Union = Monopoly?? thoughts on this.

[PlatinumGold]

Jfano

good reply, your right not all unions have mafia, crime syndicate ties.

it still doesn't refute the fact that unions are monopolies however. it also doesn't change the fact that the economy as a whole would be better served with competing unions withing a given industry.

 

[UltraQuiet]

it also doesn't change the fact that the economy as a whole would be better served with competing unions withing a given industry.

I don't understand how it would be better served? All you would be doing is lowering wages for the union workers. Do you think that would cause the company to lower the price of it's product? I don't. I think that money would be used to pay out bigger dividends or bonuses. Now don't misunderstand, I am neither pro or anti union. I think they have a place and I think some are too powerful but I don't understand how having competing unions would benefit the economy as a whole. I'm probably missing something which I hope you will point out to me.


Dave

 

[BuckleDownBen]

Working men have been ground into the ground for thousands of years. Now that the tables have turned somewhat and the workers have some power you are whining about it. I have news for you. Without the workers, there is no economy. Why is it that the rich people that own everything do all the whining, and the people with nothing are silent.

 

[PlatinumGold]

buckleben spoken like a true communist (and i don't mean marxist).

davesohmer. it's about checks and balances. as long as only one union per industry exists there are no checks and balances. classic example are teachers unions. the individual workers are still better off because they at least have a union, but there are still checks to prevent the union from abusing it's power.

 

[JellyBaby]

All you would be doing is lowering wages for the union workers.

What has happen in many instances is that the company up and leaves this country to find cheap labor abroad. Is that preferrable? Some would glady accept less if it meant staying employed.

Unions served a needed purpose decades ago when companies did abuse labor. But unions have acheived that goal of balance. Like most big, well-funded organizations (and I definitely include our federal government here, too), it can't easily disperse or handle a reduced role. It always wants to grow and expand its power base. So today unions often do more harm than good but always remember it's a case-by-case issue.

 

[chrisjor]

A. F. S. C. M. E. ...... M. O. U. S. E.!!! They just keep taking money out of my paycheck and give my benefits away!!!!!! Some Unions are good, others just suck. Always remember that there are employees of the Union, whose livelihood depends on your income. They are definitely in it for themselves and you are just a cash cow. It is racketeering in its purest form. Pay up or you are out, and we will take your money and use it to support political candidates and produce publications which you completely disagree with, too damn bad for you....if you want that job, you will shut up and pay up!!!!

 

[UltraQuiet]

davesohmer. it's about checks and balances. as long as only one union per industry exists there are no checks and balances. classic example are teachers unions. the individual workers are still better off because they at least have a union, but there are still checks to prevent the union from abusing it's power

I'm trying to understand what you are saying but I am unable to come up with a scenario where the economy as a whole would benefit. If there were two teachers unions how would they keep each other in check? Would they compete for contracts/money. Wouldn't the schools then try to play them against each other? That just hurts the teachers. Lowering wages and decreasing benefits such as healthcare, pensions, etc certainly wouldn't benefit the teachers or the econmy as a whole. Like I said I am trying to understand your argument, maybe you have some examples to illustrate your point.


Dave

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

davesohmer. it's about checks and balances. as long as only one union per industry exists there are no checks and balances. classic example are teachers unions. the individual workers are still better off because they at least have a union, but there are still checks to prevent the union from abusing it's power

I'm trying to understand what you are saying but I am unable to come up with a scenario where the economy as a whole would benefit. If there were two teachers unions how would they keep each other in check? Would they compete for contracts/money. Wouldn't the schools then try to play them against each other? That just hurts the teachers. Lowering wages and decreasing benefits such as healthcare, pensions, etc certainly wouldn't benefit the teachers or the econmy as a whole. Like I said I am trying to understand your argument, maybe you have some examples to illustrate your point.


Dave

Dave-

If two groups were competing in a competive market to produce a compitive product (ie more than one choice) then it would work. If company A can get cheaper labor they will pass that savings on to the consumer to gain market share, cont/benifit economics.

I live in MN at my job we recenetly hired a UNION carpenter who was telling me all the benifits of his union, the biggest was higher pay, and the union also would UNder bid NON union shops to drive them out of business. The idea is once the non union shops are gone they can charge ALOT more for there services which of course is true, but it isn't a free market.

The bottom line is if a union has TOTAL control of a labor force it cost you more money to buy what ever it is they producebe it cars or computers or houses. The teachers Union has distroyed the public education system by demanding more administrative positions and raising the cost of educating our children while removing accountibility of those who instruct. If you think the military is a bloated hog that takes forever to get anything done take a look at public education. If the teachers unions ran the navy every boat would have 7 XO's and none of them would be responsible for any mistake they made.

 

[coolred]

I am in the teamsters union, since I work for UPS. It has it's good sides and its bad sides though. Like as some have mentioned, only union workers can do union work. So if one of our supervisors(who are not in the union) picked a box up off the floor, or got caught doing union work, they can get a grievance(sp?) filed against them by a teamster, and that teamster gets paid for the time that sup. worked. I don't really like having to pay them 25.00 bucks a month, but considering they get us good pay(which supposedlly we might get a raise from the contract this year, whcih would be nice) great benifits even for the part timers like myself, and job security i'd say that makes the 25.00 bucks worth it. As much as I don't like having to pay them for it, they do a lot of good for the workers under them. One other quibble I have is there ability to strike. We have a new contract coming up in August and just recently the union voted on the possibility of a strike. It passed, so if our demands are not met, then we will probablly strike. Which is to horrible since if I need money I can just pick up something else pretty quick, but for some people that can hurt them financially. Plus when we strike we lose buisness to places like Fed Ex and the post office, and that just decreases the amount of hours we work, whcih in turn decreases are pay. So like I said, all in all I thinkt hey are good for the employees, but there are some bad points to them, as with everything.

 

[tcsenter]

I belong to a union. I spent 5 years in an apprentice program going to school and learning my trade. This is just one of the areas where Unions excel. Its called education and training. Union labor is at the top of it's field. My Union has a top notch training center which members use to keep up to date on new and changing technology. This training center is funded by our Union dues. Training and education is what keeps Union labor the best.

haha, that's why a union skilled trades card + 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee in the free labor market. Very few, almost nobody in fact, recognizes a union skilled trades card except the union who issued it. Unionized skilled trades cannot hope to compete with their free market counterparts. The only exception is when the union has a virtual monopoly on a particular trade, so there is no way to get that skill elsewhere.

With the outrages cost of health care today, it's nearly impossible to rasie a family and have health insurance while making $12-15/hr. On top of all that trying to put money into a retirement package.

That's why you don't have a family if you can't support one, this isn't rocket science. If I could not support a family, why on God's earth would I start one?

That's why there are these mysterious things called universities, colleges, trade and vocational schools, to improve one's marketable skills and bring a higher wage. The GRAND thing about our economy and country is that you can go where ever the money is. We have no system of exclusive privilege determined by one's lineage, pedigree, or title of nobility, by one's gender, race, or religion. If you want to make X amount of money, then you can make X amount of money, but the onus is on YOU to go where X is the going wage or salary, the money shouldn't come to you.

Unions reward complacency and lack of ambition. The last place I worked, which was at a non-unionized auto parts distributor, there was a guy who always complained about how little he made and how he could hardly support his family on it. I got tired of his complaining and asked how much more he would be satisfied with, how much would he like to be making. He responded that he could do far better with $10,000 more annually. Added to the $25,000 he made per year, that equals $35,000 a year.

I went home and printed-out a list of only about a hundred different job titles (using Labor Department resources) that paid around $35,000 per year, brought the list in to work, sat down with him and started going through them one by one. How about this, what about that, there are seven positions for this in the help wanted section, why don't you go apply?

After about 40 of them, I gave up. He didn't WANT to do any of those jobs, he liked his current job just fine...except the pay. TOUGH SH-T!

He reminded me of many fat people, who complain about their weight all the time and feel just awful about themselves, but will they get their fat asses off the couch and go to the gym? Nope. They like the life-style of being fat, only they don't like the body that comes with it. TOUGH SH-T!

It isn't the world's responsibility to create a job just for him paying what he wants to be paid. An unskilled warehouse laborer doesn't make $35,000 per year (at least not in this region of the country) and that's the way it is. If he wants to make $35,000, the onus is on him to go where he can make that much money, it shouldn't be ANY other way.

 

[KahunaHube]

monopoly was a fun game.. but it left everyone hating each other in the end