Unions help their workers!

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:30 pm

offsprng46 wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Can any one make a detailed case, for or against, with some historical examples to back it up?

I don't see organised labour as necessarily a magic bullet for good or ill.

That's kind of like saying that all a business needs to prosper is good management.

Labor unions - when granted monopoly power by the government - benefit their own members at the expense of non-members by restricting the available supply of labor and therefore driving up production costs. Ergo, the society as a whole is poorer.

In an environment where business did not also benefit from government interference, I suppose I could object. Otherwise, If said businesses want a free market over head, let them pay for one with a free market share.

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:30 am

cheapsuprise wrote:

Noggin wrote:

Saw the topic and just had to stop by to spit upon the mention of labor unions .... *snooooorrrtt* /spit

-Noggin

Not an example of an argument.

Sorry. Personal experience with labor unions grinding my father's business out of business causes me a slight knee-jerk reaction.

Before the union : Every member of the company had a shiney new car and home. Some had lots of toys to; motorcycles, boats, etc.

After the labor union established itself among those same people: Wages were downsized to pay for sick-time, more vacation, medical premiums, etc. And who ultimately "paid the price"? The workers. Jobs reduced, money lost, contracts not done on time, and finally their livelihood gone bye-bye.

Oh, not to mention my father's partner in the endeavor died of a heart-attack during the union implantment, labor union proponents threateningly followed my father home several times, and one night smashed our car in the driveway, and my dad had a nervous breakdown from the stress. So yeah, /spit on labor unions is a pretty good argument, in my most humblest of opinions.

IMO, the basic curse of a labor union is "setting the bar". As an employer you'd want to grow your business. As an employee, you should also want the business to grow, which in turn would mean more opportunity for yourself and possibly better wages. But when, as an employee, the bar is set via labor union contracts, you need not "bust your ass" to get the same expected return. That's all well and good if you're the type of person that wants the same position in a company for 30+ years and a gold watch at the end.

It seems a pessimistic outlook on your potential as an employee to be part of a labor union . 50+ years ago, sure, American workers probably benefited from unions. But today? With our litigious society? I dunno, seems like an archaic way of handling a "new problem". Companies don't keep employees around like they used to, it's not cost effective.

Is this any better Cheap? Wink

-Noggin

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:54 am

Noggin wrote:

Is this any better Cheap? Wink

Getting there.

Slowly but surely. We might even get a decent discussion about libertarianism out of this place if we work hard enough.

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:01 am

cheapsuprise wrote:

offsprng46 wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Can any one make a detailed case, for or against, with some historical examples to back it up?

I don't see organised labour as necessarily a magic bullet for good or ill.

That's kind of like saying that all a business needs to prosper is good management.

Labor unions - when granted monopoly power by the government - benefit their own members at the expense of non-members by restricting the available supply of labor and therefore driving up production costs. Ergo, the society as a whole is poorer.

In an environment where business did not also benefit from government interference, I suppose I could object. Otherwise, If said businesses want a free market over head, let them pay for one with a free market share.

I agree. One of the biggest misconceptions about capitalism is that businessmen (in general) are for a free market. Quite the contrary, business has long been one of the biggest enemies of the free market.

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:49 am

cheapsuprise wrote:

Getting there.

Slowly but surely. We might even get a decent discussion about libertarianism out of this place if we work hard enough.

Oh my, I must have misread the topic, thought we were on unions .

The topic of jobs being "shipped overseas" is a bit comical, IMO. A) I work for a company, located in the US, founded in the US; and our work that we take from other companies (our clients) is considered "shipped out" jobs in the "shipped overseas" numbers. B) "Shipping jobs off" is a sign of something good. It means we have moved on from that "skill", technology, etc. It frees us to focus more on innovative goods, services, technology, etc. Either we focus on innovation or we parish. It's a motivation factor.

-Noggin

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:08 pm

Noggin wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Getting there.

Slowly but surely. We might even get a decent discussion about libertarianism out of this place if we work hard enough.

Oh my, I must have misread the topic, thought we were on unions .

The topic of jobs being "shipped overseas" is a bit comical, IMO. A) I work for a company, located in the US, founded in the US; and our work that we take from other companies (our clients) is considered "shipped out" jobs in the "shipped overseas" numbers. B) "Shipping jobs off" is a sign of something good. It means we have moved on from that "skill", technology, etc. It frees us to focus more on innovative goods, services, technology, etc. Either we focus on innovation or we parish. It's a motivation factor.

-Noggin

Basic economics, and logical thought in general, are totally lost on the anti-globalization crowd. It's also quite comical that there are numerous pundits in the US, Canada, and Mexico that all complain that they're getting the short end of the stick - as if there is one.

