner of the shop and having some asshole come in and try to tell you how to run your business, what to pay your employees, etc.

unions suck the life out of business

I just finished working five years at a unionized store.

In our case, we really probably didn't need the union. Its main function is to protect the workers from management, but our management was made up of reasonable people... in the two years I was shop steward, I didn't have to file a single grievance. If there were problems, I could go directly to management, ask them about it, and they'd answer any questions I had. Usually it was a misunderstanding on the part of the employee, who didn't properly understand their rights.

I would go on strike if I was working in an environment where the management was not giving the workers a good deal. I don't cross picket lines, even if I don't believe in the reasons behind the strike. For instance, the college teacher's strike this spring was total crap. They wanted to do less work, and make more money, a combination that doesn't work in the real world. Now, if their contract was giving them more work, and less pay, or even no increase in pay, that I would agree with striking over.

If I was in an environment with bad management, but I enjoyed my job and didn't want to quit, I'd definitely want the union protection.

the shareholders -- the risk of the founding entrepreneur(s) and that which shareholders take on with ownership of the company -- are the reason the workers have jobs.

Unions were necessary 70 years ago, but now that nearly every full-time union-type job comes with full (or fairly full..) benefits, good pay, etc., unions don't seem to do a whole lot of good for workers or businesses... and when businesses are hurt, people lose jobs.

that's the simplistic rant of the morning, carry on.

There're still full time jobs that come without benefits of any kind, good pay, etc.

I know because I'm in one.

The same minimum wage that destroys jobs, and reduces real wages for Australians.



Increases in minimum wages increase the amount of disposable income, people are able to spend more, therefore increasing jobs.

Im going to use Occupational Health and Safety as an example of how usefull Unions are. Without Unions, employees would still be working in third world conditions, with employers having no or very little "duty of care" for their employees. In my state, Unions sit on a Tripartite Commision with the State Government and the peak employer group (Chamber of Commerce and Industry) to decide on OHS legislation and the production of information products to ensure compliance with the legislation. You can't tell me that Unions have no relevance in today's society.

Increases in minimum wages increase the amount of disposable income, people are able to spend more, therefore increasing jobs.

Have you ever considered tat increases in the wage rate without increases in productivity must result in higher consumer prices.

The reason is quite simple, a company must make a profit, therefore it must cover its costs.

The employee's have more cash, but they also have higher prices. This has usually meant they are worse off.

Why can't you pro-union see that there are two sides to an equation? An even better question would be why can't you read my post, and think about it, instead of posting union propaganda which I refuted in the post to which you replied.

An increase in the minimum wage also cannot increase jobs because when you arbitrarily raise the price of something, you reduce the demand for it.

The employee's have more cash, but they also have higher prices. This has usually meant they are worse off.


If this is really true (and I am not so sure it is as simple as that), it could be that they are just the same as before, rather than worse off. Ok, prices are higher, but they have more money to spend... so why must the prices increase faster than the wages?

And unions have brought many rights and improved the situation of workers around the world. Anyone that tries to deny that is just plain stupid or ignorant.

And anyone saying that "unions dont have a point any more, as everything is hunky dory" is similarly deluded.

Have you ever considered tat increases in the wage rate without increases in productivity must result in higher consumer prices.

The reason is quite simple, a company must make a profit, therefore it must cover its costs.



Consider that the company is able to sell more widgets with more disposable income flying around. Therefore covering their costs without increasing prices.

Are you trying to get at the topic of inflation? Everytime the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) calls for an increase to the minimum wage, the Conservatives cry out that it will cause inflation to fly out of control. This just isn't the case. The recent tax cuts in Australia will inject more money into the economy, but the Conservative Govt isn't worried about that causing a jump in inflation, they just want the kudos.

Im not denying that there are two sides to this argument, the employees and the employers. There always has been, and always will be.

Consider that the company is able to sell more widgets with more disposable income flying around. Therefore covering their costs without increasing prices.

For that to be true, the company would have to be selling its entire production to its own workforce.

You're also assuming that they can produce more widgets when the cost of production is higher.

Are you trying to get at the topic of inflation? Everytime the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) calls for an increase to the minimum wage, the Conservatives cry out that it will cause inflation to fly out of control. This just isn't the case. The recent tax cuts in Australia will inject more money into the economy, but the Conservative Govt isn't worried about that causing a jump in inflation, they just want the kudos.

Tax cuts are not an injection of money into the economy. The reason is that the money is spent anyway. Even if the money is left in the bank, that money will be lent out to those who will spend it.

In any case, there is a question of legitimacy. Unions frequently use force, and breach contracts to get what they want. Tax cuts are merely the return of wealth to its rightful owners.

The other problem is that the the extra money taken up by the price increase could have been spent on other things. The wealth of society is therefore reduced.

If this is really true (and I am not so sure it is as simple as that), it could be that they are just the same as before, rather than worse off. Ok, prices are higher, but they have more money to spend... so why must the prices increase faster than the wages?

A company must maintain at least its existing profits, otherwise it loses value.

A company must maintain at least its existing profits, otherwise it loses value.

So a company looks out for it's own interests and it's bad for workers to look out for their own?

Talking about Unions on Labour Day? How... original.

Anyways, yes, yes I would... there's power in a union after all (kudos to any who get that reference)

Joe Hill?

We need a union badly where I work... the way I see it, they owe me at least $20 in overtime pay that I am legally entitled to and at least 20 15 minute breaks that I got screwed out of. Will I ever get it? Of course not.

Of course, the anti-union folks will just say I'm a fat lazy overpaid bastard for complaining when the company goes back on their unilateral contract and labour law in my province. Even though I work hard, tip the scales at 130 pounds, and management gets paid twice what I do...and compared to me, the owner makes an obscene amount of money... I'm the fat lazy overpaid one?

So a company looks out for it's own interests and it's bad for workers to look out for their own?

The company is looking out for its interests through making mutually beneficial voluntary trades.

Unions do not do this, they seek to gain at the expense of others, and if they don't get what they want immediately, they will breach contracts, prevent the free movement of people, commit assault, and in some cases, even murder, to get their way, all the time using paid politicians to pass laws to protect them.

Of course, the anti-union folks will just say I'm a fat lazy overpaid bastard for complaining when the company goes back on their unilateral contract and labour law in my province. Even though I work hard, tip the scales at 130 pounds, and management gets paid twice what I do...and compared to me, the owner makes an obscene amount of money... I'm the fat lazy overpaid one?

Strawman.

Anyway, you do not have a right to that job. The company chooses to buy services from you. If they choose to stop, or want to change the terms, they are not doing anything wrong.

Or do you think the potato chip firms should sue me for changing my diet?

The company is looking out for its interests through making mutually beneficial voluntary trades.

Bollocks. They do whatever they can to make a profit. Companies are not more honourable than unions. They would cut wages if they thought they could get away with it. They would ignore health and safety regulations if they could get away with it. They would break the law if they think they could get away with it. They control the supply of work.

With this in mind workers need something to balance it out a bit. Unions and labour protections seem little to ask.

Bollocks. They do whatever they can to make a profit. Companies are not more honourable than unions. They would cut wages if they thought they could get away with it. They would ignore health and safety regulations if they could get away with it. They would break the law if they think they could get away with it. They control the supply of work.

Nonsensical ranting.

How are tax cuts not an injection of money into the economy? Instead of the govt getting it, the workers get it. Get it?

"For that to be true, the company would have to be selling its entire production to its own workforce."

Minimum wage refers to lifting the safety net for the lowest paid workers, not just the ones working in a certain factory. That's a stupid argument.

"Unions frequently use force, and breach contracts to get what they want." Gross over generalisation. And a bit of a double standard don't you think?

"A company must maintain at least its existing profits, otherwise it loses value." Boo-hoo. Its all about the shareholders isn't it? the world revolves around the shareholders.

How are tax cuts not an injection of money into the economy? Instead of the govt getting it, the workers get it. Get it?

What does the government do with the money?

*It buys services from people ... who in turn buy all manner of goods and services just as those in the private sector do.

*It buys goods. The firms making these goods pay people, who in turn buy all manner of goods and services just as those in the private sector do.

If the government returns that money to its rightful owners ... it will be spent on all manner of goods and services.

Did you not read what I wrote "the money is spent anyway"

Minimum wage refers to lifting the safety net for the lowest paid workers, not just the ones working in a certain factory. That's a stupid argument.

Wow, that's insightful, and utterly irrelevant. Your argument had absolutely no economic grounding.

How is it the workers with increased wage rates buy more widgets if the cost of widgets had increased because the labour cost of widgets had increased?

You must understand that there are two sides to an equation, if you increase one side, the other must increase.

Your explaination makes no sense. Your explaination also makes the unjustified assumption that the workers are interested in buying in widgets, and a major part of the company's business is selling to its own workforce.

Gross over generalisation. And a bit of a double standard don't you think?

Nonsense.

Boo-hoo. Its all about the shareholders isn't it? the world revolves around the shareholders.

Idiot. If share-holders didn't risk their savings, their retirements on providing capital the only jobs that would exist would be family subsistence farming.

You are simply showing your total ignorance of economics.

Two things:

With regards to the Poll Question - No. I have in the past negotiated with my manager on a personal level and achieved what I wanted. A union would just have taken some of my pay in fees.

With regards to the general issue - a matter of moderation, I'd say. Political union movements are unnecessary and damaging. But on a small scale, unions are just as valid a part of the free market as strategic alliances and joint ventures are between companies. The problem only arises when unions grow so big that they start having an agenda seperate from the individual worker's needs.

You forgot the myrth option!

We need a union badly where I work... the way I see it, they owe me at least $20 in overtime pay that I am legally entitled to and at least 20 15 minute breaks that I got screwed out of. Will I ever get it? Of course not.

Power, brother. That's exactly one on the issues my union just won.

Two things:

With regards to the Poll Question - No. I have in the past negotiated with my manager on a personal level and achieved what I wanted. A union would just have taken some of my pay in fees.

With regards to the general issue - a matter of moderation, I'd say. Political union movements are unnecessary and damaging. But on a small scale, unions are just as valid a part of the free market as strategic alliances and joint ventures are between companies. The problem only arises when unions grow so big that they start having an agenda seperate from the individual worker's needs.

RE point one, a union becomes useful when the the company is bigger. I see my union dues as going to having my own lawer specialising in labor contracts on a joint retainer. If the employer can afford to hire multiple lawyers, the individual emploee is at a disadvantage.

And for point two, yes, exactly so.

The company is looking out for its interests through making mutually beneficial voluntary trades.

Unions do not do this, they seek to gain at the expense of others

Nonsensical ranting.

if they don't get what they want immediately, they will breach contracts, prevent the free movement of people, commit assault, and in some cases, even murder, to get their way, all the time using paid politicians to pass laws to protect them.

All of that goes for employers as well.

Unions do not do this, they seek to gain at the expense of others,

Companies do the same. Such as when the aquire and obilterate the other. They don't even take care of the others customer base. I have seen this with 4 vendors.


and if they don't get what they want immediately, they will breach contracts,

Hmmm and the raiding of pension funds are what?


prevent the free movement of people,

And companies make people sign a contract that they can't "recruit" when they leave. Especially managers. I had one I liked leave and asked him if there was an opening to remember me. He had to wait a year.


commit assault, and in some cases, even murder, to get their way, all the time


Now you a ranting.


using paid politicians to pass laws to protect them.

As do companies. The truck company and the aerodefense company I worked for had PACs and lobbiests.....

Two things:

With regards to the Poll Question - No. I have in the past negotiated with my manager on a personal level and achieved what I wanted. A union would just have taken some of my pay in fees.

With regards to the general issue - a matter of moderation, I'd say. Political union movements are unnecessary and damaging. But on a small scale, unions are just as valid a part of the free market as strategic alliances and joint ventures are between companies. The problem only arises when unions grow so big that they start having an agenda seperate from the individual worker's needs.

On the first comment; I have done the same. ;)

On the second. Size is the issue. Even my father-in-law a diehard union electrician would say the same. He has made similar comments.

Companies do the same. Such as when the aquire and obilterate the other. They don't even take care of the others customer base. I have seen this with 4 vendors.

Nonsense. Companies gain economically through voluntary trades that are beneficial to the parties of those trades.

You are asserting an obligation to third parties. No such obligation exists.

Hmmm and the raiding of pension funds are what?

Strawman. The basic operation of a union is breaching contract, and when they breach contracts, people like you leap to their defence.

And companies make people sign a contract that they can't "recruit" when they leave. Especially managers. I had one I liked leave and asked him if there was an opening to remember me. He had to wait a year.

That is a voluntary contract, they do not make them. Unions picket, thereby obstructing the free movement of people.

As to companies. The truck company and the aerodefense company I worked for had PACs and lobbiests

In a geniunely free market, companies would not need to lobby politicians. Unions must corrupt the political process because it is not in the interests of an employer to buy labour services from a cartel dedicated to jacking up prices on a whim.

unions are just as valid a part of the free market

Only insofar as an employer voluntarily chooses to deal with them. However, as unions, like all cartels, exist in order to raise prices and cut production, it is difficult to find a rationale for such a choice.

I'm a proud member of the National Union of Journalists and the Industrial Workers of the World, so, in answer to the poll question - yes I would.

I am a firm supporter of unions, and am ashamed of this country's rampant anti-union laws. Unions are not without problems, the main one being an institutionalised beauracracy which has much to lose from attacking the bosses and defending their members. Which is why I'm in the IWW as well as the NUJ. :D

Nonsense. Companies gain economically through voluntary trades that are beneficial to the parties of those trades.

You are asserting an obligation to third parties. No such obligation exists.



Strawman. The basic operation of a union is breaching contract, and when they breach contracts, people like you leap to their defence.



That is a voluntary contract, they do not make them. Unions picket, thereby obstructing the free movement of people.



In a geniunely free market, companies would not need to lobby politicians. Unions must corrupt the political process because it is not in the interests of an employer to buy labour services from a cartel dedicated to jacking up prices on a whim.



Only insofar as an employer voluntarily chooses to deal with them. However, as unions, like all cartels, exist in order to raise prices and cut production, it is difficult to find a rationale for such a choice.


Gran grrk fingdush brug... you complete... argh!

Nonsense. Companies gain economically through voluntary trades that are beneficial to the parties of those trades.

Companies gain through the exploitation of their workers, and the trading of the goods created by their workers' labour. Trading is beneficial to the profit-mongers, and few others.

You are asserting an obligation to third parties. No such obligation exists.

If you mean to customers, I'm afraid it does, otherwise things like 'trading standards' wouldn't exist.

Strawman. The basic operation of a union is breaching contract, and when they breach contracts, people like you leap to their defence.

When a contract is in breach of the law, e.g. the European Working Time Directive, then that contract should be broken. The ultimate aim of my union, the IWW, is the abolition of the bosses. So yes, I will defend unions who breach contracts to win better pay, better conditions, and better living standards for their members - the bosses won't give it to us, so we must take it.

That is a voluntary contract, they do not make them. Unions picket, thereby obstructing the free movement of people.

If your choice is between signing on the dotted line or being made homeless, for example, it's hardly voluntary. Companies will, and do, happily obstruct the free movement of people on a much larger and much more efficient basis: the contract, which you have to sign, and about which you often cannot negotiate.

In a geniunely free market, companies would not need to lobby politicians. Unions must corrupt the political process because it is not in the interests of an employer to buy labour services from a cartel dedicated to jacking up prices on a whim.

Companies corrupt the political process a damn sight more than unions. Gordon Brown talks to the Confederation of British Industry a lot more than he talks to the Trades Union Congress. Companies can buy legislation, essentially. As for unions being cartels "dedicated to jacking up prices on a whim," if as a result of getting paid more for my labour than a shitty wage the price of the product goes up, oh no! What a disaster! The world will surely end!

Only insofar as an employer voluntarily chooses to deal with them. However, as unions, like all cartels, exist in order to raise prices and cut production, it is difficult to find a rationale for such a choice.

In other words, never. Employers never voluntarily deal with unions - that's why most strikes occur. Consider the RMT's latest strike proposal - the RMT wants to raise wages. The rail bosses refuse. The RMT asks nicely. A lot. Still nothing. So - strike ballot. Unions have to force the bosses to the negotiating table. And production cuts? Rubbish. Unionised workforces are a better workforce than the slave labour of some Chinese GULAG.

Disraeliland 3: Just to clarify a couple of points, is it you stance that the employer cannot breach the contract?

If not, then would you agree that the employees have a right to collectively dispute that breachvia a union?

And if you take the stance that the employer cannot breach a contract, then what makes said contract a mutual contact?

(Both of these questions are key to my having joined the union.)

Disraeli, you seem to be of the opinion that employees have the same power as employers. However, supply and demand suggest that this is not the case.

If I understand correctly, your basic premise is that in a totally free market, employees would be able to negotiate for the best wages without restriction, and as such their condition would slowly improve.

We will ignore the evidence based arguments, since like communist proponents you have the handy rejoinder that "Well it's not really a full free-market" for any given piece of evidence that doesn't match your theory.

Instead, let's concentrate on theoretical and demonstrate that free-market and supply and demand generally serves to empower the employer over the employee.

First, I suggest that rather than the employee being the item in demand, the employer is actually what's in demand. My reasoning for this is based on how employers cannot change their demand requirements based on the market. eg, a car manufacturing company will not start hiring more plumbers than they need no matter how much of a plumber's glut there is on the market. Employees, on the other hand, can change their skill-set to match the employers' requirements. Thus, for any job which provides better returns than any other you will always have competition among employees to fulfill it. However, you will not have employers retool their requirements to match a common skill-set.

In essence, the employee is more replacable than the employer.

Second, if an employer's requirement for an employee goes unfulfilled, it is extremely rare that the company will fold. It may not operate at the best possible efficiency, but because no markets are 100% efficiency driven (as external factors such as customer base loyalty, location, individual charisma, etc all play in) the company can survive such a hardship.

However, if an employees requirement for an employer goes unfulfilled, the employee will starve unless you're assuming some blanket form of social welfare. However, I somehow doubt you are.


Because of these two factors, we can now see that the risk for an employer not signing a contract with an employee is relatively small -- other employees can be trained to match the required skill-set, but even if they are not, the company can survive anyway at a reduced operating capacity.

The risk for an employee not signing a contract is rather large. There will always be competition from other potential employees, so there is no guaruntee of employment elsewhere, and without employment, the employee risks death.

This means that contracts between employer and employee are generally not agreed to in a non-coercive environment. Without universal welfare guarunteeing the employees survival, it is very much akin to a mugger requiring a victim to sign a contract legitimizing their mutually beneficial transaction.

Yes, there are exceptions among individual employers, who do not negotiate to the best of their ability, but I submit to you that this is no different from individual employees who do not negotiate to the best of their ability. In the world you posit, where negotiating to the best of your ability is ingrained as the best means for survival, these exceptions would quickly fade out.

The union, then, is a means to balance the coercive nature of employer contracting. It threatens the employer with corporate death/bankruptcy if they do not provide an acceptable contract. With death on the line for both employer and employee, the contracting process can once again be thought of as non-coercive, and hence more fair.

Do individual unions have problems? Absolutely. However, barring guarunteed welfare, they are necessary to maintain a truly free-market, rather than a coercive one.

snip

do you allow others to tell you what to do with your car?

if not, then why should business owners give up their right to run the company they rightly own?

Workers have a choice: if they don't like the way a business is run, they may leave and find another job.

If they want to control the conditions of their employment, they are free to start their own businesses and run them as they see fit. If they are not willing to take on that risk, then i'm sorry, but they give up certain rights. You don't go to someone's home and say, "I'm not eating here unless you give me a rib-eye steak and au-gratin potatoes... with a nice 1962 chianti. Now hop to it!"

A certain job with a certain employer is a privelege extended by the employer, not a right of the prospective employee... much as the dinner offered by the owner of the home is a privelege extended to the guest.

And now the guest has the nerve to dictate how he is to be served by the server?

Workers work, and in return they are paid. That means there is consideration on both sides. If the conditions of employment are not up to par, the worker may leave. If conditions are bad enough, all the workers (or the vast majority, anyway, enough to majorly F up the company) will leave. This alone should keep the company from treating workers at a subpar level.

So workers walk into a place they don't own (unless they're stock owners) and have the nerve to dictate how the business is to be run?

Frankly, that is wrong.

Another thing: what if you're great at that job but don't want to join the union? What do you do then, if the other employees decide to strong-arm you and the company by unionizing? Will they tar and feather you for not joining their bloc?

Unions are wrong (today, anyway, in developed countries where business treat their employees well without union influence) figuratively and literally -- literally in that to many companies, union membership = decreased production and increased cost... higher cost of labor per unit of production.

If you take power away from business owners, you take away incentives to START businesses in the first place, and then nobody gets jobs. Entrepreneurial risk must be rewarded, and proprietary rights respected.

Nonsense. Companies gain economically through voluntary trades that are beneficial to the parties of those trades.

You are asserting an obligation to third parties. No such obligation exists.


Nice try.

So if a company acquires another, then they don't have to honor said companies debts!


Strawman. The basic operation of a union is breaching contract, and when they breach contracts, people like you leap to their defence.


Keep dancing boyo.


That is a voluntary contract, they do not make them. Unions picket, thereby obstructing the free movement of people.

Just like when a company does a lockout.

Keep dancing boyo.


In a geniunely free market, companies would not need to lobby politicians. Unions must corrupt the political process because it is not in the interests of an employer to buy labour services from a cartel dedicated to jacking up prices on a whim.


To sum that up.

Companies do the same things as unions.


Only insofar as an employer voluntarily chooses to deal with them. However, as unions, like all cartels, exist in order to raise prices and cut production, it is difficult to find a rationale for such a choice.

You have a little spittle there.

Companies do the EXACT same thing when it's to their advantage. For example the "shortage" of the xbox 360 during Christmas.

Now amuse me by saying demand was more then production.

do you allow others to tell you what to do with your car?
Sure. How many towns and cities in the land petitioned and what not to have stop signs placed.

Why do we have sound laws?


if not, then why should business owners give up their right to run the company they rightly own?


Just like in the coal mine days? The owners felt they didn't need to have proper equipment and supplies in place as they felt it cost too much.


Workers have a choice: if they don't like the way a business is run, they may leave and find another job.

You have never been in a one company town have you?

If they want to control the conditions of their employment, they are free to start their own businesses and run them as they see fit. If they are not willing to take on that risk, then i'm sorry, but they give up certain rights. You don't go to someone's home and say, "I'm not eating here unless you give me a rib-eye steak and au-gratin potatoes... with a nice 1962 chianti. Now hop to it!"


:rolleyes:


A certain job with a certain employer is a privelege extended by the employer, not a right of the prospective employee... much as the dinner offered by the owner of the home is a privelege extended to the guest.


:rolleyes:

And now the guest has the nerve to dictate how he is to be served by the server?


:rolleyes:

What if he is allergic?

Workers work, and in return they are paid. That means there is consideration on both sides. If the conditions of employment are not up to par, the worker may leave. If conditions are bad enough, all the workers (or the vast majority, anyway, enough to majorly F up the company) will leave. This alone should keep the company from treating workers at a subpar level.

You haven't worked in many companies have you?


So workers walk into a place they don't own (unless they're stock owners) and have the nerve to dictate how the business is to be run?

Frankly, that is wrong.

Another thing: what if you're great at that job but don't want to join the union? What do you do then, if the other employees decide to strong-arm you and the company by unionizing? Will they tar and feather you for not joining their bloc?

You really haven't worked much have you?

I worked in a truck company. The teamsters tried to take over but they didn't. There was no violence.


Unions are wrong (today, anyway, in developed countries where business treat their employees well without union influence) figuratively and literally -- literally in that to many companies, union membership = decreased production and increased cost... higher cost of labor per unit of production.


Unions exist because of a failure of managment. They are not the tarters riding over the hill and conquering everything.

If you take power away from business owners, you take away incentives to START businesses in the first place, and then nobody gets jobs. Entrepreneurial risk must be rewarded, and proprietary rights respected.

Bullshit. Truck companies still move stuff. Building still goes on.....

The economic effect unions alweays have is to reduce real wages. The reason is that unions arbitrarily increase the costs of labour, and labour accounts for a large portion of everything we buy. This cost increase means increased retail prices. Except when the cost increase comes from a company's profits.

Except when the cost increase comes from a company's profits.

I always find that odd... why do these people so desperate for free markets seem to think it is ok for workers to get pretty much shafted, but if you suggests something that could threaten profits its so awful?

Unions exist because of a failure of managment. They are not the tarters riding over the hill and conquering everything.

Exactly so. I've worked at this company for five years, and have seen a marked decline in management. This has been accompanied by an increase in union membership.

About two weeks ago, I ran into the guy who was the head of the personnel department at my company just before I started to work there. After talking about some of the stuff that recent management's been doing, he agreed that the union was needed because current management was failing to hold up their end.

I always find that odd... why do these people so desperate for free markets seem to think it is ok for workers to get pretty much shafted, but if you suggests something that could threaten profits its so awful?

I'll probably get it from both sides for this, but I'm pro-free-market and pro-union. :D

Today in US history, we talked about unions and strikes and what not..

Well the teacher asked me if I would join a union, I said yes. And then he asked if I support strikes and if I would take part in one. I guess I would..

Then he asked another student if he would join a union and he said no.

The teacher was surprised and asked him why not. Then he quickly changed his question to "Would you be a strike-breaker?" and the kid said yes because it's a job that pays.

What I want to know is.. what would you be? A union member.. or would you stay non-union?

Why?

I remember when we learned about unions in that class. Our teacher asked how many of us had parents in unions. About half the class raised thier hands. She said she was surprised that so many people would openly admit union involvement because of the negative stigma that sometimes comes attahed with it.

I, having never lived through the eighties or any other anti-union time period, had no clue what she was talking about.

So if a company acquires another, then they don't have to honor said companies debts!

That is not an obligation to a third party. If Company A acquires Company B, Company B's debts become Company A's debts.

Though exactly why tou think what you posted is any sort of argument is beyond me. It seems merely to be a random statement.

Just like when a company does a lockout.

A lockout is exactly the same as you ceasing to buy DVD's. It is a choice not to consume. Are you saying you should be compelled to buy DVD's?

Companies do the same things as unions.

And when companies do, people condemn them.

Companies do the EXACT same thing when it's to their advantage. For example the "shortage" of the xbox 360 during Christmas.

Firstly, Microsoft cannot be forced to sell its property. Secondly, since Microsoft was the company doing it, the price rise simply invites other console companies, and PC companies into the market.

A cartel is not a single producer. A cartel is a group of producers who get together, and agree to restrict production, and increase prices.

Can you count?

If I understand correctly, your basic premise is that in a totally free market, employees would be able to negotiate for the best wages without restriction, and as such their condition would slowly improve.

That is not my basic premise. My basic premises are that the best way to set prices is supply and demand (and history supports that argument), and that the only way to increase real wages is to increase productivity.

First, I suggest that rather than the employee being the item in demand, the employer is actually what's in demand.

In our environment, the state makes it risky, and expensive to employ someone. Under such circumstances, of course there will be a surplus.

How does the state make it risky and expensive? Minimum wages, union protection, closed shops, labour regulations, "unfair" dimsissal laws.

That makes the rest of your argument irrelevant, because it is based on a false premise.

Except when the cost increase comes from a company's profits.

Doyou understand how prices work? A company can't charge whatever it likes. It can only charge what people are prepared to pay. If they put forward an asking price that is greater than the consumer is willing to pay, the consumer will take his money elsewhere.

Quite how that would increase a company's profits is a mystery.

well in most first world countries today the government protects you from everything they formed unions for back in the day. todays unions only help you exceed you benefits and look like an asshole

That is not an obligation to a third party. If Company A acquires Company B, Company B's debts become Company A's debts.


Ahh so you admit I am right. :D


Though exactly why tou think what you posted is any sort of argument is beyond me. It seems merely to be a random statement.


I don't have time to draw you a picture. So.....


A lockout is exactly the same as you ceasing to buy DVD's. It is a choice not to consume. Are you saying you should be compelled to buy DVD's?


Translation: Companies do the same things as Unions.


And when companies do, people condemn them.

Keep dancing boyo.

Everybody is oh so supportive of an airline strike.


Firstly, Microsoft cannot be forced to sell its property. Secondly, since Microsoft was the company doing it, the price rise simply invites other console companies, and PC companies into the market.

A cartel is not a single producer. A cartel is a group of producers who get together, and agree to restrict production, and increase prices.

Can you count?


Keep dancing boyo.

You could have saved time buy simply saying companies do create shortages....

Only insofar as an employer voluntarily chooses to deal with them. However, as unions, like all cartels, exist in order to raise prices and cut production, it is difficult to find a rationale for such a choice.
You know, that is almost a complete reverse of the well-known argument that poor workers don't make voluntary deals because they are forced by their environment to act a certain way.

and that the only way to increase real wages is to increase productivity.

Erm... bollocks. When a company's employees become more productive, they just expect either more work for the same pay and workforce, or the same from a smaller cheaper workforce. When productivity increases a company does not think "Oh... maybe our workers deserve an increase in wages now they are working harder". Its more "Woot! We are making more money!"

Erm... bollocks. When a company's employees become more productive, they just expect either more work for the same pay and workforce, or the same from a smaller cheaper workforce. When productivity increases a company does not think "Oh... maybe our workers deserve an increase in wages now they are working harder". Its more "Woot! We are making more money!"
Not really. In most labour markets, companies have choices and workers have choices. As such, the only agreement the two parties can come to is one that roughly reflects the amount the worker is going to earn the company. If the worker becomes more productive, the company can either pay him or her more, or watch him or her leave and work somewhere else.

Everybody is oh so supportive of an airline strike.

Strawman. Besides, all you've shown is that people don't like immediate inconvenience.

You could have saved time buy simply saying companies do create shortages....

You've shown that a single producer can create a shortage. However, all this does is create opportunities for other producers to profit.

A union is fundamentally different in that it brings together all producers in the lowering of production and increasing of prices. To keep this up, of course, they must exclude any competition, which leads unions to corruption of the political process. Corruption which you whole heartedly support.

You know, that is almost a complete reverse of the well-known argument that poor workers don't make voluntary deals because they are forced by their environment to act a certain way.

My environment forces me to move towards the Earth's core unless something gets in the way. If I do not find this to my liking, there is still no argument for abolishing gravity.

Where have I said that people don't have to adapt to reality? That reality is unpleasant does not mean there is any "force".

That the alternative to a poor deal is not good is not an argument for interfering.

I would also point out that you cannot make something worth more by making it illegal to offer less.

That the alternative to a poor deal is not good is not an argument for interfering.

Thats in your opinion. Most people would see it as a very good reason. Most people dont see the choice between one slightly less shit option and a totally shit option as a choice.

In our environment, the state makes it risky, and expensive to employ someone. Under such circumstances, of course there will be a surplus.

How does the state make it risky and expensive? Minimum wages, union protection, closed shops, labour regulations, "unfair" dimsissal laws.

That makes the rest of your argument irrelevant, because it is based on a false premise.
Actually, I suggest it's you that has the false premise in suggesting that those things make employment risky and expensive for the employers. Why? Because the existance of these things has minimized the occurrences of "wildcat" strikes and popular revolts and stablized the employment market at the lower end.

That said, is there a period where state control in these things did not exist? If we examine that period, will we see the condition of the common person to be better or worse than it is now?

Actually, I suggest it's you that has the false premise in suggesting that those things make employment risky and expensive for the employers. Why? Because the existance of these things has minimized the occurrences of "wildcat" strikes and popular revolts and stablized the employment market at the lower end.

It hasn't. Regulation has merely meant that lower end employment is increasingly shifted to other places, or into the black market (illegal immigrants)

That said, is there a period where state control in these things did not exist? If we examine that period, will we see the condition of the common person to be better or worse than it is now?

Under state control, things are getting worse. History has shown that where more state control exists, less prosperity exists.

Hong Kong has had a virtually unregulated economy for decades, and has gone from a little outpost dealing with four years of Japanese occupation, and as poor as the rest of China, to a trading Mecca. As a colony, Hong Kong had a higher GDP per capita than its coloniser.

The period to which you refer would be a primitive tribal period.

well in most first world countries today the government protects you from everything they formed unions for back in the day. todays unions only help you exceed you benefits and look like an asshole

Nope. Wait until you get out into the real world when a union is the primary means you'll have of getting you employer to simply comply with the bare minimum they are required to. My employer is currently in breach of the legal requirment to enroll employees in the Japanese equivilant of social security, to take one example. I would not be enrolled in the legally required unemployment insurance or have the half of the legally required paid holidays I am due were it not for the union. The company I work for would be able to dismiss me in violation of the provisions of their contract were it not for the union. In all these cases, the union allows access to legal resources I would not otherwise be able to call upon.

Strawman. Besides, all you've shown is that people don't like immediate inconvenience.

Translation: Damn I can't explain this way so I will try to call it a strawman.

Since you can't admit it; unions get blasted as well.


You've shown that a single producer can create a shortage. However, all this does is create opportunities for other producers to profit.


Translation: Damn it. Companies can create shortages as well.


A union is fundamentally different in that it brings together all producers in the lowering of production and increasing of prices. To keep this up, of course, they must exclude any competition, which leads unions to corruption of the political process. Corruption which you whole heartedly support.

Hey you just described just about every giant corporation in the world. You are learning!

Do amuse me but telling us companies want competition.


My environment forces me to move towards the Earth's core unless something gets in the way. If I do not find this to my liking, there is still no argument for abolishing gravity.

Where have I said that people don't have to adapt to reality? That reality is unpleasant does not mean there is any "force".

That the alternative to a poor deal is not good is not an argument for interfering.


Now you understand why unions exist! So workers are the same as business/companies owners! They look out for their own interests!


I would also point out that you cannot make something worth more by making it illegal to offer less.

To the worker it's better. To the businessman yes you are right.

Keep trying to argue the myth of the free market! It's entertaining!

I always find that odd... why do these people so desperate for free markets seem to think it is ok for workers to get pretty much shafted, but if you suggests something that could threaten profits its so awful?

Let's be honest: Unions are pretty much the opposite of a free market for labor... They function by creating an artifical shortage of labor, forcing the shop to buy labor from the union. They "scalp" labor services.

There was a time when it was damn well needed. Working conditions were unsafe, unfair, etc... But most of those problems are now under government regulations. So the Unions are all about the almighty dollar now. And in many cases they are making demands that are well above what the free market would otherwise dictate for a job. And that's caused many businesses to close their doors and/or go into bankruptcy.

The fact is, if you are a high school drop out doing manual labor, you shouldn't expect to be making the same kind of income as a college educated worker. But society has created this mentality that everyone is entitled to two cars, a huge house and a TV in every room.

I am a union member. The union has no teeth and is totally useless because the contract says that we don't have the right to strike or honor picket lines of other unions. I'm a member because we have a closed shop.

Wow. You're not in a union you're just paying dues.

Let's be honest: Unions are pretty much the opposite of a free market for labor...

I don't think anybody here is arguing that unions are for the "free market"

The point is most companies are not as well. Given th chance they would knock of the competition by any means possible.


They function by creating an artificial shortage of labor, forcing the shop to buy labor from the union. They "scalp" labor services.


Again a union exists because of the failure of management.


There was a time when it was damn well needed. Working conditions were unsafe, unfair, etc... But most of those problems are now under government regulations.


Problem: Most "free market" proponents also bitch about governmental control.....

So the Unions are all about the almighty dollar now.

Isn't that what the corporations are about?

And in many cases they are making demands that are well above what the free market would otherwise dictate for a job. And that's caused many businesses to close their doors and/or go into bankruptcy.

Companies don't care about the "free market" so why should unions.

Everybody looks after their own interests.


The fact is, if you are a high school drop out doing manual labor, you shouldn't expect to be making the same kind of income as a college educated worker. But society has created this mentality that everyone is entitled to two cars, a huge house and a TV in every room.

No doubt. However, it's interesting that people defend things like Golden parachutes and Exxon retirement packages.

Why should an executive deserve a reward for failure?

Why does the Exxon guy deserve his package? Considering current events a chimp sitting in his chair would have seen the same profits.

Unions hate the free market

Unions hate the free market
So do most large businesses. What's your point?

Unions hate the free market

A properly managed company would never need a union.

Doyou understand how prices work? A company can't charge whatever it likes. It can only charge what people are prepared to pay. If they put forward an asking price that is greater than the consumer is willing to pay, the consumer will take his money elsewhere.

Quite how that would increase a company's profits is a mystery.Do you understand what profits are? They are the amount of money a company makes after all its debts and obligations are paid. Now, let's give an example of what I'm talking about.

Say, in the year 2004, a company made 3 million dollars in profit. The workers ask for a raise, and got it, to the tune of 2 million dollars a year. In 2005, the company's business did about the same, and the company made 1 million dollars. The wage increase came entirely from company profits. There was no price increase necessary.

There was a time when it was damn well needed. There still is a time where unions are damn well needed.

Working conditions were unsafe, unfair, etc... But most of those problems are now under government regulations.Even you admit that not all of the unsafe and unfair working conditions are under government regulations now. Furthermore, as union membership declines, we see a rollback of these government regulations and worsening working conditions.

Since you can't admit it; unions get blasted as well.

They do not get blasted as a rule, and where they do, it is because they create some sort of inconvenience, not because they arbitrarily raise prices.

Hey you just described just about every giant corporation in the world. You are learning!

In what way is a single corporation a group of producers.

A single corporation is one producer. If they arbitrarily raise their prices, and create shortages, all they do is invite the others in the industry to do more and better business. Competition is allowed to work.

A union does not do this because they unite all producers (or at least aim so to do). This not only destroys competition, but it reduces the overall wealth of society.

Are you sure you can count? Can you tell the difference between one, and many? Do you know what competition is? Do you know what a cartel is?

Now you understand why unions exist! So workers are the same as business/companies owners! They look out for their own interests!

Unions believe they are looking out for their self interest. They are not, as I have shown (and as no one, especially you has made any real attempt to refute). They aren't because the increases for which they ask must be cancelled out by price increases. They are not because they must pay more if any of their "brother" unions gets a gain.

Because they move in a world in whih groups band together, and ask government to give them privileges and give their enemies punishments, they only last while they have a symapthetic government.

The group warfare rubbish unions engage in is not to the self-interest of unions, and it is to the detriment of everyone else.

You, like most people utterly ignorant of economics, can't realise that in a free market, one man's benefit is another man's benefit.

In the sort of world unions would prefer, in which people get into little groups, and fight wars with each other, one man's gain is another man's loss.

A union gain means that business costs increase which means that prices increase, which means the gain may well be swallowed up by the price increase, and any gain they do get in real terms is had at the expense of everyone else who must pay more.

The members of that union do of course lose when other unions gain, yet they irrationally support those unions. That is the sort of idiocy unions have pushed on us, a union will actually help another union to screw their members over!

None of your arguments are in any way meaningful unless you can get past the fact that increasing business costs means increasing prices. If the prices aren't increased, the profits are depressed which means the shareholders ditch the company. No shareholders, no company, no jobs.


Can you tell the difference between rational self-interest, and irrational self-interest. It doesn't look like it.

Say, in the year 2004, a company made 3 million dollars in profit. The workers ask for a raise, and got it, to the tune of 2 million dollars a year. In 2005, the company's business did about the same, and the company made 1 million dollars. The wage increase came entirely from company profits. There was no price increase necessary.

That is not what you were talking about, unless you are getting extremely confused. Wages are not paid from profit, they are a business cost. Also, the contrived example you gave lists absolutely no reason for the nice profit.

It is in the company's interests to keep margins low because they can then keep their prices low. It seems to me that the way the company is making such good profits is if they've minimised their costs, and maximised their sales. In other words, they are highly productive.

You've either backed my argument, or you've produced something utterly meaningless.

They do not get blasted as a rule, and where they do, it is because they create some sort of inconvenience, not because they arbitrarily raise prices.

:D even when you are wrong you still can't admit it.


In what way is a single corporation a group of producers.

A single corporation is one producer. If they arbitrarily raise their prices, and create shortages, all they do is invite the others in the industry to do more and better business. Competition is allowed to work.

Keep dancing boyo. You said only unions create shortages.


A union does not do this because they unite all producers (or at least aim so to do). This not only destroys competition, but it reduces the overall wealth of society.

Are you sure you can count? Can you tell the difference between one, and many? Do you know what competition is? Do you know what a cartel is?


Nonsensical ranting.


Unions believe they are looking out for their self interest. They are not, as I have shown (and as no one, especially you has made any real attempt to refute). They aren't because the increases for which they ask must be cancelled out by price increases. They are not because they must pay more if any of their "brother" unions gets a gain.

Because they move in a world in whih groups band together, and ask government to give them privileges and give their enemies punishments, they only last while they have a symapthetic government.

The group warfare rubbish unions engage in is not to the self-interest of unions, and it is to the detriment of everyone else.

You, like most people utterly ignorant of economics, can't realise that in a free market, one man's benefit is another man's benefit.

In the sort of world unions would prefer, in which people get into little groups, and fight wars with each other, one man's gain is another man's loss.


Nonsensical ranting.


A union gain means that business costs increase which means that prices increase, which means the gain may well be swallowed up by the price increase, and any gain they do get in real terms is had at the expense of everyone else who must pay more.

The members of that union do of course lose when other unions gain, yet they irrationally support those unions. That is the sort of idiocy unions have pushed on us, a union will actually help another union to screw their members over!


Nonsensical ranting.


None of your arguments are in any way meaningful unless you can get past the fact that increasing business costs means increasing prices. If the prices aren't increased, the profits are depressed which means the shareholders ditch the company. No shareholders, no company, no jobs.


Nonsensical ranting.


Can you tell the difference between rational self-interest, and irrational self-interest. It doesn't look like it.


Nonsensical ranting. Self-Interest is just that. "Rational" is just a matter of definition. Since it doesn't meet your expectations it's irrational.

Yups. Sort of like having to point out that having a job isn't optional for us ordinary mortals.

*Tsk* I'll never understand how the liberal brain works, faced with reality.There aren't too many liberals who don't have to work--often more than one job to make ends meet. But hey, don't let a little thing like reality challenge your view of the world.

Should be noted that the employment situation is much the same for conservatives--diference is that conservatives often vote against their economic self-interests, whether it's in politics or in the workplace.Bit of a gravedig, I know. I wasn't around to respond earlier though. But allow me to clarify.

I am not American, nor have I ever lived in America. Thus, you'll have to forgive my lack of adherence to botched American terminology. Liberals, where I come from, can probably best be compared to American Libertarians in theory & American conservatives in practice.

- But hey, don't let a little thing like reality challenge your view of the world ;)

Incidentially, if you catch me ranting about liberal twits in the future (and you just might), you may want to consider the possibility that I - just like you - may be arguing from my own point of reference. Or is there some sort of US-centric netiquette on this UK based forum that I'm unaware of?

To answer the question brought up in the first post on this thread: Hell no! If you need a mob to get what you're after, you probably don't deserve it.

To answer the question brought up in the first post on this thread: Hell no! If you need a mob to get what you're after, you probably don't deserve it.I take it you also refuse to work with/for corporations?

You said only unions create shortages.

You seem to have a problem with basic English. I said unions create labour shortages. I did not say only unions create shortages.

Self-Interest is just that. "Rational" is just a matter of definition. Since it doesn't meet your expectations it's irrational.

Horse hockey. Irrational self-interest, as persued by unions is pretty clear.

Unions persuit of self-interest is irrational because:

*The gains they secure must be matched with price increases
*They can only gain if other unions don't gain (because the gains of other unions will increase prices, diluting or eliminating their gains)
*They can only gain in an environment of sympathetic government. Where government is unsympathetic, a union cannot advance the interests of its members.

Since the way they pursue "self-interest" is detrimental to their interests, it is not rational.

The closest anyone has come to refuting me is some idiotic idea that the increase in wage rates will result in the workers buying more of what they produce, removing the need for a price increase. This nonsense does not take into account the idea that there are costs of doing business, it assumes that the workers will buy their own product, and it does not examine the effects on the economy as a whole.

Can you come up with some sort of explaination?

You seem to have a problem with basic English. I said unions create labour shortages. I did not say only unions create shortages.


Good you agree then.


Horse hockey. Irrational self-interest, as persued by unions is pretty clear.

Unions persuit of self-interest is irrational because:

*The gains they secure must be matched with price increases
*They can only gain if other unions don't gain (because the gains of other unions will increase prices, diluting or eliminating their gains)
*They can only gain in an environment of sympathetic government. Where government is unsympathetic, a union cannot advance the interests of its members.

Since the way they pursue "self-interest" is detrimental to their interests, it is not rational.

The closest anyone has come to refuting me is some idiotic idea that the increase in wage rates will result in the workers buying more of what they produce, removing the need for a price increase. This nonsense does not take into account the idea that there are costs of doing business, it assumes that the workers will buy their own product, and it does not examine the effects on the economy as a whole.

Can you come up with some sort of explaination?

Nonsensical ranting.

Good you agree then.

You have this odd idea that a union is simply like any other institution in a free market. Someone as ignorant as you shouldn't be commenting on economics.

You also have this bad habit of throwing up red herrings every time unions are criticised.

Nonsensical ranting.

In other words, you can't refute it, and won't try, choosing instead to act like a child.

If you've no understanding of economics, you shouldn't post to a thread on the subject.

Can you understand that doing business has costs?

Can you understand that workers' wages are one of those costs?

Can you understand that a business must produce a profit, or it will go out of business?

Can you understand that to maintain a profit, any cost increase must be passed on in the form of a price increase to consumers?

This stuff is simple enough for a Labrador to understand, yet you seem utterly incapable of mastering even these simple principles.

Similization,
I wouldn't join a union by choice. When I got my first job I was forced to join a union and I hated it. They do nothing for people making almost minimum wage except cut into their pay checks. There are situations when a union can be justified but they often stay around long after they accomplish what they were created for.

And what if 2/5's of a union are against a strike? The union goes on strike anyway and everyone who breaks that is branded a traitor. Does that seem right?

I am a proud member of my student union and yes I support workers' unions.

A union is the only major legal body defined to operate in the interests of employees and is centred on improving working condtions, providing welfare and support agencies, challanging the government and businesses on unfair practices and demanding fair wages for all employees. If that's a stupid idea to you then i think you a fool.

fair

Define "fair" objectively?

Fair to an employer means the maximum work for the lowest wage necessary to keep the employee with the company.

Fair to an employee means the minimum work for the maximum wage.

Fair to a third party depends entirely on the prejudices of that third party.

Define "fair" objectively?

Fair to an employer means the maximum work for the lowest wage necessary to keep the employee with the company.

Fair to an employee means the minimum work for the maximum wage.

Fair to a third party depends entirely on the prejudices of that third party.

I disagree that "fair" is as you have stated it from the perspective of an employer or employee since you have instead opted for perhaps a definition of the most desired status rahter then how condtions might actually be interpreted. Not all employees are monsters and many agree that employees have a right to a wage representative of their skill and to enjoy a decent standard of living. Likewise it is unfair to chracterise the interests of the employee as believing it is "fair" to recieve infalted wages in proportion to hte amount of work achieved since i would contest that many employees believe a fair wage is in fact in relations to the quality of work and standard of living they are entitled to rather then simply ammasing the greatest amount of wage possible. Fair is an arbitary and subjective term chaped by compromise between both parties...

of course in a socalist system we might see that "fair" means a return in wages of actual productivity produced and at a level to meet a decent material level of living.

You have this odd idea that a union is simply like any other institution in a free market. Someone as ignorant as you shouldn't be commenting on economics.


That's ok. I know you can't admit you are wrong. Keep dancing boyo.


here is more to work market then you simple world which will never exist.You also have this bad habit of throwing up red herrings every time unions are criticised.

Sure you go ahead and keep making claims when you can't refute things.


In other words, you can't refute it, and won't try, choosing instead to act like a child.

If you've no understanding of economics, you shouldn't post to a thread on the subject.

Can you understand that doing business has costs?

Can you understand that workers' wages are one of those costs?

Can you understand that a business must produce a profit, or it will go out of business?

Can you understand that to maintain a profit, any cost increase must be passed on in the form of a price increase to consumers?

This stuff is simple enough for a Labrador to understand, yet you seem utterly incapable of mastering even these simple principles.

That's ok laddy. I know I have hurt your world view. That's why debates are good.

There is more to life then your simple text books and someday you will learn your concept of the "free market" will never exist.

I disagree that "fair" is as you have stated it from the perspective of an employer or employee since you have instead opted for perhaps a definition of the most desired status rahter then how condtions might actually be interpreted. Not all employees are monsters and many agree that employees have a right to a wage representative of their skill and to enjoy a decent standard of living. Likewise it is unfair to chracterise the interests of the employee as believing it is "fair" to recieve infalted wages in proportion to hte amount of work achieved since i would contest that many employees believe a fair wage is in fact in relations to the quality of work and standard of living they are entitled to rather then simply ammasing the greatest amount of wage possible. Fair is an arbitary and subjective term chaped by compromise between both parties...

That may well be the case, and I would concede that it usually is, though it really depends on the occupation, and I presented what one might call a "worst-case scenario" of inconsiderate parties pushing only their perceived short-term interests.

Your last sentence is interesting, because it effectively defines fair as the market clearing price (i.e. they agree, so the sale is made, and the market clears).

You'll find no argument with that.

of course in a socalist system we might see that "fair" means a return in wages of actual productivity produced and at a level to meet a decent material level of living.

In point of fact, a capitalist system best produces this. A socialist system has the government claiming to achieve it, but it never has, and never can.

Fair in a socialist system is still arbitrary, and subjective. However, it is a form far worse than that in a free market. In a free market it is only the two parties of an agreement who need to agree. In socialism, the price is set by the state, and has no relation to reality because socialism lacks a rational price system.

There is more to life then your simple text books and someday you will learn your concept of the "free market" will never exist.

That's your argument?! I think you've lost.

That's your argument?! I think you've lost.

That's ok lad. I know the truth hurts.

If it makes you feel better, then go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

However, don't hold your breath waiting for your myth to happen. It won't.

In point of fact, a capitalist system best produces this. A socialist system has the government claiming to achieve it, but it never has, and never can.

Fair in a socialist system is still arbitrary, and subjective. However, it is a form far worse than that in a free market. In a free market it is only the two parties of an agreement who need to agree. In socialism, the price is set by the state, and has no relation to reality because socialism lacks a rational price system.

Actually it depends what type of socialism we were to discuss. It would be unjust to discuss “capitalism” while referring only the capitalist experience of Scandinavia while say ignoring the American or Japanese interpretation. Likewise we cannot ignore that there are various types of capitalism just as there were and are types of socialist economics. I will assume you’re thinking of the Soviet model in which the state assumed the “social” role of socialist organisation rather then the real social body; the workers of each industry and production centre.

The government continues to play a role in all capitalist and ‘free market’ states and depending on the location so does the judiciary, unions, shareholders or even the military in deciding wages (not always in conjunction with a mutually forged compromise over the definition of a ‘fair wage’). In a perfect free trade model then this may be the case but I would still contend that this is comparatively worse then the best socialist model. Of course we are only speculating on perfected and theoretical systems.

I concur that the state should have a diminished role in establishing the wage of each worker beyond guaranteeing a minimum wage and legally establishing the independent institutions required to oversee industrial relations and labour conditions (Eg: legalising independent trade unions, establishing an arbitration court). My idealised socialist model would remove the government from controlling the means of productions since all bureaucratic systems are inherently inefficient and a monopoly of power means a monopoly of force regardless of whether the government is a liberal democracy of technocracy.

However to return to the point; under idealised conditions the workers under socialism would receive a scaled wage reflecting their skill and occupation, related to productivity but be decided between themselves allowing each corporation or business distribute income based on a consensual system allowing for the greatest attainment of the “fair wage” as identified by labour, the source of wealth production. The major difference would that it is workers who establish the wage system not employees. There would be necessary oversight by external institutions but no more then there are in other progressive, capitalist, economies today.

I will assume you’re thinking of the Soviet model in which the state assumed the “social” role of socialist organisation rather then the real social body; the workers of each industry and production centre.

Even in non-socialist countries, the government still presumes the role of setting prices. It may not, as socialist states do, set the prices comprehensively, beforehand, but they do look at, and decide whether or not they like the prices coming from the free market, and take it upon themselves to change these prices if they do not meet the state's criteria for good prices. The latter is always decided on the basis of what is in the political interests of the political leaders of the state.

The government continues to play a role in all capitalist and ‘free market’ states and depending on the location so does the judiciary, unions, shareholders or even the military in deciding wages (not always in conjunction with a mutually forged compromise over the definition of a ‘fair wage’). In a perfect free trade model then this may be the case but I would still contend that this is comparatively worse then the best socialist model. Of course we are only speculating on perfected and theoretical systems.

The question is whether or not the government should play the types of roles it plays. The government does need people to work as civil servants, it therefore must compete with the private sector for workers, likewise the government has an obligation to those who provide the money to be frugal with it.

The judiciary's role should be confined solely to the enforcement of contracts already signed. It should not take it upon itself to unilaterally change those contracts, as the parties of those contracts know their interests best. I don't think the judiciary should compete with private law firms in pay terms for attorneys.

guaranteeing a minimum wage

That is going too far. You cannot make someone's labour worth more by making it illegal to offer them less. All you do is make it illegal to employ people who cannot be proitable to employ at less than the minimum wage.

legalising independent trade unions

What do you mean by this?

Do you mean that an employer, if faced with a union, must deal with them? If so, that is tantamount to theft.

Do you mean that if workers decide to unionise, the employer should be forced to keep them on? If so, that is also theft.

establishing an arbitration court

This is a good idea, but such a court must be watched carefully to see that it is not biased one way or the other.

My idealised socialist model would remove the government from controlling the means of productions since all bureaucratic systems are inherently inefficient and a monopoly of power means a monopoly of force regardless of whether the government is a liberal democracy of technocracy.

under idealised conditions the workers under socialism would receive a scaled wage reflecting their skill and occupation, related to productivity

You realise that without a price system of supply and demand, establishing this is not possible. The information is simply not available with which make such a determination.

The system would inevitably reflect seniority (in the place of skill), and political priorities (in the place of occupation). The reason seniroity must take the place of skill is that socialism provides no incentives for workers to be fully productive, so how long you've been there becomes the only means of differentiation within a particular type of job. The reason political priorities take precedence over the actual demand for a particular occupation is simply that there is no way to gauge the actual demand, those making the demand cannot really express the demand, and the government directs the economy in accordance with political priorities.

With regard to productivity, how could this be measured? In a free market, it is easy to see, profits go up, prices come down. Under a socialist system, guidelines would have to be established by government, and since you allow labour to engage in rent-seeking behavior (which is what your proposal boils down to), these guidelines will inevitably favour labour and show increases in productivity when labour wishes them to.

It is not enough to say "under an idealised ...", the problems with socialism are inherient, not simply the result of bad implementation.

consensual system allowing for the greatest attainment of the “fair wage” as identified by labour,

So, labour is allowed to engage in rent-seeking behavior?

labour, the source of wealth production

The source of wealth production is the wise investment of capital. Without capital, all labour could ever do is family level subsistance farming, hunting, and gathering.


You have also, like every other socialist here, totally failed to consider that we are dealing with equations.

If you increase one side of the equation, you must increase the other. If you increase wages, you must increase prices.

This means three things, firstly, the wage increase will be absorbed by the price increase. Secondly, as you allow all labour to engage in this rent-seeking behavior, the gain of workers in one industry (to the small extent that they exist at all) will be cancelled out by the "gains" of workers in other industries. Workers in oil, for example, having secured a wage increase will not only have to pay high prices for fuel, they will pay higher prices for food because the farmers got an increase as well. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the money taken up by the increase could have gone into other ventures. In this the overall wealth of society is reduced.

I can never understand why so many people are so reactionary about unions. I don't mean the sort of union that has no interest in looking after it's workers but the type of union that is willing to challenge employers over unfair conditions and low pay.

Here in the UK, the last big battle between the unions and Government was the Coal miners. Sadly the coal miners lost.

It's no surprise that ever since then working conditions in the UK have got worse. There is no real employment protection. The bosses can do pretty much what hey please. People now have to face the prospect there are no garaunteed jobs any more. Thast doesn't stop the bosses from looking for even more ways to increase profits, sell shoddier goods and screw the workforce.

I remember hearing about the "wobblies" (International Workers Union) in the USA. Are they still going? If so, that's the sort of union that people need to be involved in. They didn't go on strike but stayed in their jobs and sabotaged production, ensuring the bosses lost their profits. That's the style of union activity I like.

Unions? Not for me. Their founders meant well, but corruption took hold very fast, not to mention it's a breeding ground for Marxists.

I will forever stand on my own two feet! If forced into a union, I will buff them at every opportunity. So what if I get called a Scab? While they're out demanding dental coverage (which isn't needed to do any job), I'll be working a getting paid.

Similization,
I wouldn't join a union by choice. When I got my first job I was forced to join a union and I hated it.I've been in similar situations a couple of times, and have had to fight for the right to freely align myself with whomever I wanted.

Circumstances differ in various countries though. Where I live now, it wouldn't be legal not to be in a union in my line of work. They - at the very least - function as the organisations with which employers negotiate work conditions.They do nothing for people making almost minimum wage except cut into their pay checks.That's as true as it's false. There's no one-world-union. They don't all have similar agendas or management. Some, however, do just what you accuse them all of. I've been forced to be a member of a couple of such unions, much to my dismay.There are situations when a union can be justified but they often stay around long after they accomplish what they were created for.I'd say it's the other way 'round. Unions occationally outlive their mandate, but as a general rule, they both serve as the safety net for workers, and as a catalyst for improving conditions for workers.

I am, obviously, a proud union man in a union of my own choosing.And what if 2/5's of a union are against a strike? The union goes on strike anyway and everyone who breaks that is branded a traitor. Does that seem right?If you're going to be this black & white about it, then you'll only hear a resounding "YES!" from me.

If a strike - the ultimate last resort of the worker - is on the table, something is obviously very, very wrong somewhere. And "something" usually means the employer is treating the workers like shit.

In a free market where employment is in scarcity, employers can pretty much dictate the conditions for the worker. This is where liberal economics fail miserably, and why unions are so damn important. Employers - without interference from socially inclined governments or unions - can pretty much treat labour whoever they see fit. Even slaves are better off in this scenario, because slaves are a commodity, whereas the concept of free workers turn the jobs into a commodity instead.

Sadly, this is - in broard terms - the situation in the world right now. Thus if you can't muster the backbone to help your fellow workers by endorsing their strikes, you're effectively stabbing both them & yourself in the back, and affirming the unreasonable position of power of your employer.

So yea, if we're going to be all black & white about it, without any sort of defining circumstances, you should have your teeth kicked in for being a bloody scab.

Problem is, we all need food on the table. Only, employers can get more food on theirs, if they're allowed to nick ours. Don't be too quick to help them do that.

I can never understand why so many people are so reactionary about unions. I don't mean the sort of union that has no interest in looking after it's workers but the type of union that is willing to challenge employers over unfair conditions and low pay.

Define "unfair" objectively?

As to unions looking after employees' interests, I suggest you read my posts. They don't look after employees' interests. Not even those that want to.

It's no surprise that ever since then working conditions in the UK have got worse. There is no real employment protection. The bosses can do pretty much what hey please. People now have to face the prospect there are no garaunteed jobs any more. Thast doesn't stop the bosses from looking for even more ways to increase profits, sell shoddier goods and screw the workforce.

These "job guarantees' are only good while the company exists, and unions will, if unchecked, drive a company out of business. These guarantees (to the extent that they in fact are guarantees) are obtained at the cost of making it risky to hire people, increasing unemployment. The unions are the ones screwing people.

I remember hearing about the "wobblies" (International Workers Union) in the USA. Are they still going? If so, that's the sort of union that people need to be involved in. They didn't go on strike but stayed in their jobs and sabotaged production, ensuring the bosses lost their profits. That's the style of union activity I like.

You destroy profits, the shareholders run away, driving the company's share price down to nothing. No company, no jobs. What was that about "job guarantees"?

I would also not like to be in a car made by these idiots. I doubt I would walk out of it.


You really do need to read some economics. It seems that your knowledge of economics is on the level of a primitive man's knowledge of weather. The primitive man knows bad weather is caused by evil spirits, and he knows he will only get the good weather necessary to him by sumoning a good spirit to his defence.

You know that all economic problems are caused by evil spirits (employers), and you know the only way to prosperity is to summon good spirits (unions).

as a catalyst for improving conditions for workers.

How can they do that, since they have always acted in such a way as to increase the costs of business, thereby increasing consumer prices?

As I've said (and the pro-union zealots have ignored as inconvenient), we are dealing with equations. Most chimpanzees know that when you add something to one side of the equation, you must add something to the other side.

In a free market where employment is in scarcity,

Scarcity in employment, other than that in certain types of employment caused by differences in talents and abilities, has not been caused by a free market. It has been caused by government. The reason is that government interventions, supposedly in favour of the workers, have made employing people more difficult, expensive, and risky.

I'll note that not a single "free-marketeeer" has responded to their fellow free-market unionists replies...


You guys scared or what?

<Mega Snip>It would seem your entire assertion rests on your opinion that employers will not simply choose to spend their earnings on increasing their own wages, instead of the wages of the workers.

I have never, ever seen any employer do that - outside a few brief flickers of anarchist-driven businesses (and arguably, they had little alternative there).

Last year, I worked for a corporation. Our teams combined, made for (I think) 128 people. Combined, our wages (before taxes) were a bit less than half of what the previous CEO of that corporation earned.

Whose wages are passed on to the consumer, I wonder?

Like I said earlier, this is a case of one very big pile of food. The workers get a few scraps, and the bosses get the pile. The profit's already there - it's a question of how to devide it.
Unions lend strength to workers' demands for a fair share of the profits. They're not there to decrease or increase profits, just to help devide it.

But I understand your argument. It's unfair that workers can unite in a manner that makes it harder for for some wanker to run off with all the fruits of the labour they've provided.
Evil, evil workers! We're not supposed to get crazy ideas like wanting to enjoy some of the fruits of our own labour! What's the world comming to? Let's revive the good old aristocratic exploitation of us commoners!

I know The Nazz & I already speculated about it, but I have to ask: you've never worked a single day of your life, have you?

Argh, where's the Neutral option?

But as I support the little guy and like standing up for the underdog, I voted yes.

I'll note that not a single "free-marketeeer" has responded to their fellow free-market unionists replies...

There is no rationale for a union in a free market. A free market will of course prevent no union forming, but there is no good reason for an employer to deal with one.

It would seem your entire assertion rests on your opinion that employers will not simply choose to spend their earnings on increasing their own wages, instead of the wages of the workers.

No. If you've no understand of a market economy, how it works, and how prices are set within it, what makes you think you are able to make an argument in a thread in which these pieces of knowledge are positively required?

You can't, and you show it in every post.

Labour, like any other commodity, is subject to price and demand. That means the free market price of labour is that which matches supply and demand. If there is a low supply of a particular type of labour, and/or a high demand for it, wages will be relatively high. If the supply is great, and/or demand low, wages will be relatively low.

Unions lend strength to workers' demands for a fair share of the profits.

Define "fair" objectively?

Also, answer this: if a firm makes a loss, should the workers be forced to make up for the outstanding obligations of the company out of their own wealth?

you've never worked a single day of your life, have you?

Fuck you. If you can't refute my arguments, be man enough to admit it. Don't start with the ad-hominem. Incidently, I do work. Exactly what that has to do with my arguments is a mystery.

As to the rest of your rant, it has only confirmed my view that you are utterly ignorant of even the most basic economics. You have confirmed my view that your "knowledge" of economics is the same as a primitive man's "knowledge" of the weather, which I shall quote.

It seems that your knowledge of economics is on the level of a primitive man's knowledge of weather.

The primitive man knows bad weather is caused by evil spirits, and he knows he will only get the good weather necessary to him by sumoning a good spirit to his defence.

You know that all economic problems are caused by evil spirits (employers, capitalists), and you know their solution is to be found in appealing to good spirits (big government, unions)

There is no rationale for a union in a free market. Yes there is, as you unintentionally point out below.Labour, like any other commodity, is subject to price and demand. That means the free market price of labour is that which matches supply and demand. If there is a low supply of a particular type of labour, and/or a high demand for it, wages will be relatively high. If the supply is great, and/or demand low, wages will be relatively low....Define "fair" objectively?You're basically saying that if there's too many workers, they're screwed & rightfully so. Most workers would presumably disagree, as the sole purpose of having a free market, is to generate wealth for ALL - the workers included. That's what unions are here for; to ensure the workers aren't exploited simply because they can be.

That also gives as much of a concrete answer as you'll ever get to the "What's fair" question. What's fair depends on the circumstances.
There are numerous examples of unions collaborating with employers to decrease wages, in order to ensure the continued existence of the business in question.Also, answer this: if a firm makes a loss, should the workers be forced to make up for the outstanding obligations of the company out of their own wealth?Should the board get golden handshakes?If you can't refute my argumentsAs I recall, you were the one who failed to address my argument. But have fun in your dream world.

Little more fuel for the fire:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060511/BUSINESS01/605110354/1002/

In brief Delphi and one of its largest customers have asked for an injunction barring a strike by Delphi workers. They claim that this would have a severe impact on the operations of International as well as several other automakers.

The way I see this is that a strike at Delphi will hurt EVERYONE. The obvious is to Delphi, which will lose money when it does not have workers to produce something to sell. Next we have Delphi customers who can not quickly move to an alternate supplier and maintain current production levels. The great irony is that most of the Delphi customers are closed shops, which means that the Delphi union strikes, the Delphi customers lose money, and in the end the other union workers lose jobs because thier employer took a hit to production because of a union action. The irony is delicious.

I like the idea of unionized labour. It makes sense to have workers collaborating to create a safer and more beneficial (incl. money and job satisfaction) working environment. I would certainly hope that most employers would work with employees, but in larger companies you have to organize people into representative groups in order to get anything done.

Unfortunately unions to me now seem to be as much of a corporate monster as they claim to work with/against. The union bosses are just as well paid and get similar perks to the higher ups for other large buisnesses. I pass through Dayton, Ohio quite often. One of the more notable large office buildings is for the UFW. Its one of the larger buildings in town and stands out. How is it unions are so oppositional to larger companies when they are a large company?

Workers should have some protection, but that protection should not go to the point where it creates an artificial employment market or unfair trade to the employer. Some mechanism, be it ethics or profit sharing should exist to link employers and employees. It is a symbiotic relationship, when one does well the other should do well and when one suffers both suffer.

Are some of the stories I hear about union labor true? How much does a forklift operator at Delphi earn per year? With benefits? Does the guy putting the lugnuts on make almost as much as they guy who was trained to use/maintain some specialized piece of machinery?

Yes there is, as you unintentionally point out below.

You obviously didn't read the rest of that passage. For the workers, there is a kind of a rationale for unionisation (though, as I've pointed out, the gains they achieve are diluted, or eliminated by the price increases in their field, and the price increases caused by the gains of other unions, this point has not only remained unrefuted, it is totally unaddressed), but for the employers, there is no economic rationale for dealing with a group premised on the breach of contract, and dedicating to restricting output and raising prices.

Unions in this regard simply give employers an incentive to deal with non-union labour. Traditionally, the union's solution has been to, through the corruption of the political process which allows unions to survive, use government to force people to join unions, and force employers to buy from union monopolies.

You're basically saying that if there's too many workers, they're screwed & rightfully so. Most workers would presumably disagree, as the sole purpose of having a free market, is to generate wealth for ALL - the workers included. That's what unions are here for; to ensure the workers aren't exploited simply because they can be.

You've defined exploitation as "a price undesirable to the seller". That is an idiotic definition of exploitation, as that seller could have chosen unemployment, or is free to look for a better offer.

If people want to stay at the very bottom, in terms of salary, that is largely as a result of choice. They chose not to increase their skills.

Incidentally, you, like most people ignorant of economics, do not take into account that a free market price system in principally concerned with carriage of information.

Let me explain, if something has a relatively low price, that sends a signal to the market that one shouldn't go into that field. That counts as much for cars as it does for types of work.

Conversly, a relatively high price sends a signal to the market to get in to that field.

Why do you union apologists turn to emotion when faced with logic?

Incidently, you've not answered my question, and if you cannot define "fair" objectively, you cannot push the argument you're pushing.

Should the board get golden handshakes?

Firstly, that's a red herring. The question has absolutely no bearing on this discussion, and it also shows that union apologists can't argue their points logically. Secondly, if the shareholders think they should, they should. The shareholders own the company. If they want to give golden handshakes, they have that right. Thirdly, you didn't answer my question.

Your question was based on the premise that the workers are responsible for a company's profits. so they are entitled to a share. If workers are the cause of profits, they are the cause of losses.

Of course, your premise is false, the cause of profits is the wise investment of capital, the cause of losses the unwise investment of capital.

Can you answer this simple question: if workers are entitled to a share of the profits, should they also be forced to make up the losses?

It seems to me that profit-sharing must include loss-sharing. They go hand in hand.

I'll note that not a single "free-marketeeer" has responded to their fellow free-market unionists replies...

There is no rationale for a union in a free market. A free market will of course prevent no union forming, but there is no good reason for an employer to deal with one.

That's an interesting side step...

Just in case you actually wish to answer, here you go:
Disraeliland 3: Just to clarify a couple of points, is it you stance that the employer cannot breach the contract?

If not, then would you agree that the employees have a right to collectively dispute that breachvia a union?

And if you take the stance that the employer cannot breach a contract, then what makes said contract a mutual contact?

(Both of these questions are key to my having joined the union.)

Disraeliland 3: Just to clarify a couple of points, is it you stance that the employer cannot breach the contract?

He can sever the contract by ceasing to buy, but that is no more a breach of contract than you ceasing to buy McDonalds.

If not, then would you agree that the employees have a right to collectively dispute that breachvia a union?

They can cease to sell, just as a McDonalds can close down, or reduce its opening hours, and this would sever the contract.

However, this is simply not the issue. What is at issue with particular regard to unions is "protection" for striking workers in not allowing the employer to employ alternative labour, and allowing the unions, through picket lines, to prevent replacement workers, and clients entering the business.

If the employer finds the alternative workers better than the normal workers, he is fully entitled to employ them permanently.

Needless to say, any union violence, or threat of such violence (and a picket line is a threat of violence) should be put down as quickly as possible.



In summary:

A strike is the same as a resignation, as far as I'm concerned. A lockout is the the same as a dismissal.

Union tactics such as slow downs etc are a breach of contract as the seller is not providing what has/is being paid for, of course one might contend that if the employees returned the wage differential between what they provided and what they were paid, it would not be a breach.

An employer reducing conditions is not breaching contract, he is offering a new deal to the employees, who can accept or refuse. That the alternatives for the employees may not be entirely pleasant is a pity, however to say that intervention by the state is necessary under my circumstances is merely to say that their misfortune should be imposed on the whole of society by higher prices, and less overall wealth. Spreading the suffering does not eliminate it.

In this, the rights of both are respected. One side or the other might be induced in negotiation to renew, or resume the contract.

That is not what you were talking about, unless you are getting extremely confused. No, this is exactly what I was talking about.

Wages are not paid from profit, they are a business cost.Yes, and in the second year given in the example, the increased business costs from the increased wages lead to a lower profit.

Also, the contrived example you gave lists absolutely no reason for the nice profit.It wasn't meant to.

It is in the company's interests to keep margins low because they can then keep their prices low. It's in the company's interests to keep their profit margin as high as they possibly can.

It seems to me that the way the company is making such good profits is if they've minimised their costs, and maximised their sales. In other words, they are highly productive.All the more reason for the employees there to demand more money.

Unions persuit of self-interest is irrational because:

*The gains they secure must be matched with price increasesNot in the example I gave. Furthermore, this is going to be irrelevant to certain types of unions. A union made up of airplane manufacturers isn't going to be concerned with price increases in the airplanes, since the people building the airplanes aren't going to be concerned with buying them. A union made up of Bangladeshi sweatshop workers isn't going to be concerned with a price increase for the same reason.

*They can only gain if other unions don't gain (because the gains of other unions will increase prices, diluting or eliminating their gains)In certain cases yes, in others, no.

*They can only gain in an environment of sympathetic government. Where government is unsympathetic, a union cannot advance the interests of its members.If this was true, then why were unions in the U.S. most effective when the government wasn't sympathetic to the unions? As someone pointed out, the government "sympathy" to the unions actually weakened their power overall.

The source of wealth production is the wise investment of capital. Without capital, all labour could ever do is family level subsistance farming, hunting, and gathering.Without labor, capital can do nothing.

There is no rationale for a union in a free market. A free market will of course prevent no union forming, but there is no good reason for an employer to deal with one.The reason for the employer to deal with a union in a free market is the same in any market: the costs of dealing with the union would be less than the costs of folding the business.

I remember hearing about the "wobblies" (International Workers Union) in the USA. Are they still going? If so, that's the sort of union that people need to be involved in. They didn't go on strike but stayed in their jobs and sabotaged production, ensuring the bosses lost their profits. That's the style of union activity I like.Yes, we're still around (the first link in my signature). We have a couple of Branches in the UK, one of which is in London.

Oh, and it's Industrial Workers of the World.

He can sever the contract by ceasing to buy, but that is no more a breach of contract than you ceasing to buy McDonalds.They can cease to sell, just as a McDonalds can close down, or reduce its opening hours, and this would sever the contract.

However, this is simply not the issue. What is at issue with particular regard to unions is "protection" for striking workers in not allowing the employer to employ alternative labour, and allowing the unions, through picket lines, to prevent replacement workers, and clients entering the business.

If the employer finds the alternative workers better than the normal workers, he is fully entitled to employ them permanently.

Needless to say, any union violence, or threat of such violence (and a picket line is a threat of violence) should be put down as quickly as possible.



In summary:

A strike is the same as a resignation, as far as I'm concerned. A lockout is the the same as a dismissal.

Union tactics such as slow downs etc are a breach of contract as the seller is not providing what has/is being paid for, of course one might contend that if the employees returned the wage differential between what they provided and what they were paid, it would not be a breach.

An employer reducing conditions is not breaching contract, he is offering a new deal to the employees, who can accept or refuse. That the alternatives for the employees may not be entirely pleasant is a pity, however to say that intervention by the state is necessary under my circumstances is merely to say that their misfortune should be imposed on the whole of society by higher prices, and less overall wealth. Spreading the suffering does not eliminate it.

In this, the rights of both are respected. One side or the other might be induced in negotiation to renew, or resume the contract.


That analogy simply doesn't work. An employement contract is not the same as a one time purchase. Buying a Big Mac is not buying a contract binding me to purchase further Big Macs.

It wasn't meant to.

Then it wasn't worth considering, and wasn't worth posting. Such an obvious contrivance, with the absence of a reason for the increased profit, can only serve as an unreal example tailored to suit your views. As such, it is irrelevant.

It's in the company's interests to keep their profit margin as high as they possibly can.

No, it isn't. It is in there interests to keep their prices low so as to maximise sales. That implies tight margins. If they just raise their prices to have higher margins, all they do is invite their competition to do more business.

Not in the example I gave.

Which is, as I said above, irrelevant as it is tailored to produce results that favour your views.

All the more reason for the employees there to demand more money.

But your example did not take that into account. It did not even consider it.

However, the free market provides a better solution than all of its alternatives, as usual. Highly productive employees are quite valuable. The highly productive employee may be able to command a greater wage different company, that would induce his current employer to pay him more to keep him from leaving.

This is so simple that most chimpanzees have worked it out. Why is it that a socialist cannot work out something simple enough for a chimpanzee is a damned good question.

Not in the example I gave. Furthermore, this is going to be irrelevant to certain types of unions. A union made up of airplane manufacturers isn't going to be concerned with price increases in the airplanes, since the people building the airplanes aren't going to be concerned with buying them. A union made up of Bangladeshi sweatshop workers isn't going to be concerned with a price increase for the same reason.

How do you think airlines get the money with which they buy aircraft? They sell tickets for travel in the aircraft, or charge people for transporting cargo in the aircraft. Governments get aircraft by taxing the people. The public does pay for aircraft indirectly.

You might say the aircraft workers don't fly, and under the sort of system you would put in place, they would never have the chance so to do, it would be too expensive.

In any case, what you've shown is what I have described elsewhere, unions gain (to the extent they gain at all) only by taking from others. The money taken up by the price increase could have gone into other things.

In certain cases yes, in others, no.

Have you anything specific to say? You do realise that we are dealing with equations, and if you increase one side, you must increase the other?

If this was true, then why were unions in the U.S. most effective when the government wasn't sympathetic to the unions? As someone pointed out, the government "sympathy" to the unions actually weakened their power overall.

US Governments have protected unions with force for years.

Without labor, capital can do nothing.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Without capital, why would there be any labour at all? For what reason would people seek jobs?

I will explain it simply: Capital is used to buy labour services.

The reason for the employer to deal with a union in a free market is the same in any market: the costs of dealing with the union would be less than the costs of folding the business.

That is a non-answer. Unions exist solely to make labour expensive.

That analogy simply doesn't work. An employement contract is not the same as a one time purchase. Buying a Big Mac is not buying a contract binding me to purchase further Big Macs.

It is basically the same. It is merely a consistant purchase (i.e. having a Big Mac for dinner every night) from the same buyer.

It is basically the same. It is merely a consistant purchase (i.e. having a Big Mac for dinner every night) from the same buyer.

Nope, it's quite different. If I were employeed on a day to day basis, it might be analogous. But most people are employed on a long term basis. Eating at McDonalds once does not obligate me to do so ever again, so I am not in breech of the "contract". However, if my employer dismisses me in the middle of my contract, for reasons that are not stipulated in that contract, they are in breech of said contract.

Nope, it's quite different. If I were employeed on a day to day basis, it might be analogous. But most people are employed on a long term basis. Eating at McDonalds once does not obligate me to do so ever again, so I am not in breech of the "contract". However, if my employer dismisses me in the middle of my contract, for reasons that are not stipulated in that contract, they are in breech of said contract.

What you are in fact asserting is a "right" of the employee to an employer's property, in that he can claim the employer's property without the employer's consent.

Such a claim is simply not compatible with a free market, it is a denial of property rights. It is instead effectively robbery.

Do you mean that an employer, if faced with a union, must deal with them? If so, that is tantamount to theft.

Do you mean that if workers decide to unionise, the employer should be forced to keep them on? If so, that is also theft.

Y'u What? Yes... that makes sense... wait, no it doesnt.

What you are in fact asserting is a "right" of the employee to an employer's property, in that he can claim the employer's property without the employer's consent.

Such a claim is simply not compatible with a free market, it is a denial of property rights. It is instead effectively robbery.

LOL! Do you honestly believe that any suppliers contract is a denial of property rights. Unless you can somehow come to the conclusion that a contract to supply 400 widgets over a one year period is somehow theft, it's completely compatable with a free market to have an employement contract to provide 400 hours of labor over a one year period.

Fuck you. If you can't refute my arguments, be man enough to admit it. Don't start with the ad-hominem. Incidently, I do work. Exactly what that has to do with my arguments is a mystery.

As to the rest of your rant, it has only confirmed my view that you are utterly ignorant of even the most basic economics. You have confirmed my view that your "knowledge" of economics is the same as a primitive man's "knowledge" of the weather, which I shall quote.

My my such language. Are you a vulgarian?

It's funny that you raise th ad-hominem claim when you can't seem to make a post with out some form of an attempted insult.

You work? Ok what do you do? Much of your arguments sound like a text book rather then "real" life.

So what do you do?

You've defined exploitation as "a price undesirable to the seller". That is an idiotic definition of exploitation, as that seller could have chosen unemployment, or is free to look for a better offer.

So... the choice between starvation and job which provides the bare minimum of work is a real choice? Bollocks.

And free to look for a better offer? In a market where unemployment is high? Yeah right.

And then, when unemployment is low, there have been several examples of those who have the economic power using that power to limit the effect the labour shortage should do.


If people want to stay at the very bottom, in terms of salary, that is largely as a result of choice. They chose not to increase their skills.

Yes... And if they dont have the time to increase their skills? Or the money? Is that a choice? Bollocks.

Do you honestly believe that any suppliers contract is a denial of property rights.

You've missed the point.

The point is consent, and in the case we were discussing of an employer no longer wishing to employ someone, consent has been withdrawn. It is that simple.

So... the choice between starvation and job which provides the bare minimum of work is a real choice? Bollocks.

You too have missed the point. The point is that the interventions you advocate to alleviate the suffering do not do so, they merely spread the suffering over the whole population.

It's funny that you raise th ad-hominem claim when you can't seem to make a post with out some form of an attempted insult.

Cobblers. You made an irrelevant personal comment, asserting incorrectly that I don't work. You could not have sourced that from my arguments, you could only have pulled that from your own imagination, and it has no bearing on the discussion.

Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of economics bears directly on this discussion, and my statements are a direct conclusion drawn from your "arguments".

Cobblers. You made an irrelevant personal comment, asserting incorrectly that I don't work. You could not have sourced that from my arguments, you could only have pulled that from your own imagination, and it has no bearing on the discussion.

Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of economics bears directly on this discussion, and my statements are a direct conclusion drawn from your "arguments".

Blah blah blah.

I am not the only one that has made the claim.

So again what do you do?

Or are you afraid to admit it?

You've missed the point.

The point is consent, and in the case we were discussing of an employer no longer wishing to employ someone, consent has been withdrawn. It is that simple.

Are you trying to say that contracts are somehow not a form of consent?

If not, then you are incorrect. The consent is in the contract. Employment contracts (and established contract law) stipulate the terms under which a contract may be abrogated, and both the employer and employee are legally bound by it.

But if you are, then you aren't looking at any form of free market that I know of.

:confused:

The consent is in the contract.

And if one or the other party withdraws his consent? The consent at that time is in the contract.

And if one or the other party withdraws his consent? The consent at that time is in the contract.

At the time you sign the contract, you gave consent to be bound by and to accept the penalties for abrogating it. If you withdraw consent you either pay the penalty or are guilty of fraud.

Today in US history, we talked about unions and strikes and what not..

Well the teacher asked me if I would join a union, I said yes. And then he asked if I support strikes and if I would take part in one. I guess I would..

Then he asked another student if he would join a union and he said no.

The teacher was surprised and asked him why not. Then he quickly changed his question to "Would you be a strike-breaker?" and the kid said yes because it's a job that pays.

What I want to know is.. what would you be? A union member.. or would you stay non-union?

Why?I would preferre to stay non-union. if your union decides to strike, you have to strike. No other option other than to leave the Union.

At the time you sign the contract, you gave consent to be bound by and to accept the penalties for abrogating it. If you withdraw consent you either pay the penalty or are guilty of fraud.

Insofar as both parties agree, that's fine. However, you must realise that employment contracts will tend towards having less of such "protections", to the extent of a high degree of casualisation, or a transition to using independent contractors. This is already occuring in places where there is economic freedom enough to allow it, like Australia. (In point of fact, I have never worked as anything other than an independent contractor)

The reason is quite simple: an employer gives his consent in a state of partial ignorance. He has no idea of how an employee may turn out. He may be good, or he may not in which case it is imperative to sack him, and find someone who is good.

I will never hold any job that requires collective bargaining. In fact I’d rather die, but in the incredibly unlikely chance that I do find myself among the Proles, I would only if it would benefit me, and yes I would be a strike-breaker.
"Let them eat cock".

Then it wasn't worth considering, and wasn't worth posting. Such an obvious contrivance, with the absence of a reason for the increased profit, can only serve as an unreal example tailored to suit your views. As such, it is irrelevant.Unless you are suggesting that it is impossible for there to be increased profit, it really doesn't matter how it comes about.

No, it isn't. It is in there interests to keep their prices low so as to maximise sales. No, it's in their interest to make as much money as possible. Sometimes selling more will lower profits, if they have to lower prices to compensate for it.

That implies tight margins. If they just raise their prices to have higher margins, all they do is invite their competition to do more business.That depends on whether or not their competition is able to meet the increased demand.

Which is, as I said above, irrelevant as it is tailored to produce results that favour your views.And again, unless you're saying such a situation is impossible, it isn't irrelevant.

But your example did not take that into account. It did not even consider it.Nor did it need to.

However, the free market provides a better solution than all of its alternatives, as usual. Highly productive employees are quite valuable. Which is another way of saying slightly less expendable than other employees.

The highly productive employee may be able to command a greater wage different company, that would induce his current employer to pay him more to keep him from leaving.Not if the current employer could employ one or more people at the wage he would have to pay the highly productive employee. Of course, the current employer would have to believe that the employee in question is seeking jobs elsewhere, and know how much the other firm is paying in any case, which is unlikely.

How do you think airlines get the money with which they buy aircraft? They sell tickets for travel in the aircraft, or charge people for transporting cargo in the aircraft. Governments get aircraft by taxing the people. The public does pay for aircraft indirectly.Or in other words, when there is a demand for something, there will be someone to meet it.

In any case, what you've shown is what I have described elsewhere, unions gain (to the extent they gain at all) only by taking from others. The money taken up by the price increase could have gone into other things.Businesses gain only by taking from others. Other things not relevant to the workers in the union.

Have you anything specific to say? You do realise that we are dealing with equations, and if you increase one side, you must increase the other?Excuse me, I thought you were capable of dealing with abstractions.

US Governments have protected unions with force for years.And during that time, unions have grown weaker and weaker.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Without capital, why would there be any labour at all? Because people will have to work to live, even if, as you said, it is on the level of subsistence farming.

That is a non-answer. Unions exist solely to make labour expensive.As it should be.

Unless you are suggesting that it is impossible for there to be increased profit, it really doesn't matter how it comes about.

It does matter because without that consideration, your "example" is merely a contrivance designed by you solely to advance your views.

No, it's in their interest to make as much money as possible. Sometimes selling more will lower profits, if they have to lower prices to compensate for it.

People don't like paying high prices. If they increase their prices to make for greater margins, all they will do is tell consumers "buy the competitions' products".

That depends on whether or not their competition is able to meet the increased demand.

They will be able to, if they haven't the capacity at that time, the prospect of increased profits will induce investment.

I find it difficult to understand why you post on economic threads when you can't grasp ideas as simple as the ones I am posing.

Not if the current employer could employ one or more people at the wage he would have to pay the highly productive employee.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is commonplace to be able to split a job in two?

Of course, the current employer would have to believe that the employee in question is seeking jobs elsewhere, and know how much the other firm is paying in any case, which is unlikely.

The other firms will want the good workers, that means advertising jobs with the possible pay scales. Looking at the jobs pages in the newspaper gives a good idea of what other firms are willing to pay.

Of course workers will persue their economic interests, it is not justified to assume they wouldn't.

Or in other words, when there is a demand for something, there will be someone to meet it.

You really didn't read my post. My point, which you have as usual ignored in favour of childish sniping, was that in the end everyone pays for everything, and therefore a price rise hurts everyone. You claimed that aviation workers need not be concerned with a price rise in aircraft, you were wrong. These workers do pay for aircraft every time they pay for an airline ticket, and every time they pay their taxes, therefore they are hit by the price increase in higher ticket prices, and higher taxes.

Businesses gain only by taking from others. Other things not relevant to the workers in the union.

Again, you show a total ignorance of the most basic economic ideas. Businesses gain by making voluntary trades with consumers. These trades are by definition mutually beneficial, or they would not take place. The car company sells you a car. This is mutually beneficial because before the trade, they had a car and wanted money, and you had money and wanted a car; after the trade you have the car you want, and the company has the money they want.

Because people will have to work to live, even if, as you said, it is on the level of subsistence farming.

What a nice vision you offer us.However, you have proven my point, it is capital which is responsible for freeing people from subsistance farming, and a whole range of other unpleasant things.

As it should be.

Did you read my posts? If you make labour more expensive, you must cause prices to rise to account for it. The workers don't benefit because the price rise swallows up their pay rise, and the "gains" of other unions swallow up the "gains" further. All that you've done is increase the amount of money sloshing around, and reduce the overall wealth of society.

It does matter because without that consideration, your "example" is merely a contrivance designed by you solely to advance your views.Yes, it is a contrivance designed by me solely to advance my views. So what, is it possible or not? If it is possible, then my views are correct. If it is impossible, then say so, and say why you think it's impossible.

People don't like paying high prices. If they increase their prices to make for greater margins, all they will do is tell consumers "buy the competitions' products".But lowering the prices by a certain degree won't necessarily get more people to buy them to replace the amount that would have been gotten from selling the product at a higher price. I'd give you a mathematical example of this, but, of course, it would be "tailored to advance my views".

They will be able to, if they haven't the capacity at that time, the prospect of increased profits will induce investment.And after the competition has taken on loads of debt or sold a bunch of stock, the prices could be lowered to what they were.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is commonplace to be able to split a job in two?Yes, most jobs can be split if need be.

The other firms will want the good workers, that means advertising jobs with the possible pay scales. Looking at the jobs pages in the newspaper gives a good idea of what other firms are willing to pay.

Of course workers will persue their economic interests, it is not justified to assume they wouldn't.Fair enough, but nonetheless this doesn't address the point that good workers are in abundance.

You really didn't read my post. My point, which you have as usual ignored in favour of childish sniping, Your sheer hypocrisy is astounding.

was that in the end everyone pays for everything, and therefore a price rise hurts everyone. Across the board inflation is harmful, but not as harmful as across the board deflation.

You claimed that aviation workers need not be concerned with a price rise in aircraft, you were wrong. These workers do pay for aircraft every time they pay for an airline ticket, and every time they pay their taxes, therefore they are hit by the price increase in higher ticket prices, and higher taxes.The only reason to be concerned about this is if the increase in ticket fares or taxes is the same or more as the amount gained from the better contract.

Businesses gain by making voluntary trades with consumers. These trades are by definition mutually beneficial, or they would not take place. No, the people making the trade must believe that the trade is mutually beneficial. It doesn't have to actually be mutually beneficial.

What a nice vision you offer us.However, you have proven my point, it is capital which is responsible for freeing people from subsistance farming, and a whole range of other unpleasant things.And it is labor which gives capital any meaning at all.

Did you read my posts? If you make labour more expensive, you must cause prices to rise to account for it. The workers don't benefit because the price rise swallows up their pay rise, Not necessarily, as I've pointed out.

and the "gains" of other unions swallow up the "gains" further. Possibly.

All that you've done is increase the amount of money sloshing around, and reduce the overall wealth of society.So? This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Yes, it is a contrivance designed by me solely to advance my views. So what, is it possible or not? If it is possible, then my views are correct. If it is impossible, then say so, and say why you think it's impossible.

Not the point, as you have not given sufficient information upon which to base such a determination.

But lowering the prices by a certain degree won't necessarily get more people to buy them to replace the amount that would have been gotten from selling the product at a higher price. I'd give you a mathematical example of this, but, of course, it would be "tailored to advance my views".

Which is another way of saying that the free market finds the best prices most quickly.

Yes, most jobs can be split if need be.

Nonsense, and if you split a job, you have extra costs.

The only reason to be concerned about this is if the increase in ticket fares or taxes is the same or more as the amount gained from the better contract.

And what about everyone else who gets screwed over? Anyway, you are relying on a union to act in a moderate manner.

And it is labor which gives capital any meaning at all.

No, it isn't. It is the other way around. Without capital, labour would be so unproductive as to render any decent standard of living impossible.

Not necessarily, as I've pointed out.

Simply stating it, without any sound reasoning behind it is not sufficient.

So? This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Yes, it is, unless you really are clamouring for a lower living standard.

Not the point, as you have not given sufficient information upon which to base such a determination. Nor is additional information necessary.

Which is another way of saying that the free market finds the best prices most quickly.The best prices being the most profitable prices, overall.

Nonsense, and if you split a job, you have extra costs.Which may be less than the cost of employing one person if that one person costs a lot of money.

And what about everyone else who gets screwed over? Anyway, you are relying on a union to act in a moderate manner. I would suggest that everyone else form unions, also.
I don't know what you mean by moderate as I'm sure we have different ideas of what that is.

No, it isn't. It is the other way around. Without capital, labour would be so unproductive as to render any decent standard of living impossible. And again, without labor, capital does nothing.

Simply stating it, without any sound reasoning behind it is not sufficient.I've already given sound reasoning. The fields that the price increases would be in aren't necessarily the fields that the unionized workers would be interested in spending their money in.

Yes, it is, unless you really are clamouring for a lower living standard.Show how a "more prosperous society" automatically means a higher living standard for everyone within that society.

And what about everyone else who gets screwed over? Anyway, you are relying on a union to act in a moderate manner.

And you are requiring business to act in a moderate manner as well.

Business have proved themselves capable of acting illegally, imorally, nosensically and even totally against their own long term self interests for short term profits.

And you are requiring business to act in a moderate manner as well.

Business have proved themselves capable of acting illegally, imorally, nosensically and even totally against their own long term self interests for short term profits.

No, I'm not. I'm requiring business to advance their own interests.

Nor is additional information necessary.

Yes, it is. It doesn't just happen.

The best prices being the most profitable prices, overall.

No, the best prices are the ones at which the market tends most often to clear.

This is elementary stuff. Quite why you can't work it out is a mystery, it is simple enough.

Which may be less than the cost of employing one person if that one person costs a lot of money.

No. By definition, the costs for two people will be greater. If the costs truely were less for two people, this would not be under discussion because the employer, wishing to minimise his costs, would have employed two people in the first place.

I would suggest that everyone else form unions, also.

So you prefer everyone screwing everyone else over?

I've already given sound reasoning. The fields that the price increases would be in aren't necessarily the fields that the unionized workers would be interested in spending their money in.

Firstly, the examples you showed are ones in which the workers spend money.

Aviation workers do pay indirectly for aircraft. Even is they aren't interested in air travel, they are forced to fund the government's aircraft through taxation.

Everyone pays for everything, whether directly or indirectly.

Show how a "more prosperous society" automatically means a higher living standard for everyone within that society.

Since history is full of examples of the same, I don't need to. It is you who needs to show that a less prosperous society is better for everyone.

No, I'm not. I'm requiring business to advance their own interests.

Oh, so your fine with them doing illegal, immoral and nonsensical acts for their own interests then?

Yet unions are not allowed to do the same? Hell not even allowed to do moral and legal (wether they make sense or not is a seperate question) actions according to your rules.

Yes, it is. It doesn't just happen.It doesn't have to just happen; it could happen for any number of reasons.

No, the best prices are the ones at which the market tends most often to clear.

This is elementary stuff. Quite why you can't work it out is a mystery, it is simple enough.You're the one who is saying that business don't want to maximize their profits.

No. By definition, the costs for two people will be greater. If the costs truely were less for two people, this would not be under discussion because the employer, wishing to minimise his costs, would have employed two people in the first place.The example we were talking about was a worker who wished to be paid more than the worker is currently being paid, otherwise they will find another job. In this example, it's possible that the increased amount that the worker wishes to be paid could make it unprofitable to keep that worker; the worker would leave the company, and, in this example, be replaced with two other workers.

So you prefer everyone screwing everyone else over?No, but this is hardly any different than capitalism.

Firstly, the examples you showed are ones in which the workers spend money.

Aviation workers do pay indirectly for aircraft. Even is they aren't interested in air travel, they are forced to fund the government's aircraft through taxation.If the government purchases aircraft from that supplier, and if the government needs aircraft.

Everyone pays for everything, whether directly or indirectly.I'm going to keep this statement in mind, I may need to use it against you at some point.

Since history is full of examples of the same, I don't need to. It is you who needs to show that a less prosperous society is better for everyone.History is full of examples of "prosperous societies" with astronomical amounts of poor impoverished people. There are few examples, if any, of prosperous societies that are good for everyone.

To give an example of a less prosperous society that's better for everyone, I point to Scandinavia. Presumably, they would be more prosperous if their economy was hampered less, but the lower classes there would be worse off.

To give an example of a less prosperous society that's better for everyone, I point to Scandinavia. Presumably, they would be more prosperous if their economy was hampered less, but the lower classes there would be worse off.

Scandinavia is a society?

Scandinavia is a society?Depends on your definition. Scandinavia is rather uniform, even thouigh it consists of a few different soverign nations. The differences between them are comparable to the differences bettween American states.

It doesn't have to just happen; it could happen for any number of reasons.

The reason for it bears directly upon the decision as to what to do with the profits.

You're the one who is saying that business don't want to maximize their profits.

So, you don't understand how price work?

No, but this is hardly any different than capitalism.

Rubbish. I did show that by demanding wages in excess of what their labour was worth, they were screwing everyone over with higher prices, and less overall wealth in society.

If the government purchases aircraft from that supplier, and if the government needs aircraft.

There aren't that many aircraft firms, and if the government didn't need aircraft, why would people build aircraft for governments?

I'm going to keep this statement in mind, I may need to use it against you at some point.

Like I said, you prefer childish sniping to discussion.

History is full of examples of "prosperous societies" with astronomical amounts of poor impoverished people. There are few examples, if any, of prosperous societies that are good for everyone.

To give an example of a less prosperous society that's better for everyone, I point to Scandinavia. Presumably, they would be more prosperous if their economy was hampered less, but the lower classes there would be worse off.

Read "Eat the Rich" by P.J. O'Rourke, Scandanavia is playing against time, and unemployment there is at astronomical levels.

The lower classes would be better off if they were allowed to improve their lot in society. They can't, the government effectively makes it illegal through insanely high taxes, and a colossal mass of regulation. All that Scandanavia has ensured is that the lower classes, as you put them, have a pittance and never the opportunity for more.

Oh, so your fine with them doing illegal, immoral and nonsensical acts for their own interests then?

Yet unions are not allowed to do the same? Hell not even allowed to do moral and legal (wether they make sense or not is a seperate question) actions according to your rules.

If you're not going to read my posts, why are you clicking on the "reply" button?

All that Scandanavia has ensured is that the lower classes, as you put them, have a pittance and never the opportunity for more.

Yet Scandinavian cpountries are ones where there is the least difference between rich and poor.

In fact, one of those nations (cant remember which one specifically) is the only country in the world where you cant take a random child out of a school, look at their dental, health educational etc records and tell which class they come from.

The reason for it bears directly upon the decision as to what to do with the profits.Perhaps, but the fact that the workers in the situation have organized has affected the decision as to what to do with the profits; in this situation, the company elected to give some of the profits to the workers.

So, you don't understand how price work?Yes, the work to make a profit for the company, the more profit, the better.

Rubbish. I did show that by demanding wages in excess of what their labour was worth, they were screwing everyone over with higher prices, and less overall wealth in society.Now show that the wages that all unions demand are more than the labor is worth.

There aren't that many aircraft firms, and if the government didn't need aircraft, why would people build aircraft for governments?If they didn't build aircraft for governments, they would build them for airlines, or for foreign governments.

Like I said, you prefer childish sniping to discussion.You don't even realize when you're being a hypocrite, do you?

Read "Eat the Rich" by P.J. O'Rourke, Scandanavia is playing against time, and unemployment there is at astronomical levels.True, but in the U.S. we undercount the unemployment rate.

The lower classes would be better off if they were allowed to improve their lot in society. Yes, but in order to do that, you'd have to get rid of capitalism.

They can't, the government effectively makes it illegal through insanely high taxes, and a colossal mass of regulation. The government makes it illegal by supporting a capitalist system.

All that Scandanavia has ensured is that the lower classes, as you put them, have a pittance and never the opportunity for more.All that capitalism ensures is that the lower classes have a pittance and never the opportunity for more; at least in Scandinavia that pittance is more than in less regulated economies.

Yet Scandinavian cpountries are ones where there is the least difference between rich and poor.

In fact, one of those nations (cant remember which one specifically) is the only country in the world where you cant take a random child out of a school, look at their dental, health educational etc records and tell which class they come from.Probably Sweden.

Perhaps, but the fact that the workers in the situation have organized has affected the decision as to what to do with the profits; in this situation, the company elected to give some of the profits to the workers.

Again, you've provided no reason for the greater profits. You've simply stated that the company would chose to give them to the workers. I don't see any reason for them to do that, unless the increased profits werecaused by increased worker productivity, in which case other companies might wish to head-hunt, and the raise would induce them to stay.

Yes, the work to make a profit for the company, the more profit, the better.

No, if the price is good for a company, it works for the company. Prices are a result of supply and demand. More supply and/or less demand means a lower price, less supply and/or more demand means a higher price.

The market clearing price is set by supply and demand, and is the price which allows a sale to take place, it is a price that sellers and buyers can generally agree.

Note that I have not mentioned costs of production, or profits. Both are essentially irrelevant to the setting of a price.

They come in after the sale. The company that can, within the market clearing price, make a good profit is the successful company.

Now, when you raise the price of something over the market clearing price, you induce people to refuse to buy, or to buy alternatives. That is quite easy to understand, what it means is that margins will tend to be tight in order to keep consumers buying your products. You say that it is in a company's interests to keep their margins high, yet if they did this, their competition would simply undercut them. To have good profits you actually have to sell, which means that the most profitable price is the market clearing price because that price is the one which facilitates buying and selling.

If they didn't build aircraft for governments, they would build them for airlines, or for foreign governments.

So, unions should be able to force a country's airlines out of business, putting many thousands out of work, just to get a raise? Of course, the price hikes would induce airlines, and foreign governments not to buy from that company.

You are proving my point, unions only gain at the expense of others, if at all.

Yes, but in order to do that, you'd have to get rid of capitalism.

Without capitalism, the lower classes would be in the most squalid of dwellings, doing subsistance level farming. Quite how that was a good thing I don't know.

The government makes it illegal by supporting a capitalist system.

You're utterly ignorant of economics. How could a capitalist system make it effectively illegal to employ people?

Scandanavian governments do my making it risky and expensive to employ people through high taxes and regulation, and through cradle to grave welfare, and confiscatory taxes, remove any incentive to find work.

All that capitalism ensures is that the lower classes have a pittance and never the opportunity for more; at least in Scandinavia that pittance is more than in less regulated economies.

Stating it doesn't make it true. Capitalism has brought the highest living standards in human history, and poverty is something capitalism inherited from socialism and feudalism.

Yet Scandinavian cpountries are ones where there is the least difference between rich and poor.

In fact, one of those nations (cant remember which one specifically) is the only country in the world where you cant take a random child out of a school, look at their dental, health educational etc records and tell which class they come from.

Wow, you totally ignored my post, and you even thought pro-Swedish propaganda would blow me away. The Scandanavians can't sustain their system, and with yet more immigration (with the immigrants going immediately on welfare), they are only accelerating the collapse, and signs are beginning to show.

Yet Scandinavian cpountries are ones where there is the least difference between rich and poor.

In fact, one of those nations (cant remember which one specifically) is the only country in the world where you cant take a random child out of a school, look at their dental, health educational etc records and tell which class they come from.That would be Sweden.

Fun fact time: the same was true for Denmark (neighbour of Sweden) until the Liberals took power (last time, not the present ones) & introduced significant economic reforms.
Denmark now has people living below the powerty line - something completely unheard of until the Libs started fucking up the country.
As of last week, 54% of the liberal voters (more in all other voter demographics) wish to increase income taxes.

I'm presently living in Denmark, and it's a lot of fun seeing how the Liberals are systematically dismantling everything the Danes appreciate. It's just like the US, only in some rather different ways.

The reason for it bears directly upon the decision as to what to do with the profits.

snip

Ahh well. Our child has figured out I am just baiting him now.

Have fun torturing him lads! :D

Again, you've provided no reason for the greater profits. You've simply stated that the company would chose to give them to the workers. I don't see any reason for them to do that, unless the increased profits werecaused by increased worker productivity, in which case other companies might wish to head-hunt, and the raise would induce them to stay.The reason that the company would choose to give the profits to the workers is that the workers would leave. It's difficult to start again with all new employees; time consuming, as well.

No, if the price is good for a company, it works for the company. Prices are a result of supply and demand. More supply and/or less demand means a lower price, less supply and/or more demand means a higher price.

The market clearing price is set by supply and demand, and is the price which allows a sale to take place, it is a price that sellers and buyers can generally agree.

Note that I have not mentioned costs of production, or profits. Both are essentially irrelevant to the setting of a price.

They come in after the sale. The company that can, within the market clearing price, make a good profit is the successful company.

Now, when you raise the price of something over the market clearing price, you induce people to refuse to buy, or to buy alternatives. That is quite easy to understand, what it means is that margins will tend to be tight in order to keep consumers buying your products. You say that it is in a company's interests to keep their margins high, yet if they did this, their competition would simply undercut them. To have good profits you actually have to sell, which means that the most profitable price is the market clearing price because that price is the one which facilitates buying and selling.And if the company's competition undercut them, the company wouldn't be maximizing its profits.

So, unions should be able to force a country's airlines out of business, putting many thousands out of work, just to get a raise? I don't see this as being any different than capital flight.

Of course, the price hikes would induce airlines, and foreign governments not to buy from that company.Not my problem.

You are proving my point, unions only gain at the expense of others, if at all.As do businessmen.

Without capitalism, the lower classes would be in the most squalid of dwellings, doing subsistance level farming. Quite how that was a good thing I don't know.Stating it doesn't make it true.

You're utterly ignorant of economics. How could a capitalist system make it effectively illegal to employ people?Because capitalist systems require unemployment.

Scandanavian governments do my making it risky and expensive to employ people through high taxes and regulation, and through cradle to grave welfare, and confiscatory taxes, remove any incentive to find work.I would modify the Scandinavian system slightly, but nonetheless, the poor people in Scandinavia are better off than the poor people in the U.S.

Stating it doesn't make it true. Capitalism has brought the highest living standards in human history, and poverty is something capitalism inherited from socialism and feudalism. And yet the highest living standards in human history can't eliminate poverty; also, the higher the living standard for some people, the lower it is for other people.

The reason that the company would choose to give the profits to the workers is that the workers would leave. It's difficult to start again with all new employees; time consuming, as well.

I'm glad you agree.

Had the increased profits resulted from something other than increased worker productivity, that would not necessarily apply. Were it merely increased sales, ploughing the profits back into the company to increase capacity might be a good idea. A larger dividend is also a consideration.

And if the company's competition undercut them, the company wouldn't be maximizing its profits.

Very good. You're starting to get it. A company must sell its goods to be profitable, if they do something to induce people to buy the goods produced by their competitors, that's not good for their profits.

I don't see this as being any different than capital flight.

It isn't. If unions make it unprofitable to operate in a particular country, the companies will leave. You're really getting it now!

Not my problem.

I thought we capitalists were the excessively selfish ones. What about the workers in the company which is dying from a lack of orders?

As do businessmen.

By selling things people want at a mutually agreed price? Businesses are not inheriently rent-seeking, unions are.

Stating it doesn't make it true.

No, though it did happen. Or did people live in abundance, and health before capitalism?

Because capitalist systems require unemployment.

No, it doesn't. Honestly, this "labour pool" horse hockey is getting old. Capitalist systems work on supply and demand in all areas, including labour. Big business might want a certain amount of unemployment, but big business is a creature of the state, and their wishes do not equal capitalism.

If there is a shortage of labour, the price will simply rise, and immigration will increase. If there is a surplus, prices will fall, and emigration will increase.

Can you point to specific measures recommended in capitalist theory that make it risky and illegal to employ people?

I would modify the Scandinavian system slightly, but nonetheless, the poor people in Scandinavia are better off than the poor people in the U.S.

Slight modification would merely put off the inevitable. You wouldn't stop it. Poor people in the US are in an environment in which they can advance economically. Should a poor Swede advance economically, he would be regarded by his government as worthy of punishment, and be taxed most of the wealth he created.

And yet the highest living standards in human history can't eliminate poverty;

Firstly, the definition of poverty has moved constantly upwards. "Poverty" in the US means only one TV, air conditioning, a car, and a dwelling for one's own family today.

Secondly, that definition has been moved because there are politicians, civil servants, and various other people who derive wealth, and status from there being as much official poverty as possible. There are two sorts of problem solvers, people like computer technicians on one hand, who are sent out to solve specific and easily definable problems, and people like those in government who claim to want to solve "poverty", the problems they wish to "solve" are impossible to objectively define, and cannot be solved because there is never a point at which we can say "we've solved it!".

The first type is to be found in the private sector, there is a great interest in solving definable, discrete problems. The second type cannot exist in the private sector, save for charities, because people won't pour trillions of dollars in for no result over 40 years.

the higher the living standard for some people, the lower it is for other people.

Planly nonsensical.

Since it's obvious you have blinders on to any but your own terms and theories, I'm going to try and address those in ways you may not have thought of.

However, I did look up Hong Kong, as you suggested. An interesting case study. It supports your point that without unions economies can prosper. It also supports mine that without unions, there is more danger of violence and risk to the economies. Hong Kong shut down many of the unions as they were actually fronts for organized crime. However following worker riots they also enacted strong labour laws. Personally, given the choice between dealing with a union that can adapt their contract demands to the specifics of my business, and dealing with the state that has no clue, I'd prefer the unions, thanks.

Now, I'm going to address the ways in which unions save me, an employer, money.

First, I was union. Now I'm management. I have a fairly good relationship with our union reps, and perhaps that makes all the difference. However, the reality is that the union allows my company to sell it's products more cheaply than we would otherwise. Why? Because they remove most of the risks.

We're not in the business of employing people. That's a sideline that comes from needing people to produce products. So time spent figuring out individual contracts and employment policies is, in essence, wasted time for me. Instead, by dealing with the union, I can address the details that most of my employees want addressed. I don't have to deal with each individual problem, keep tabs if it's an individual problem or a systemic one, the union does all that for me, out of my employee's money, no less. I also don't worry about negotiating individual contracts or keeping tabs on market conditions. The union does most of that for me, and my team more or less spot-checks their reports to make sure they're not pulling the wool over our eyes.

Our company doesn't worry about legal matters with individual employees. The union is fairly strong here, and as such diverts those type of concerns into their own system, where they can usually be handled before they get worse.

I don't worry about bad lower management. There's nothing the union reps are faster to point out to me than a manager who's alienating and denigrating my employees.

We don't worry about gaps in employment policy. When they come up, the union reps bring them to our attention and they get dealt with, one way or another.

I wish I had the time to address every concern of my each of my employees individually, but I simply don't. I'm too busy concerned with my business. The union, though, that's what they do, and we get decent reports every couple of months.

We generally don't worry about disgruntled employees leaving. The benefits the union has negotiated for means most of the employees are quite happy being here. Do you have any idea how much reduced turn-around alone saves a company? Yes, it's possible we could have gone to the work of figuring out what it would take to keep each of my employees individually feeling good on our own and perhaps saved a bit in overall wages had we done so, but as I said, my business isn't in employing people. That's simply a side-effect.

You know what else I don't worry about? Maverick employees and independant contrators who think they know how to run the system better than I do. People who are willing to sign up for a union shop tend to understand that there's a definite order to things, and that's how we work.

I'm not saying relations are all sweetness and light. Contract negotiation times can still be a bear, but it's a bear that comes around only once in a while, instead of constantly as it would if we were negotiating individual employment contracts. It's also a bear that actually knows how our business is going and is willing to compromise if it works for the long-term benefit.

If you don't like unions, by all means you shouldn't join one. But denigrating them in general simply proves you don't understand them -- especially from the point of view of a reasonable sized employer.

To get all the information, policy, and conflict management that the union provides me on a regular basis, I'd have to hire another layer of middle management or an outside employment consulting firm, neither of which would guaruntee improvements or that the employees would feel any better.

and poverty is something capitalism inherited from socialism and feudalism.

Yes... that explains why after 200 years + of capitalism Britain doesnt have poverty... wait... We still do. And even better, the periods of highest poverty tend to be the ones when the market has been at its freeist.

Ans socialism responsibvle for poverty? Most socialist countries have been capitalist before they were socialist. They inherited it from capitalism. Now, whether socialism is the answer to poverty is another question, but capitalism is not linked to less poverty. The reasons you are saying that is simply due to the most powerful and richest nations being capitalist countries. They all still have poverty.

-snip- the reality is that the union allows my company to sell it's products more cheaply than we would otherwise -snip-

Thank you for an excellent explanation of why unions work in the free market. :D

*snip*First, I was union. Now I'm management. I have a fairly good relationship with our union reps, and perhaps that makes all the difference. However, the reality is that the union allows my company to sell it's products more cheaply than we would otherwise. Why? Because they remove most of the risks.
*snip*

That was a great post. :)

I wonder how many denial and nonsensical comments you will get over that from our economic "theorist?" ;)

That was a great post. :)

I wonder how many denial and nonsensical comments you will get over that from our economic "theorist?" ;)Depends on how you look at it--it's really the same post, over and over again. I swear, no matter how many different numbers he puts after his nation name, he never changes. I'm tempted, I have to say, to go out and see if Disraeliland 7-15 have already been registered and snatch them up if they haven't.

snip

You've found a convenience in unions as free middle-management, good for you. However, that is not really what is at hand. What is at hand are situations such as in the US, in which an employer is forced to deal with unions. You seem to have missed that in my posts.

Were unions in the West as good all around as they seem to be for you, this thread would not be much of a debate, and in the West, where pro-union legislation such as "closed shops" is withdrawn, the union very frequently dies out for lack of willing members.

Personally, given the choice between dealing with a union that can adapt their contract demands to the specifics of my business, and dealing with the state that has no clue, I'd prefer the unions, thanks.

That is a false dichotomy. The real dichotomy is between dealing with a unions, and dealing with individual workers.

I wonder how many denial and nonsensical comments you will get over that from our economic "theorist?"

From someone who turned to ad hominem as soon as he couldn't refute my arguments, that is one hell of a post.

You've found a convenience in unions as free middle-management, good for you. However, that is not really what is at hand. What is at hand are situations such as in the US, in which an employer is forced to deal with unions. You seem to have missed that in my posts.

Were unions in the West as good all around as they seem to be for you, this thread would not be much of a debate, and in the West, where pro-union legislation such as "closed shops" is withdrawn, the union very frequently dies out for lack of willing members.

That is a false dichotomy. The real dichotomy is between dealing with a unions, and dealing with individual workers.

From someone who turned to ad hominem as soon as he couldn't refute my arguments, that is one hell of a post.

Ok who picked 11:40?

I'm glad you agree.

Had the increased profits resulted from something other than increased worker productivity, that would not necessarily apply.Even if the profits resulted from something other than increased worker productivity, it would not necessarily apply.

Were it merely increased sales, ploughing the profits back into the company to increase capacity might be a good idea. A larger dividend is also a consideration.Considerations made impossible by the collective demand for higher wages.

Very good. You're starting to get it. A company must sell its goods to be profitable, if they do something to induce people to buy the goods produced by their competitors, that's not good for their profits.Yes, as I've said, a business will set its prices to maximize its profits.

It isn't. If unions make it unprofitable to operate in a particular country, the companies will leave. You're really getting it now!If anything makes it unprofitable to operate in a particular country, the companies will leave.

I thought we capitalists were the excessively selfish ones. What about the workers in the company which is dying from a lack of orders?The capitalists are the excessively selfish ones. Those workers would go on welfare. The capitalists would eliminate welfare.

By selling things people want at a mutually agreed price? Businesses are not inheriently rent-seeking, unions are.Unions sell labor at a mutually agreed price.

No, though it did happen. Or did people live in abundance, and health before capitalism?Some did, some didn't, just as in capitalism.

No, it doesn't. Honestly, this "labour pool" horse hockey is getting old. Capitalist systems work on supply and demand in all areas, including labour. Big business might want a certain amount of unemployment, but big business is a creature of the state, and their wishes do not equal capitalism.

If there is a shortage of labour, the price will simply rise, and immigration will increase. If there is a surplus, prices will fall, and emigration will increase.

Can you point to specific measures recommended in capitalist theory that make it risky and illegal to employ people?Well, capitalist theory isn't some homogenized document where I can say that 11a 32c conflicts 9b 14d, so my wording might not be what you're used to, but yes, I can. here goes:

If unemployment is nonexistant, workers will demand higher wages. This will result in one of three things:

The workers will be fired, but snapped up by other companies, where they can continue to demand higher wages.

The companies will go out of business. If this happens too quickly, there will be unemployment. If it happens slowly enough, the workers will go to other companies and demand higher wages.

The companies will give the workers as much as they can, which is all of the profits. Since the owners would then have no profits, they would be superfluous. Perhaps they could be given new jobs within the company, but either way all of the companies would all be owned by the workers. This would no longer be capitalism, it would be market socialism.

Nonetheless, total employment is impossible in capitalism.

Slight modification would merely put off the inevitable. You wouldn't stop it. Poor people in the US are in an environment in which they can advance economically. No, they aren't in an environment where they can advance economically, otherwise they would, and would no longer be poor.

Should a poor Swede advance economically, he would be regarded by his government as worthy of punishment, and be taxed most of the wealth he created.He would be regarded by his government as needing to pay his utility fees in the form of a tax.

Firstly, the definition of poverty has moved constantly upwards. "Poverty" in the US means only one TV, air conditioning, a car, and a dwelling for one's own family today.

Secondly, that definition has been moved because there are politicians, civil servants, and various other people who derive wealth, and status from there being as much official poverty as possible. There are two sorts of problem solvers, people like computer technicians on one hand, who are sent out to solve specific and easily definable problems, and people like those in government who claim to want to solve "poverty", the problems they wish to "solve" are impossible to objectively define, and cannot be solved because there is never a point at which we can say "we've solved it!".No, the definition is moved because it is relative. Someone in poverty in one country would not necessarily be if they were making the same amount in another country. But nonetheless, even if you used an absolute definition of poverty, such as no TV, no air conditioning, no car, and no dwelling, then there are still people in capitalist countries who fit that definition.

The first type is to be found in the private sector, there is a great interest in solving definable, discrete problems. The private sector doesn't consider poverty to be a problem.

The second type cannot exist in the private sector, save for charities, because people won't pour trillions of dollars in for no result over 40 years.There has been a positive result;, whether or not that result is worth trillions of dollars is up for debate, but nonetheless, private charity would be insufficient.

Planly nonsensical.Give an example of a consistent policy being enacted to raise the living standards of all people.