how can we rid society of unions?

[werepossum]

Interesting. I do think that everyone should be able to make a good living doing even the most basic labor, but they should also not expect to live to the same standards as someone with higher education or uncommon skills.

Unions artificially allow them to do this, and we are left as a nation being dragged down by regressive labor instead of progressive education and innovation.

Labor is only necessary as long as we do not have machines to do it. Eventually, labor will only be left to the tasks suitable for a human touch (like hair cuts or whatever).

Bullshit. The value of one's labor should be set by the market, not by one's education. There is absolutely no reason why a journeyman carpenter should earn less than someone with a master's in sociology or a doctorate in women's studies simply because of their formal education because education does not necessarily equal value to society. While unions can supersede the market to an extent, that's often not the case unless it's government. A big retailer with an unreasonable union workforce won't be able to compete with their competition, and in most markets the union contractors directly compete with the non-union contractors in the bid market. Personally I'd much rather have the union contractor, using union carpenters and union drywallers making $20/hour, than the non-union contractor whose carpenters and drywallers make $10/hour and are quite possibly illegals. A tradesman who has served a lengthy and comprehensive apprenticeship complete with classroom training will almost always provide better work than an illegal who might well have been a farmer a year ago, even if the illegal will outwork him two to one.

And personally I went into engineering because it was what I wanted to do. If the master electrician running a job or even his journeyman electricians are earning more than am I in the free market, even if the union sets the wages (and most skilled tradesmen around here earn more than union rates, those are merely the minimums) then I'm fine with that.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Yes, Unions were necessary so that we did not have such high Wealth disparity.

OH WAIT.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/189649-wealth-disparities-in-u-s-approaching-1920s-levels

Now we have people earning hugely inflated amounts from companies like GM, Ford etc. Oh, did I forget that these Unions are earning OUR taxpayer money? Everything Union made artificially jacks up the price of everything.

Meanwhile, everyone else contributing to the actual advancement of social progression (aka SCIENCE, ART, INNOVATION) are paid less than someone who picks up a wrench and hammer by the day and return to their reality TV by night.

And people wonder why we are lacking graduates of degrees like Engineering and Natural Sciences?

Or why kids fail like mothereffers in school (compare to other countries). Why learn shit when you can go to a 9-5 Job laid out for you guaranteeing you a million dollar payout by the end your career and more to come into retirement?

exactly. it stifles innovation.

 

[Hacp]

"You should not take Police away from society. You should just strip their authority to do anything".

Comedy.

Police are necessary to satisfy a fundamental axiom of capitalism, which is property rights. Unions are not part of capitalism.

 

[MJinZ]

Bullshit. The value of one's labor should be set by the market, not by one's education. There is absolutely no reason why a journeyman carpenter should earn less than someone with a master's in sociology or a doctorate in women's studies simply because of their formal education because education does not necessarily equal value to society. While unions can supersede the market to an extent, that's often not the case unless it's government. A big retailer with an unreasonable union workforce won't be able to compete with their competition, and in most markets the union contractors directly compete with the non-union contractors in the bid market. Personally I'd much rather have the union contractor, using union carpenters and union drywallers making $20/hour, than the non-union contractor whose carpenters and drywallers make $10/hour and are quite possibly illegals. A tradesman who has served a lengthy and comprehensive apprenticeship complete with classroom training will almost always provide better work than an illegal who might well have been a farmer a year ago, even if the illegal will outwork him two to one.

And personally I went into engineering because it was what I wanted to do. If the master electrician running a job or even his journeyman electricians are earning more than am I in the free market, even if the union sets the wages (and most skilled tradesmen around here earn more than union rates, those are merely the minimums) then I'm fine with that.

You just negated your own post about wages being set by the Market.

 

[MJinZ]

Police are necessary to satisfy a fundamental axiom of capitalism, which is property rights. Unions are not part of capitalism.

The actual point goes right over your head right?

You advocated for forcibly getting rid of Unions. You just didn't know it.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Bullshit. The value of one's labor should be set by the market, not by one's education. There is absolutely no reason why a journeyman carpenter should earn less than someone with a master's in sociology or a doctorate in women's studies simply because of their formal education because education does not necessarily equal value to society. While unions can supersede the market to an extent, that's often not the case unless it's government. A big retailer with an unreasonable union workforce won't be able to compete with their competition, and in most markets the union contractors directly compete with the non-union contractors in the bid market. Personally I'd much rather have the union contractor, using union carpenters and union drywallers making $20/hour, than the non-union contractor whose carpenters and drywallers make $10/hour and are quite possibly illegals. A tradesman who has served a lengthy and comprehensive apprenticeship complete with classroom training will almost always provide better work than an illegal who might well have been a farmer a year ago, even if the illegal will outwork him two to one.

And personally I went into engineering because it was what I wanted to do. If the master electrician running a job or even his journeyman electricians are earning more than am I in the free market, even if the union sets the wages (and most skilled tradesmen around here earn more than union rates, those are merely the minimums) then I'm fine with that.

agreed about letting the market decide, but then you have unions using dirty tactics to gain an upperhand when bidding on a project.

what do you have to say about FUCKING BULLSHIT like this?
key points below but you can read the whole article here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/b....html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=solar%20unions&st=cse

When a company called Ausra filed plans for a big solar power plant in California, it was deluged with demands from a union group that it study the effect on creatures like the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.

By contrast, when a competitor, BrightSource Energy, filed plans for an even bigger solar plant that would affect the imperiled desert tortoise, the same union group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, raised no complaint. Instead, it urged regulators to approve the project as quickly as possible.

One big difference between the projects? Ausra had rejected demands that it use only union workers to build its solar farm, while BrightSource pledged to hire labor-friendly contractors.

As California moves to license dozens of huge solar power plants to meet the state?s renewable energy goals, some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly environmental studies and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.
If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize."

At proposed fossil-fuel power plants, the union group has long been accused of exploiting environmental laws to force companies into signing labor agreements.

Some solar developers say that signing a labor agreement is simply an unavoidable cost of doing business.

Let's just say that it is clear to us from experience that if we do not enter into a project labor agreement, the costs and schedule of the project is interminable,? said Douglas Wert, chief executive of Spinnaker Energy, a San Diego company hired to build two solar farms for Portuguese developer Martifer.

But skeptics fear that union control of renewable energy projects will saddle the nascent industry with high costs and undermine its competitiveness.
In California, project labor agreements can raise costs on a project by about 20 percent, Mr. Dayton estimated.

 

[Zargon]

Sounds like a bunch of jealous people in this thread. I am not in a union but have no problem with them and would join one if they had one for my trade.

I would rather the workers exploit the company then the other way around. Although id prefer to have neither of those happen.

you'd rather be unemployed?

Unions do this to state and local governments all the time, the difference is they are abusing our(your) tax dollars, not just 'evil company profit'

 

[MJinZ]

you'd rather be unemployed?

Unions do this to state and local governments all the time, the difference is they are abusing our(your) tax dollars, not just 'evil company profit'

I have no problem with Unions personally. I am happy to work for the Government and a Union that lets me become a multi-$millionaire by 50.

Intellectually, I have a big problem with Unions.

If you benefit from a Union, good for you! That's like taking advantage of a corporate car, expense account etc.

If you can't grasp why it is generally a bad thing for a society, then you're just an idiot.

Cancer cells are happy to take up as much resources as they can locally, but Cancer will kill you.

 

[Red Dawn]

I agree that the unions only exist to serve themselves. I have never joined nor will I ever work in a union job. Why do you think there are lots of companies moving to the southeast US? Very few unions here. Boeing for example. The union monster GM helped create with Delphi etc is what drove them down the hill with no brakes. $40.00 an hour for hammering nails is way too high.

If all it consisted of is hammering nails you'd be right but it's not. They also don't walk onto the job making that much, they have to go through a 4 year apprenticeship which includes on the job training and classes. So in essence it's similar to getting a bachelors degree and it's a lot harder physically than any office job. A good percentage of those who start out as Carpenters don't finish their working life as Carpenters due to the wear and tear on their bodies.

 

[Hacp]

The actual point goes right over your head right?

You advocated for forcibly getting rid of Unions. You just didn't know it.

No, people can form unions if they want on their own. However, government laws that favor unions should not be made. If a group of people at a company want to gather together to negotiate salary, that is perfectly fine. The company can then either cave to their demands or fire everyone one of them and hire new laborers.

 

[Red Dawn]

I have no problem with Unions personally. I am happy to work for the Government and a Union that lets me become a multi-$millionaire by 50.

Intellectually, I have a big problem with Unions.

If you benefit from a Union, good for you! That's like taking advantage of a corporate car, expense account etc.

If you can't grasp why it is generally a bad thing for a society, then you're just an idiot.

Cancer cells are happy to take up as much resources as they can locally, but Cancer will kill you.

I know of nobody personally that was able to retire at 50 a multimillionaire due them being a Union Member.

Hell how often do you think a Union Tradesman posts on these forums while at work? I'd say almost never. Now how many College Educated White Collar workers post here on their employers dime? Well these forums a pretty busy with them during the day, a lot of them posting how worthless and lazy Union Workers are..hmmm:\

 

[MJinZ]

I know of nobody personally that was able to retire at 50 a multimillionaire due them being a Union Member.

Hell how often do you think a Union Tradesman posts on these forums while at work? I'd say almost never. Now how many College Educated White Collar workers post here on their employers dime? Well these forums a pretty busy with them during the day, a lot of them posting how worthless and lazy Union Workers are..hmmm:\

LOL, well when you work on a computer all day long, posting is no different than chatting with a co-worker. The difference being that you are chatting with the world via the Internets.

Posting actually increasing productivity because it tends to give you a small break from what you're doing.

Multi-millionaire would be stretching it, but Cops who retire at 50 with $100K a year pensions are not. Depending on how long they live, they can be multi-millionaires, if they aren't millionaires already from saving.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Anyone care to post links to factual data proving that most union workers retire as millionaires? Thanks.

 

[Red Dawn]

LOL, well when you work on a computer all day long, posting is no different than chatting with a co-worker. The difference being that you are chatting with the world via the Internets.

Posting actually increasing productivity because it tends to give you a small break from what you're doing.

Multi-millionaire would be stretching it, but Cops who retire at 50 with $100K a year pensions are not. Depending on how long they live, they can be multi-millionaires, if they aren't millionaires already from saving.

IMO Cops and Fireman are worth more to society than any CEO, Actor or Star Athlete. I mean how much are actual hero's worth?

 

[werepossum]

You just negated your own post about wages being set by the Market.

Not necessarily. Take the case of a new plumbing contractor - let's call it Joe The Plumber's Plumbing. Having no built-up client base, Joe must compete completely in the bid market where apart from minority set-asides, low bid generally wins. Joe now has a decision to make - does he go union or non-union? If he decides to have a non-union shop, then the wages he pays are whatever he can convince plumbers to accept, and their qualifications are whatever Joe is willing to accept. If Joe The Plumber sets up a non-union shop, then he has only his personal reputation and/or winning personality to convince general contractors (and owners) to accept his bid.

Should Joe The Plumber decide to have a union shop, then he is constrained by the union pay scale. He cannot pay less than scale - although at least his lead men will have to earn more or they won't jump to a new shop. But not only cost of wages is an issue. If Joe The Plumber sets up a union shop, then he has the local union's reputation for well-trained, quality plumbers PLUS his personal reputation and/or winning personality to convince general contractors (and owners) to accept his bid. In this case the union definitely brings value to the table because union plumbers are collectively a known quality whereas non-union plumbers must be evaluated individually; there are no underlying standards for length of training, comprehensiveness of testing, or classroom background. If Joe The Plumber sets up a union shop, then his plumbers have a known minimum education and training at each level. Many times I've seen an owner reject subcontractors, often for no reason beyond a lack of verifiable knowledge of their ability and quality of work.

Union scale is set by the union negotiating with all the plumbing contractors, not by union fiat. Should the scale be too high, then non-union shops will take all the jobs and the union will be forced to lower the scale lest the union shops close or become non-union. Should work be very slow, the local union will often negotiate a decrease in allowable wages for a large contract; the owner can then pay this lower scale to union members as long as they are willing to work for that wage. In this way trade unions respond to economic situations and attempt to keep their members working. Thus although the union sets the pay scale, it is still controlled by what the market will bear.

 

[Zebo]

No, people can form unions if they want on their own. However, government laws that favor unions should not be made. If a group of people at a company want to gather together to negotiate salary, that is perfectly fine. The company can then either cave to their demands or fire everyone one of them and hire new laborers.

hey look, a conservative who want corporations to be allowed steamroll over the rest of America! you don't see that everyday!

 

[QuantumPion]

Anyone care to post links to factual data proving that most union workers retire as millionaires? Thanks.

It's not that they are retiring as millionaires. It is that assuming an average life span, they will eventually receive millions in pensions even though they only paid a small fraction into their pension fund while working.

If your retirement consists of a 401K with $100,000 in it, you can't live on $25,000 a year for 20 years. Unless the government decides you are "too big to fail" and gives you my money to make up the difference.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm cool with this. My wages aren't going to go down and as the peasant class expands I'm relatively better off.

I got mine. Everyone else screw off.

Which one of you lackeys are going to be waxing my car?

 

[werepossum]

agreed about letting the market decide, but then you have unions using dirty tactics to gain an upperhand when bidding on a project.

what do you have to say about FUCKING BULLSHIT like this?
key points below but you can read the whole article here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/b...unions.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=solar unions&st=cse

I agree that unions often use underhanded or even illegal tactics. However to paraphrase an old saying, demand in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up faster. If unions' demanding studies and urging approval has an affect on projects' timetables then that is a failure of government, not unions, as the unions themselves usually have no power beyond picketing (as is anyone's right.)

In some cases though, such as mining, those urging quick action on a permit would be the same people whose lives will be at risk. In that case I can understand if government bureaucrats paid attention to their desires.

 

[Zebo]

I'm cool with this. My wages aren't going to go down and as the peasant class expands I'm relatively better off.

I got mine. Everyone else screw off.

Which one of you lackeys are going to be waxing my car?

Better get rid of guns too. Because when you shot in the face for a dollar, Dead class is worse than being peasant class (this is a true story repeated in history many many times see Russian Revolution, China's and so forth) Misery and destitution juxtaposed to fabulous wealth can not co-exist for long.

 

[Rainsford]

I feel like the appropriate time to eliminate unions is when we eliminate corporations. Not because they balance each other or anything, but because they fill a similar need. And any argument against unions is ultimately also an anti-corporate argument. My experience has been that people who support one and not the other don't hold fundamentally different economic viewpoints, they simply support different groups of people.

The problems with unions are ultimately the problems that come up when you get ANY organization that forms for its own benefit. Anti-competitive, lazy, corrupt, etc, are all words that can be used to describe bad corporations out there just as easily as they can describe unions. The solution isn't to "rid society" of the very idea of organized businessmen or organized workers, it should be to reform the areas that need improvement.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

It's not that they are retiring as millionaires. It is that assuming an average life span, they will eventually receive millions in pensions even though they only paid a small fraction into their pension fund while working.

If your retirement consists of a 401K with $100,000 in it, you can't live on $25,000 a year for 20 years. Unless the government decides you are "too big to fail" and gives you my money to make up the difference.

I understand this, I am just asking for factual proof for some of the ridiculous claims in this thread.

 

[Darwin333]

Or those who aren't funded by their parents, right comrade?

Yes, injustice no longer exists in the workplace, employers never, EVER exploit their workers.

Fact - our working conditions, wages, and benefits would be shit without the work of organized labor in the last century.

OSHA took care of the first problem and a combination of min. wage laws and market demand take care of the second. As far as benefits, again it goes to supply and demand but with the .gov providing more and more of our benefits as "rights" I really don't see how unions are required for this either.

Unions did a great service to the working class of this country during their hayday, that time is over. They are no longer necessary and at least in the public sector cause more harm than good. There are some decent unions in the private sector but a lot of bad ones as well and the strong arm tactics they use should be outright illegal.

Of course to the vast majority of people responding to these threads none of that matters. I guarantee that should the unions do a complete 180 on who they support politically that we would see a complete reversal of who supports the unions as well (not aimed at the poster I am responding to, just in general).

What I find ironic is the argument about the "workers right to chose to form/be in a union" but new workers not having the right to chose to NOT be in a union when they never even had the ability to vote one way or the other. Shouldn't that "right" go both ways?

 

[Zargon]

IMO Cops and Fireman are worth more to society than any CEO, Actor or Star Athlete. I mean how much are actual hero's worth?

thast funny if you are being sarcastic, and so sad if you arent

 

[werepossum]

OSHA took care of the first problem and a combination of min. wage laws and market demand take care of the second. As far as benefits, again it goes to supply and demand but with the .gov providing more and more of our benefits as "rights" I really don't see how unions are required for this either.

Unions did a great service to the working class of this country during their hayday, that time is over. They are no longer necessary and at least in the public sector cause more harm than good. There are some decent unions in the private sector but a lot of bad ones as well and the strong arm tactics they use should be outright illegal.

Of course to the vast majority of people responding to these threads none of that matters. I guarantee that should the unions do a complete 180 on who they support politically that we would see a complete reversal of who supports the unions as well (not aimed at the poster I am responding to, just in general).

What I find ironic is the argument about the "workers right to chose to form/be in a union" but new workers not having the right to chose to NOT be in a union when they never even had the ability to vote one way or the other. Shouldn't that "right" go both ways?

Again, trade unions actually serve a third purpose - training and regulation. I agree though that no one should be forced to join a union, that no workplace should be unionized without a secret ballot election monitored by a third party, that illegal practices and threats should be strongly policed, and that an employer has a perfect right to fire all his union workers and hire non-union replacements if he so desires. All I am saying is that those things do not make all unions useless or evil and do not warrant removing the right to assemble, organize, and collectively bargain if people so wish.

I would support banning strikes, if not outright unions, for government employees. Government typically has no competition and thus the market has no impact to offset the unions' power.