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:00 am

offsprng46 wrote:

Basic economics, and logical thought in general, are totally lost on the anti-globalization crowd. It's also quite comical that there are numerous pundits in the US, Canada, and Mexico that all complain that they're getting the short end of the stick - as if there is one.

Exactly. And our politicians are "running" on the promise to "keep jobs here". WTF?! I hear this crap and just want to scream. THE JOBS WOULD STAY HERE IF IT WERE ECONOMICAL. It is NOT, hence they leave. What's so hard to understand about this?

Companies ARE NOT IN BUSINESS TO GIVE YOU A JOB! ya selfish bastards. Wink

So out comes legislation to render us, in our communities, helpless and dependent upon government interaction for our livelihoods? How many billions of tax dollars have been given to industries to "bail them out" or "level the playing field"? Talk about "careful what you wish for, it may just come true" ... however, there are people that want to be led by the hand to the fountain of mediocrity. Why? I'll never understand the under achievement embraced by some people. Get up and invent, innovate, move and shake the world or help those that are trying to do so giving us ALL a better life.

-Noggin

Graduate Thinker Joined: May 18, 2006 Posts: 777

Noggin wrote:

offsprng46 wrote:

Basic economics, and logical thought in general, are totally lost on the anti-globalization crowd. It's also quite comical that there are numerous pundits in the US, Canada, and Mexico that all complain that they're getting the short end of the stick - as if there is one.

Exactly. And our politicians are "running" on the promise to "keep jobs here". WTF?! I hear this crap and just want to scream. THE JOBS WOULD STAY HERE IF IT WERE ECONOMICAL. It is NOT, hence they leave. What's so hard to understand about this?

Companies ARE NOT IN BUSINESS TO GIVE YOU A JOB! ya selfish bastards. Wink

So out comes legislation to render us, in our communities, helpless and dependent upon government interaction for our livelihoods? How many billions of tax dollars have been given to industries to "bail them out" or "level the playing field"? Talk about "careful what you wish for, it may just come true" ... however, there are people that want to be led by the hand to the fountain of mediocrity. Why? I'll never understand the under achievement embraced by some people. Get up and invent, innovate, move and shake the world or help those that are trying to do so giving us ALL a better life.

-Noggin

Now days most aren't breeding for brains they're breeding for whom have the biggest udders, depressing little observation tisn't it.

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:52 am

Xeon-The-Mg-Pony wrote:

Noggin wrote:

offsprng46 wrote:

Basic economics, and logical thought in general, are totally lost on the anti-globalization crowd. It's also quite comical that there are numerous pundits in the US, Canada, and Mexico that all complain that they're getting the short end of the stick - as if there is one.

Exactly. And our politicians are "running" on the promise to "keep jobs here". WTF?! I hear this crap and just want to scream. THE JOBS WOULD STAY HERE IF IT WERE ECONOMICAL. It is NOT, hence they leave. What's so hard to understand about this?

Companies ARE NOT IN BUSINESS TO GIVE YOU A JOB! ya selfish bastards. Wink

So out comes legislation to render us, in our communities, helpless and dependent upon government interaction for our livelihoods? How many billions of tax dollars have been given to industries to "bail them out" or "level the playing field"? Talk about "careful what you wish for, it may just come true" ... however, there are people that want to be led by the hand to the fountain of mediocrity. Why? I'll never understand the under achievement embraced by some people. Get up and invent, innovate, move and shake the world or help those that are trying to do so giving us ALL a better life.

-Noggin

Now days most aren't breeding for brains they're breeding for whom have the biggest udders, depressing little observation tisn't it.

Who doesn't like a nice set of udders though? Wink

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:06 am

Noggin wrote:

offsprng46 wrote:

Basic economics, and logical thought in general, are totally lost on the anti-globalization crowd. It's also quite comical that there are numerous pundits in the US, Canada, and Mexico that all complain that they're getting the short end of the stick - as if there is one.

Exactly. And our politicians are "running" on the promise to "keep jobs here". WTF?! I hear this crap and just want to scream. THE JOBS WOULD STAY HERE IF IT WERE ECONOMICAL. It is NOT, hence they leave. What's so hard to understand about this?

And it's not as if there's a static amount of jobs out there, and once obsolete positions disappear they are gone forever. I must admit though, that it is quite comical to see the effects of unions backfire on their own members. For instance, before the 2004 elections, Bush tried to buy some votes in West Virginia and Pennsylvania by implementing steel tariffs (a measure strongly supported by labor unions), ostensibly to protect jobs. The result was to make American goods - especially automobiles - less competitive. The tariffs ended up costing many times the number of jobs they may have saved.

Noggin wrote:

Companies ARE NOT IN BUSINESS TO GIVE YOU A JOB! ya selfish bastards. Wink

Tell that to people like SJC, who think they are entitled to be cared for by the public from cradle to grave. This goes back to the whole "production for its own sake" bullshit.

Noggin wrote:

So out comes legislation to render us, in our communities, helpless and dependent upon government interaction for our livelihoods? How many billions of tax dollars have been given to industries to "bail them out" or "level the playing field"? Talk about "careful what you wish for, it may just come true" ... however, there are people that want to be led by the hand to the fountain of mediocrity. Why? I'll never understand the under achievement embraced by some people. Get up and invent, innovate, move and shake the world or help those that are trying to do so giving us ALL a better life.

So true about the leftist embrace of mediocrity. You hardly even hear the left bitching about how bad the poor have it any more, now they just bitch that the rich have it too good. I don't think the left really gives a damn about the poor (and there is strong evidence to back that up), they just want to make sure no one is better off than anyone else. In other words, increasing the relative height of the short trees by cutting down all the tall ones.

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:12 am

offsprng46 wrote:

So true about the leftist embrace of mediocrity. You hardly even hear the left bitching about how bad the poor have it any more, now they just bitch that the rich have it too good. I don't think the left really gives a damn about the poor (and there is strong evidence to back that up), they just want to make sure no one is better off than anyone else. In other words, increasing the relative height of the short trees by cutting down all the tall ones.

Yeah, that's it. Let's "soak" the "rich". Another dumbass socialist idea. The upper 50% of wage-earners pay 96%+ of the total tax bill. The bottom 50% of wage-earners pay ~3%. That bottom are people with AGI of ~28,000/year.

Why again do we run our government NOT like we run our own lives? 15 friends go out for pizza. Order 6 pizzas. Everyone gets the same amount of pizza slices. Everyone chips in $5 to pay the bill.

But our government? No no no, we can't do it that way. 15 friends go out for pizza. Order 6 pizzas. Tommy and Jimmy get 3 pizzas all for themselves 'cause it's been determined they are "needy" by someone no body has ever heard of 3,000 miles away. Larry & Harry only get 1 slice, pay $1 each, 'cause it's been determined, by another someone in some committee in the basement of some undisclosed pork barre...I mean congress, that Larry & Harry don't deserve pizza 'cause they have $20 in their pockets.

Gren, Bobby, Todd, Scott, Terrence, William, Howard, Richard, and Isaac all get 2 slices of pizza and pay $2 each.

Meanwhile Johnny & Mikey not only don't get any pizza, but have to pay the remaining bill of all the moochers because they have $$40 bucks each in their pockets.

Rolling Eyes

We should force our gov't to come up with a budget by the end of every November. Take the number of working citizens and divide the budget equally among each. Announce everyone's "bill" that must be turned in by March. Think this would force some slow-down in spending? Force some clearer thinking on what we DO spend money on?

No no no, we can't be FAIR, we have to be ... what's the words ...

-Noggin

Graduate Thinker Joined: Apr 22, 2005 Posts: 982

Noggin wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Noggin wrote:

Saw the topic and just had to stop by to spit upon the mention of labor unions .... *snooooorrrtt* /spit

-Noggin

Not an example of an argument.

Sorry. Personal experience with labor unions grinding my father's business out of business causes me a slight knee-jerk reaction.

Before the union : Every member of the company had a shiney new car and home. Some had lots of toys to; motorcycles, boats, etc.

After the labor union established itself among those same people: Wages were downsized to pay for sick-time, more vacation, medical premiums, etc. And who ultimately "paid the price"? The workers. Jobs reduced, money lost, contracts not done on time, and finally their livelihood gone bye-bye.

So the turkeys voted for Christmas?

Noggin wrote:

Oh, not to mention my father's partner in the endeavor died of a heart-attack during the union implantment, labor union proponents threateningly followed my father home several times, and one night smashed our car in the driveway, and my dad had a nervous breakdown from the stress. So yeah, /spit on labor unions is a pretty good argument, in my most humblest of opinions.

By the sounds of it these people were thugs, pure and simple. The fact that they were unionists is incidental.

Post Noob Joined: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 57

organized labour is the only reason we have minimum wage, health and saftey standards, and why we dont have to work 20 hr shifts. unions are the reason we dont have child labour.

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:22 am

Machiavelli wrote:

organized labour is the only reason we have minimum wage, health and saftey standards,

Those aren't good things.

Machiavelli wrote:

and why we dont have to work 20 hr shifts.

No.

Machiavelli wrote:

unions are the reason we dont have child labour.

No.

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:50 am

Machiavelli wrote:

organized labour is the only reason we have minimum wage, health and saftey standards, and why we dont have to work 20 hr shifts. unions are the reason we dont have child labour.

Refuted here .

In fact, minimum wage laws though are supported by unions in order to keep the price of labor artificially high, i.e. it's a protectionist measure. Protectionism = harmful to the consumer in the form of artificially higher prices.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore