IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 67
- 91
CrazyHelloDeli
Platinum Member
- Jun 24, 2001
- 2,854
- 0
- 0
You are not ENTITLED to a living wage.
You can only earn as much as the market is willing to pay, which is a figure that may be more or less than a living wage.
So all of that "got utilities bills to pay, families to feed" reasoning does not come into play. If everybody is entitled to a living wage, then we might as well be a communist country.
By having a union that monopolizes the labor market, the company that hires the labor does not have an option because there is no competition. Most people don't realize, competition goes both ways, for the worker (who purchases products), and the company (that hires labor to produce products). Imagine walking into a supermarket, and the only bread you can buy is Wonderbread, and the price is dictated by only one company. Well, that is exactly what a union is doing.
You can only earn as much as the market is willing to pay, which is a figure that may be more or less than a living wage.
So all of that "got utilities bills to pay, families to feed" reasoning does not come into play. If everybody is entitled to a living wage, then we might as well be a communist country.
By having a union that monopolizes the labor market, the company that hires the labor does not have an option because there is no competition. Most people don't realize, competition goes both ways, for the worker (who purchases products), and the company (that hires labor to produce products). Imagine walking into a supermarket, and the only bread you can buy is Wonderbread, and the price is dictated by only one company. Well, that is exactly what a union is doing.
a union is "negotiating" (more like extortion) the contract of thousands, inflating the wages of those thousands.
a guy bolting sheet metal to a frame is not worth $28/hr + pension + health care, etc.
it's unskilled labor.
a CEO is not part of any union, negotiates his own salary, brings more value to the company. that's why there's one (or a small team) of them, as opposed to thousands like the laborers.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 27,918
- 12,460
- 136
I wouldn't place the blame only on them. The blame belongs on ALL OF US. Parents for not giving a sh1t about their kid's education, the community for lack of oversight over school board spending, administration for being random paper pushers, money wasters, and purveyors of stupid policies, and teachers unions which do not allow for a rewards system that allows for good teachers to be given bonuses and bad teachers to be fired. And government (which falls back to the community) for pushing standardized testing to such a degree that people teach to the test now instead of what kids should really be learning.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I haven't read the entire thread.
The only thing I disagree about with unions is their ability to monopolize. I don't see why they're allowed to say they can be the only union in a particular shop or for a particular occupation.
OTOH, if capital is allowed to organize, the labor should be allowed to as well. To disallow the right to organize would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
The only thing I disagree about with unions is their ability to monopolize. I don't see why they're allowed to say they can be the only union in a particular shop or for a particular occupation.
OTOH, if capital is allowed to organize, the labor should be allowed to as well. To disallow the right to organize would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
Anyone who's taken an entry-level Econ course knows that unions are a crushing burden on the economy and they shrink the workforce. The very workers they allegedly help end up getting priced right out of the labor market. Ooops!
FallenHero
Diamond Member
- Jan 2, 2006
- 5,659
- 0
- 0
Meh. I pay my union fees.
I don't feel totally comfortable with their tactics but then again I disagree more with the tactics of greedy employers.
I don't feel totally comfortable with their tactics but then again I disagree more with the tactics of greedy employers.
onlyCOpunk
Platinum Member
- May 25, 2003
- 2,532
- 1
- 0
There are good and bad unions. Some unions are clearly full of corruption. We'd be better off without those unions.
But some unions are awesome. Usually the awesome unions have reps that are actually part of the labor force they represent and get pennies for running the union.
Some unions are in a sort of gray area, but I think the good outweighs the bad. Some employers are just dicks. Others are perhaps being taken advantage of by unionization.
Case in point, I'm in a branch of the UAW that represents Univeristy of California graduate students in the physical sciences. We're teaching and research assistants, essentially penniless. The UC higher ups are some fucked up individuals. At the last contract negotiation, they wanted to cut salaries and health benefits. Our health care is pretty good, but we're all 20somethings; even really good healthcare is cheap for that age group. However, our salaries are barely above minimum wage, no hourly wages or overtime nonsense, just a per-quarter dollar value. We agreed to compromise on these concerns, but they wouldn't budge; it is illegal in CA to not bother coming to the table, and they were doing just that. They're a bunch of assholes. In short, we threatened a strike if they wouldn't negotiate and they ended up just renewing the old contract. They put us through all of this bullshit for nothing.
Also, my union dues are something like 1%, and it was voluntary to join. Obviously not all union stories are as good as mine.
(question directed to ATOT, not OP in particular) If you are opposed to unions, are you also opposed to PACs? How about any lobbying group? There are obviously differences, but the premise is similar; individuals without money and power lack a voice, but a lot of people saying the same message can be heard.
But some unions are awesome. Usually the awesome unions have reps that are actually part of the labor force they represent and get pennies for running the union.
Some unions are in a sort of gray area, but I think the good outweighs the bad. Some employers are just dicks. Others are perhaps being taken advantage of by unionization.
Case in point, I'm in a branch of the UAW that represents Univeristy of California graduate students in the physical sciences. We're teaching and research assistants, essentially penniless. The UC higher ups are some fucked up individuals. At the last contract negotiation, they wanted to cut salaries and health benefits. Our health care is pretty good, but we're all 20somethings; even really good healthcare is cheap for that age group. However, our salaries are barely above minimum wage, no hourly wages or overtime nonsense, just a per-quarter dollar value. We agreed to compromise on these concerns, but they wouldn't budge; it is illegal in CA to not bother coming to the table, and they were doing just that. They're a bunch of assholes. In short, we threatened a strike if they wouldn't negotiate and they ended up just renewing the old contract. They put us through all of this bullshit for nothing.
Also, my union dues are something like 1%, and it was voluntary to join. Obviously not all union stories are as good as mine.
(question directed to ATOT, not OP in particular) If you are opposed to unions, are you also opposed to PACs? How about any lobbying group? There are obviously differences, but the premise is similar; individuals without money and power lack a voice, but a lot of people saying the same message can be heard.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the public education system suffers from a lot of problems, the teachers' union being the least of them.
There is a middle ground, and some unions are there. Some unions do good for the employees without screwing the business. For instance, giving your vice president a huge bonus after cutting salaries across the board is unacceptable, and a union could prevent that sort of bullshit.
It's a fine line to walk
I can pretty much discard your whole post as crap because your last paragraph shows you have NO idea how the economy works.
Someone is going to do that job whether you pay your employees more or not. It's unskilled labor... that means an idiot could do it. There are ALWAYS going to be people to fill those shoes. The people on the labor lines have little to do with how much is sold. If you want to sell more, you get together a better ad campaign.
The only thing paying your employees more is going to do is raise the prices on goods that you're apparently having a hard time selling in the first place. Let's think it out for a moment. Say you pay your employees more and you close your profit margin up from 5% to maybe 1%. The company is now making less money but the employees are getting paid more. Now, in your "oh so perfect" world, this will boost sales. How does employee happiness translate into customer sales? Answer that one for me. But let's say in some way it does. Now, since they're selling more, they gotta hire more workers. The increased sales took their profit margins back up to 5%, but now the extra labor they had to bring in at the higher rate has diminished the profits margins back down to 1%. If the company's goal is to make money, they why would they not hire cheaper labor to increase profit margins? Seriously, why?
You clearly don't understand that simply paying people more and more money isn't good for the economy. These companies don't have money trees in the back offices that nobody knows about, this money has to come from somewhere. If everyone is getting paid more money, then every company will have to increase prices to stay afloat, thus the extra money you're paying people is negated.
The biggest reason people on the low end of the economy can't afford things is that they try to live beyond their means, whether it's from having kids they can't afford, trying to live a lifestyle that their job doesn't justify or just plain being stupid with finances.
Stop posting until you at least get a concept of how things work. No joke, you're just making yourself look more and more stupid with every word. It's fine if you want to argue the validity of Unions, but when you don't even grasp an understanding of the fundamentals of our economy it's not worth our time to hear your stupid ideas. Educate yourself a bit before you waste our time.
Kelemvor
Lifer
- May 23, 2002
- 16,928
- 8
- 81
Most unions were started back in times when Unions were needed to protect their members. Nowadays Unions are just huge, power hungry entities that only care about getting all they can from a company and not about whether that company survives and competes or not. They need to be disbanded and outlawed. We have other laws to protect people now and don't need them any longer. Especially the UAW and sports unions.
exactly.
that's the problem with a couple of guys posting in here, thinking that everyone is entitled to higher wages, no matter how unimportant their position. it breeds laziness and removes all responsibility.
these guys should just move to china.
Squisher
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2000
- 21,204
- 66
- 91
I'm sure it was union members which designed products with questionable quality. I'm sure it was union members that ignored people desires for more refined interiors. We all know it was union members that made the decision to ignore the impending rise in oil prices and thus neglect the manufacture of smaller vehicles, specifically hybrids. And, it is funny how the unions can enter into agreements without management having any input.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 65,894
- 14,296
- 146
The city I live in did away with the "Little Davis-Bacon" laws a few years ago. The city council was led by a woman whose husband was the president of the ABC (non-union group) The idea was that jobs would be done for less by non-union contractors...
Didn't happen that way. 90% of the jobs are STILL done by union contractors who do better work, get the job done in less time, and with fewer cost-overruns.
In construction, the union hands are generally safer, better trained, have more experience, get the job done right the first time, on time and under budget.
When you see the big jobs that go waaaaay over budget and over-time, it's not because of the workers...it's management issues, unexpected job problems, change orders by the government agency, etc.
Oddly enough, when the non-union contractors bid a job, they bid, almost to the penny, the same cost per man-hour as the union contractors do. The difference is that the non-union contractors keep a larger piece of the pie.
When I was a business agent, we monitored prevailing wage jobs done by non-union contractors. By state & federal law, they are supposed to pay their employees a set wage depending on job category. Far too many of those rat contractors fuck with the job descriptions to pay their people less than they're supposed to. (pay a heavy equipment mechanic laborer's wages, etc.) Also, we busted a couple of contractors who paid their people properly, but demanded a rebate from each employee. They had to give back (in cash) anywhere from $5 to $10 for every hour on their check.
That's certainly not saving the consumer (taxpayer) a dime on the job, nor is it contributing to the local economy.
You think heavy construction work isn't hard? Try it some time. Not only is there a tremendous learning curve, (which is why my apprenticeship is 8000 hours on the job, PLUS 144 hours every year in off-the-job related training.
That ends up being more hours spent in learning than the average student spends for a bachelor's degree...
Me, I'm on the other side of the argument...I think people who work in offices are GROSSLY over paid for what they do...degree or no degree.
unions are eh...
Its those stupid CEOs making 40x the avg pay of the worker at the corporation and gets his private jet expensed at the cost of the company and has a $250 million golden parachute in order to fire him for his crappy performance that is killing us.
Its those stupid CEOs making 40x the avg pay of the worker at the corporation and gets his private jet expensed at the cost of the company and has a $250 million golden parachute in order to fire him for his crappy performance that is killing us.
No, it's not.
A CEO adds value to the company by just being there. It's the CEOs that give the company their image. They have their reputation on the line. Company image = priceless.
The average line worker adds value to the company through manpower. Anyone can give you manpower. They have 40 hours a week of their life on the line. 40 hours a week = readily available.
It's the CEO who has a tarnished image if the quality of the work lacks. He has that on his record when he get another job. The average line worker doesn't.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter