Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
It becomes extortion when unions virtually monopolize the labor market for a specific place of employment and then demand wages or entitlements that put the company in financial jeopardy. It's the restriction of employment that gives unions an unfair advantage in negotiations.
If the union is demanding more than they are worth, the market will correct for that.
Isn't that what the market is supposed to do? Or does that only work when it's the people in power that are doing things that need rationalized and not for the workaday plebes?
How does the market correct for police officers and firefighters and public transportation? I can't refuse to pay for fire service but firefighters can refuse to work.
The same way private industry does; by hiring non-union firefighters.
The reason that is harder for public institutions is that there aren't a ton of people looking to get in on the ground floor of public servanthood because all prestige has been stripped from the jobs.
And yes, if there is no incentive to expand, then companies won't do it. I'm just trying to figure out how union activity depresses domestic investment in any meaningful way, which seemed to be what you were claiming.
Because unions provide unfair barriers to labor market entry, reward things like seniority over skill, and frequently negotiates wages and benefits that are either unrealistic re: the skill level of the union members or would not be achievable in a tenable situation for non-union employees negotiating individually.
And yes, if there is no incentive to expand, then companies won't do it. I'm just trying to figure out how union activity depresses domestic investment in any meaningful way, which seemed to be what you were claiming.
Because unions provide unfair barriers to labor market entry, reward things like seniority over skill, and frequently negotiates wages and benefits that are either unrealistic re: the skill level of the union members or would not be achievable in a tenable situation for non-union employees negotiating individually.
And non-union labor forces depress worker wages, force out workers that have reached a certain point in terms of seniority and generally just do a shitty job of taking care of people who actually have jobs.
There is nothing wrong with forming a collective to ensure better treatment. That's kind of the basis behind most of western society.
And yes, if there is no incentive to expand, then companies won't do it. I'm just trying to figure out how union activity depresses domestic investment in any meaningful way, which seemed to be what you were claiming.
Because unions provide unfair barriers to labor market entry,
Unfair is an awfully subjective word. Also, are you talking about barriers to workers entering the market, or barriers to people starting companies that need workers?
reward things like seniority over skill,
Yes, organizations will work harder for long-time members. So what?
and frequently negotiates wages and benefits that are either unrealistic re: the skill level of the union members or would not be achievable in a tenable situation for non-union employees negotiating individually.
That's the point of a union! Getting a better deal as a group than you could as individuals!
... you're proposing a conspiracy theory that must involve, at minimum, thousands of senior managers and HR departments across the United States, and you say the burden of proof is on me? When my explanation springs from mainstream economic theory? Really?
Yes, of course corporations are more than willing to push for legal advantages. Have I ever suggested otherwise? Would you care to elaborate on how these legal advantages translate to stealthily executing a grand plan of 9.9% unemployment in the United States?
Why would you need a "grand conspiracy"? Seriously, think it through - why would all of these lower level peons need to know the details? Especially when you can use economic theory as a smokescreen? I don't think it would take a lot of people to push the matter, as long as they did it in a manner that doesn't trip any red flags.
And if I have to explain to you why employers would see higher unemployment as attractive, then perhaps you should be the one reviewing economic theory. Higher unemployment means lower wages. It also means a more compliant workforce as well.
Wow. So how many people are you suggesting are in on this Plan, as a ballpark number? And there's, I don't know, drugs in the water to make sure all those pesky small and medium employers play along as well?
The problem is that you're assuming that "there must be A Plan." All this takes is an attitude among business leadership that the current political leadership needs to change to create a more "business-friendly" climate. And I would think that this attitude is pretty evident. Once this sense takes hold...well, it becomes an invisible weight that influences corporate decisions. It also becomes a theme in the community as well, so it trickles down to the smaller players. That said, the smaller players are the ones that are most affected by the disjoint, and thus are the ones less likely to buy in. (And the evidence holds on this as well - small businesses are becoming more and more disenchanted with the Chamber of Commerce and looking to form their own lobbies.)
I guess a good way to think of it is the Business Stand Alone Complex.
Holy crap, you really think the ma-he's-looking-at-me-funny thesis has merit?
You know, big business was pretty damn hysterical during the Depression, too. Their demands tend to be the same, too: cartelization, a stronger dollar, higher interest rates. Same old same old.
You could call it the Evil Twin version of Keynes' animal spirits, except you run into the basic problem of Why The Hell Doesn't This Fit The Macroeconomic Empirical Record. You're pushing a RBC supply-side theory; governments which cheer on businesses and regularly invite the captains of industry to state dinners should see high (exploitative?!) investment, right? Except, you know, no.
ronya on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
It becomes extortion when unions virtually monopolize the labor market for a specific place of employment and then demand wages or entitlements that put the company in financial jeopardy. It's the restriction of employment that gives unions an unfair advantage in negotiations.
If the union is demanding more than they are worth, the market will correct for that.
Isn't that what the market is supposed to do? Or does that only work when it's the people in power that are doing things that need rationalized and not for the workaday plebes?
How does the market correct for police officers and firefighters and public transportation? I can't refuse to pay for fire service but firefighters can refuse to work.
The same way private industry does; by hiring non-union firefighters.
The reason that is harder for public institutions is that there aren't a ton of people looking to get in on the ground floor of public servanthood because all prestige has been stripped from the jobs.
Why cant I just refuse to pay for a service that isn't delivered upon? I can at least do that during a stirke in the private sector. I mean, if you cant see the obvious basic problem of monopoly of labor in basic necessary public goods we are required by law to pay for, then I cant help you here.
If we're under the idea that the city of X isnt going to fire an entire cadre of employees and start a subsequent search for new employees during a strike, what makes you think it would happen without a union?
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
It becomes extortion when unions virtually monopolize the labor market for a specific place of employment and then demand wages or entitlements that put the company in financial jeopardy. It's the restriction of employment that gives unions an unfair advantage in negotiations.
It's not an unfair advantage, it's their ONLY advantage.
WTF do you think organized labour is about? Without the ability to monopolize the labour market, unions have no power and thus workers have little to no rights.
For the third time today, the company does not exist to provide employment.
And it certainly doesn't exist to provide its employees with protected wages and entitlements that well above and beyond that of most private institutions.
And? This has nothing to do with what I said.
If you wanna go down this stupid road, labour does not exist to be ruthlessly exploited by businesses.
Without power, labour is fucked in the market. And the only way to get power (non-politically anyway) is to organize and choke the labour supply to force companies to negotiate.
Do you know ANYTHING about the history of organized labour and the guilded age and such? Unions exist for a VERY good reason.
You are basically trying to cry foul on labour for not rolling over and letting itself get ass-fucked by companies and I have no idea why.
Capital is pretty organized, though. And it isn't going away, since organized economic activity is necessary for much economic output.
You may be overestimating the degree of power which unions actually have on employment under current law. It is difficult for a union to effectively enforce a monopoly on the supply of labour without additional, legal, enforcement.
Union and corporate power is principally via legal lobbying, not economic monopoly.
And this is the other big thing. The fight has in many ways moved into the political arena. And here, both US culture and corporate organization and money is working against labour even more.
And yes, if there is no incentive to expand, then companies won't do it. I'm just trying to figure out how union activity depresses domestic investment in any meaningful way, which seemed to be what you were claiming.
Because unions provide unfair barriers to labor market entry, reward things like seniority over skill, and frequently negotiates wages and benefits that are either unrealistic re: the skill level of the union members or would not be achievable in a tenable situation for non-union employees negotiating individually.
It is worth pointing out that seniority systems are not unique to unionized workforces, suggesting that there are generally market reasons for their existence. Incentives for employee loyalty, etc.
Group bargaining goes on all the time in the free market, y'know.
ronya on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
And yes, if there is no incentive to expand, then companies won't do it. I'm just trying to figure out how union activity depresses domestic investment in any meaningful way, which seemed to be what you were claiming.
Because unions provide unfair barriers to labor market entry, reward things like seniority over skill, and frequently negotiates wages and benefits that are either unrealistic re: the skill level of the union members or would not be achievable in a tenable situation for non-union employees negotiating individually.
In other words, you don't like unions because they trample all over your special snowflakeness.
Unions require that people who want to join the collective bargaining unit have to pay their fair share. They reward seniority over skill because, too many times, "skill" is code for "younger and cheaper". And they negotiate wages for the workers collectively, because that is how labor gains power, just as capital gains power when its organized.
Why cant I just refuse to pay for a service that isn't delivered upon? I can at least do that during a stirke in the private sector. I mean, if you cant see the obvious basic problem of monopoly of labor in basic necessary public goods we are required by law to pay for, then I cant help you here.
If we're under the idea that the city of X isnt going to fire an entire cadre of employees and start a subsequent search for new employees during a strike, what makes you think it would happen without a union?
We're not under the idea that a city won't just fire an entire group of employees. They can do that, given sufficient reason to do so. Governments tend to be under more scrutiny than private organizations when it comes to reasons for firing, but incompetence isn't a protected class in the public sector.
Unions aren't there to provide continued employment for all their members. They're not there to drag worthless employees forward with the rest of the group. They are simply collective bargaining agreements that allow workers to have some leverage in the face of huge companies that basically hold their workers' well being hostage every day they show up to work. Unions level the playing field, period. And if they push too hard, the workers can just be replaced by the previously unemployed. This is true in both the public sector and the private sector.
That's why railing against unions is so stupid. It's collective bargaining in the face of something that is huge and powerful and backed by tons of money. In the face of that, workers helping workers is practically nothing.
Do you know ANYTHING about the history of organized labour and the guilded age and such? Unions exist for a VERY good reason.
"You can't treat the working man this way! One of these days we'll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!"
Do you know ANYTHING about the history of organized labour and the guilded age and such? Unions exist for a VERY good reason.
"You can't treat the working man this way! One of these days we'll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!"
Yes, yes, the Guilded Age. I've heard.
So basically no, you don't know jack shit about organized labour or why it exists or why it still needs to exist.
Read The Jungle. Look up the history of labour rights. Go fucking learn something.
shryke on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
That's the point of a union! Getting a better deal as a group than you could as individuals!
At the expense of other individuals. Unless you believe in the free lunch.
What other individuals?
Business Owners/Shareholders and sometimes Customers.
Buisness Owners/Shareholders; boo fucking hoo. If the union is too much to support you've got a shitty model.
Customers; if they've got a job, they're probably benefiting from union activity unless they're an owner or a shareholder, in which case see the above.
That's the point of a union! Getting a better deal as a group than you could as individuals!
At the expense of other individuals. Unless you believe in the free lunch.
It behooves me to point out that economic activity generally involves individuals working in groups to get better deals vis a vis the state of nature and technological possibilities. At least some employees do prefer to have organized mediation to act on their behalf, and at least some employers do prefer to negotiate with said organized mediation rather than not employ said organized labour, and so there's your useful economic activity right there.
That's the point of a union! Getting a better deal as a group than you could as individuals!
At the expense of other individuals. Unless you believe in the free lunch.
What other individuals?
Business Owners/Shareholders and sometimes Customers.
Just as we've stated many times, it isn't the corporation's responsiblity to maximize benefits to society at large; only to their shareholders. Neither is it the union's responsibility, they are trying to maximize benefits for their members.
Re: Short history of the union movement. I was looking for a clip of that episode, couldn't seem to find it. But everyone should go watch 'last exit to springfield' at some point. One of the best Simpsons.
dojango on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So what? Why should labour not allowed to negotiate a better deal, but Business owners can?
The problem has never been about negotiating a "better" deal, it's about barring entry to non-union labor and extorting gains that are untenable and drown the company in entitlement/benefit expenditures that go above and beyond what any private company would be obligated to offer.
So what? Why should labour not allowed to negotiate a better deal, but Business owners can?
The problem has never been about negotiating a "better" deal, it's about barring entry to non-union labor and extorting gains that are untenable and drown the company in entitlement/benefit expenditures that go above and beyond what any private company would be obligated to offer.
So basically, the same old corporate whining about not being able to exploit the workforce as much as humanly possible.
So what? Why should labour not allowed to negotiate a better deal, but Business owners can?
The problem has never been about negotiating a "better" deal, it's about barring entry to non-union labor and extorting gains that are untenable and drown the company in entitlement/benefit expenditures that go above and beyond what any private company would be obligated to offer.
This sounds like you're referring to the American Car industry, which was a trainwreck of epic proportions that deserves (and probably has had) it's own thread. But to blame that entire thing on union-negotiated benefits is like blaming, I don't know, I have trouble thinking up accurate metaphors. Because they so rarely illustrate the point concisely.
dojango on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Why cant I just refuse to pay for a service that isn't delivered upon? I can at least do that during a stirke in the private sector. I mean, if you cant see the obvious basic problem of monopoly of labor in basic necessary public goods we are required by law to pay for, then I cant help you here.
If we're under the idea that the city of X isnt going to fire an entire cadre of employees and start a subsequent search for new employees during a strike, what makes you think it would happen without a union?
We're not under the idea that a city won't just fire an entire group of employees. They can do that, given sufficient reason to do so. Governments tend to be under more scrutiny than private organizations when it comes to reasons for firing, but incompetence isn't a protected class in the public sector.
Unions aren't there to provide continued employment for all their members. They're not there to drag worthless employees forward with the rest of the group. They are simply collective bargaining agreements that allow workers to have some leverage in the face of huge companies that basically hold their workers' well being hostage every day they show up to work. Unions level the playing field, period. And if they push too hard, the workers can just be replaced by the previously unemployed. This is true in both the public sector and the private sector.
That's why railing against unions is so stupid. It's collective bargaining in the face of something that is huge and powerful and backed by tons of money. In the face of that, workers helping workers is practically nothing.
What you're describing as a union doesn't meet any of the practical definitions of what unions currently do in this country (Except NFL Players Union, one that I agree with btw.). Other unions do engage in trying to provide continued employment, do fight to keep the worthless on board (because dues are dues are dues).
So what? Why should labour not allowed to negotiate a better deal, but Business owners can?
The problem has never been about negotiating a "better" deal, it's about barring entry to non-union labor and extorting gains that are untenable and drown the company in entitlement/benefit expenditures that go above and beyond what any private company would be obligated to offer.
Unions don't have to exclude marginal labour to raise wages; indeed, if it at all possible for them not to, then they have every reason not to (more people to pay union dues).
But, yes, accounting profits are split between labor, managers, and shareholders; unions bargain for more of it. This is a matter of distribution; as long the economic pie is not shrunk via excessive demands, why should we object?
And closed shops are illegal in the United States. Ronya is presumably arguing that unions lift wages, which in itself screws over the unemployed.
Two minutes in Paint:
That graph on the left is where labour bargain wages up by making it difficult to employ marginal workers. Their gains come at the expense of people who could have gained employment but don't; [strike]the capitalist (or the Company or the Corporation or the C-word of choice) doesn't lose anything, beyond not being able to employ the marginal workers[/strike]. Whoops; the capitalist loses the rectangle below the new wage line, which labour gains. The Harberger triangle is lost, however.
The graph on the right is where labour bargain wages up by nicking the employer's surplus. This is the desirable outcome. Even under perfect competition, all gains to labour (above the "normal" market wage at the top graph) here come entirely at the expense of the owners of factors of production, i.e., the capitalist. Who has to pretty much sit there and take the losses, since labor demand is still ever so slightly higher than labor supply.
Look, either could be the outcome of collective bargaining, but collective bargaining can bargain toward some sets of rules and not others. As Kipling217 has realized, the unemployment are not generally members of unions and thus they are not in the best position to discourage the graph on the right from being the outcome, instead of the graph on the left.
You can generally determine which one is currently the dominant outcome by examining the rules which the union chooses to defend, and the wages that accrue to the employed; seniority rules and universal union membership requirements upon employment generally imply that the bad outcome is the observed one. Lots of certification rankings or partitioning of the union workforce imply good latter outcome. Among unskilled or semiskilled labor, seniority pay implies the good outcome, too (for the individual firm, as long as unskilled seniority pay is not prevalent in the wider economy). Essentially, the union must be differentiating workers in order to force the market to segment; this is why very broad-based unions tend to produce better national outcomes than numerous small skill-based unions.
This? By the way? is not generally true in the long-run within which labor bargaining takes place. You have to posit some really strange behavior for it to be true, like arguing that corporations don't maximize profit. Which does not seem to be the case, and increased wages is generally associated with more unemployment.
Can we be clear about that?
e#2: yes, I got "left" and "right" confused. O_o thanks dojango
e#3: changed the graphs to show the labour surplus regions (in yellow)
So basically, the same old corporate whining about not being able to exploit the workforce as much as humanly possible.
So basically the same old hyperbole and painting rhetorical arguments in monochrome.
If you had any other color, I wouldn't, but everything you've said in this thread has been about how unions are evil and horrible and don't let businesses do what they want and it's not fairrrr.
So what? Why should labour not allowed to negotiate a better deal, but Business owners can?
The problem has never been about negotiating a "better" deal, it's about barring entry to non-union labor and extorting gains that are untenable and drown the company in entitlement/benefit expenditures that go above and beyond what any private company would be obligated to offer.
This sounds like you're referring to the American Car industry, which was a trainwreck of epic proportions that deserves (and probably has had) it's own thread. But to blame that entire thing on union-negotiated benefits is like blaming, I don't know, I have trouble thinking up accurate metaphors. Because they so rarely illustrate the point concisely.
To be fair, the failure of Detroit Auto was kind of a big deal.
And the budgetary crises of most states are due to out-of-control entitlement spendings for pensions, Medicaid, et al.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So basically, the same old corporate whining about not being able to exploit the workforce as much as humanly possible.
So basically the same old hyperbole and painting rhetorical arguments in monochrome.
If you had any other color, I wouldn't, but everything you've said in this thread has been about how unions are evil and horrible and don't let businesses do what they want and it's not fairrrr.
Why cant I just refuse to pay for a service that isn't delivered upon? I can at least do that during a stirke in the private sector. I mean, if you cant see the obvious basic problem of monopoly of labor in basic necessary public goods we are required by law to pay for, then I cant help you here.
If we're under the idea that the city of X isnt going to fire an entire cadre of employees and start a subsequent search for new employees during a strike, what makes you think it would happen without a union?
We're not under the idea that a city won't just fire an entire group of employees. They can do that, given sufficient reason to do so. Governments tend to be under more scrutiny than private organizations when it comes to reasons for firing, but incompetence isn't a protected class in the public sector.
Unions aren't there to provide continued employment for all their members. They're not there to drag worthless employees forward with the rest of the group. They are simply collective bargaining agreements that allow workers to have some leverage in the face of huge companies that basically hold their workers' well being hostage every day they show up to work. Unions level the playing field, period. And if they push too hard, the workers can just be replaced by the previously unemployed. This is true in both the public sector and the private sector.
That's why railing against unions is so stupid. It's collective bargaining in the face of something that is huge and powerful and backed by tons of money. In the face of that, workers helping workers is practically nothing.
What you're describing as a union doesn't meet any of the practical definitions of what unions currently do in this country (Except NFL Players Union, one that I agree with btw.). Other unions do engage in trying to provide continued employment, do fight to keep the worthless on board (because dues are dues are dues).
Unions that "provide continued employment" as you put it are generally either a) enforcing contracted due process rules or b) fighting layoffs. The image of the union as forcing the continued employment of fuckups because they're members is a myth.
It's simple economics; having deadweight that you constantly have to fight for is a drain on the union and their negotiating power that far exceeds that member's dues. The group isn't responsible for keeping the incompetent members in jobs, in fact most unions have expulsion procedures in place to prevent that from happening.
That's the point of a union! Getting a better deal as a group than you could as individuals!
At the expense of other individuals. Unless you believe in the free lunch.
What other individuals?
Business Owners/Shareholders and sometimes Customers.
Just as we've stated many times, it isn't the corporation's responsiblity to maximize benefits to society at large; only to their shareholders. Neither is it the union's responsibility, they are trying to maximize benefits for their members.
Re: Short history of the union movement. I was looking for a clip of that episode, couldn't seem to find it. But everyone should go watch 'last exit to springfield' at some point. One of the best Simpsons.
But to that everyone benefits from a Union was the claim and it's easily false. No one is saying that corporations benefit everyone, so that's a moot point.
mrt144 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
But, yes, accounting profits are split between labor, managers, and shareholders; unions bargain for more of it. This is a matter of distribution; as long the economic pie is not shrunk via excessive demands, why should we object?
We shouldn't. But the demands are proving to be excessive, judging by the recent State budgetary crises and the myriad other crushing corporate failures that have plagued our economy in the last 4 years or so.
But, yes, accounting profits are split between labor, managers, and shareholders; unions bargain for more of it. This is a matter of distribution; as long the economic pie is not shrunk via excessive demands, why should we object?
We shouldn't. But the demands are proving to be excessive, judging by the recent State budgetary crises and the myriad other crushing corporate failures that have plagued our economy in the last 4 years or so.
But why are we sticking the blame solely on unions when we have states across the country cutting taxes when they know they have pension payments to be making?
It's a shell game, and this is the economic equivalent of blaming the victim.
But, yes, accounting profits are split between labor, managers, and shareholders; unions bargain for more of it. This is a matter of distribution; as long the economic pie is not shrunk via excessive demands, why should we object?
We shouldn't. But the demands are proving to be excessive, judging by the recent State budgetary crises and the myriad other crushing corporate failures that have plagued our economy in the last 4 years or so.
What you are observing is "politically organized retirees", not "politically organized employees", judging from how budgets are split between existing and retired state workers.
e: I should note that if the Fed had successfully achieved its mandates over the past three years or so, these crises would be much less pressing.
Holy crap, you really think the ma-he's-looking-at-me-funny thesis has merit?
You know, big business was pretty damn hysterical during the Depression, too. Their demands tend to be the same, too: cartelization, a stronger dollar, higher interest rates. Same old same old.
You could call it the Evil Twin version of Keynes' animal spirits, except you run into the basic problem of Why The Hell Doesn't This Fit The Macroeconomic Empirical Record. You're pushing a RBC supply-side theory; governments which cheer on businesses and regularly invite the captains of industry to state dinners should see high (exploitative?!) investment, right? Except, you know, no.
I'm puzzled why you seem to have a fundamental problem with this. The people running these companies are, well, people.
And you seem to think that just because businesses get those concessions that they're not going to do what they damn well please? The whole point is to force the government to make concessions without making any of your own.
So what? Why should labour not allowed to negotiate a better deal, but Business owners can?
The problem has never been about negotiating a "better" deal, it's about barring entry to non-union labor and extorting gains that are untenable and drown the company in entitlement/benefit expenditures that go above and beyond what any private company would be obligated to offer.
This sounds like you're referring to the American Car industry, which was a trainwreck of epic proportions that deserves (and probably has had) it's own thread. But to blame that entire thing on union-negotiated benefits is like blaming, I don't know, I have trouble thinking up accurate metaphors. Because they so rarely illustrate the point concisely.
To be fair, the failure of Detroit Auto was kind of a big deal.
And the budgetary crises of most states are due to out-of-control entitlement spendings for pensions, Medicaid, et al.
Yes, it was a big deal, but it wasn't entirely due to union activity. It wasn't even mostly due to union activity. Unions negotiated deals with management that turned out to be terrible deals for the company, but that is hardly the fault of the unions, because management failed to account for demographic trends, changing technology, and the fact that they couldn't produce a decent car for a decade and a half.
Also, Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security is another issue entirely; they have nothing to do with unions. As for public sector pensions, once again, it is a matter of states voting for extensive public services, and then being unable to fund them. Because people hate paying taxes.
Posts
The reason that is harder for public institutions is that there aren't a ton of people looking to get in on the ground floor of public servanthood because all prestige has been stripped from the jobs.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Because unions provide unfair barriers to labor market entry, reward things like seniority over skill, and frequently negotiates wages and benefits that are either unrealistic re: the skill level of the union members or would not be achievable in a tenable situation for non-union employees negotiating individually.
There is nothing wrong with forming a collective to ensure better treatment. That's kind of the basis behind most of western society.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Holy crap, you really think the ma-he's-looking-at-me-funny thesis has merit?
You know, big business was pretty damn hysterical during the Depression, too. Their demands tend to be the same, too: cartelization, a stronger dollar, higher interest rates. Same old same old.
You could call it the Evil Twin version of Keynes' animal spirits, except you run into the basic problem of Why The Hell Doesn't This Fit The Macroeconomic Empirical Record. You're pushing a RBC supply-side theory; governments which cheer on businesses and regularly invite the captains of industry to state dinners should see high (exploitative?!) investment, right? Except, you know, no.
Why cant I just refuse to pay for a service that isn't delivered upon? I can at least do that during a stirke in the private sector. I mean, if you cant see the obvious basic problem of monopoly of labor in basic necessary public goods we are required by law to pay for, then I cant help you here.
If we're under the idea that the city of X isnt going to fire an entire cadre of employees and start a subsequent search for new employees during a strike, what makes you think it would happen without a union?
And? This has nothing to do with what I said.
If you wanna go down this stupid road, labour does not exist to be ruthlessly exploited by businesses.
Without power, labour is fucked in the market. And the only way to get power (non-politically anyway) is to organize and choke the labour supply to force companies to negotiate.
Do you know ANYTHING about the history of organized labour and the guilded age and such? Unions exist for a VERY good reason.
You are basically trying to cry foul on labour for not rolling over and letting itself get ass-fucked by companies and I have no idea why.
And this is the other big thing. The fight has in many ways moved into the political arena. And here, both US culture and corporate organization and money is working against labour even more.
It is worth pointing out that seniority systems are not unique to unionized workforces, suggesting that there are generally market reasons for their existence. Incentives for employee loyalty, etc.
Group bargaining goes on all the time in the free market, y'know.
At the expense of other individuals. Unless you believe in the free lunch.
What other individuals?
In other words, you don't like unions because they trample all over your special snowflakeness.
Unions require that people who want to join the collective bargaining unit have to pay their fair share. They reward seniority over skill because, too many times, "skill" is code for "younger and cheaper". And they negotiate wages for the workers collectively, because that is how labor gains power, just as capital gains power when its organized.
Unions aren't there to provide continued employment for all their members. They're not there to drag worthless employees forward with the rest of the group. They are simply collective bargaining agreements that allow workers to have some leverage in the face of huge companies that basically hold their workers' well being hostage every day they show up to work. Unions level the playing field, period. And if they push too hard, the workers can just be replaced by the previously unemployed. This is true in both the public sector and the private sector.
That's why railing against unions is so stupid. It's collective bargaining in the face of something that is huge and powerful and backed by tons of money. In the face of that, workers helping workers is practically nothing.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
"You can't treat the working man this way! One of these days we'll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!"
Yes, yes, the Guilded Age. I've heard.
So basically no, you don't know jack shit about organized labour or why it exists or why it still needs to exist.
Read The Jungle. Look up the history of labour rights. Go fucking learn something.
Business Owners/Shareholders and sometimes Customers.
Can you itemize some fields for me where energetic newly-trained individuals don't quickly surpass the skill level of entrenched senior members?
I mean, even doctors and hospitals try to push out old doctors who refuse to keep current on techniques.
Seniority without continuing justification for employment isn't commendable, it's a goddamned liability.
So what? Why should labour not allowed to negotiate a better deal, but Business owners can?
Don't make me say it again . . . .
Yes, it is a pity when management is prevented from requiring everyone to work unpaid overtime.
Customers; if they've got a job, they're probably benefiting from union activity unless they're an owner or a shareholder, in which case see the above.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It behooves me to point out that economic activity generally involves individuals working in groups to get better deals vis a vis the state of nature and technological possibilities. At least some employees do prefer to have organized mediation to act on their behalf, and at least some employers do prefer to negotiate with said organized mediation rather than not employ said organized labour, and so there's your useful economic activity right there.
Just as we've stated many times, it isn't the corporation's responsiblity to maximize benefits to society at large; only to their shareholders. Neither is it the union's responsibility, they are trying to maximize benefits for their members.
Re: Short history of the union movement. I was looking for a clip of that episode, couldn't seem to find it. But everyone should go watch 'last exit to springfield' at some point. One of the best Simpsons.
The problem has never been about negotiating a "better" deal, it's about barring entry to non-union labor and extorting gains that are untenable and drown the company in entitlement/benefit expenditures that go above and beyond what any private company would be obligated to offer.
So basically, the same old corporate whining about not being able to exploit the workforce as much as humanly possible.
So basically the same old hyperbole and painting rhetorical arguments in monochrome.
This sounds like you're referring to the American Car industry, which was a trainwreck of epic proportions that deserves (and probably has had) it's own thread. But to blame that entire thing on union-negotiated benefits is like blaming, I don't know, I have trouble thinking up accurate metaphors. Because they so rarely illustrate the point concisely.
What you're describing as a union doesn't meet any of the practical definitions of what unions currently do in this country (Except NFL Players Union, one that I agree with btw.). Other unions do engage in trying to provide continued employment, do fight to keep the worthless on board (because dues are dues are dues).
Unions don't have to exclude marginal labour to raise wages; indeed, if it at all possible for them not to, then they have every reason not to (more people to pay union dues).
But, yes, accounting profits are split between labor, managers, and shareholders; unions bargain for more of it. This is a matter of distribution; as long the economic pie is not shrunk via excessive demands, why should we object?
e: Here's the diagram from page 4:
If you had any other color, I wouldn't, but everything you've said in this thread has been about how unions are evil and horrible and don't let businesses do what they want and it's not fairrrr.
To be fair, the failure of Detroit Auto was kind of a big deal.
And the budgetary crises of most states are due to out-of-control entitlement spendings for pensions, Medicaid, et al.
Don't be this way, man. C'mon.
It's simple economics; having deadweight that you constantly have to fight for is a drain on the union and their negotiating power that far exceeds that member's dues. The group isn't responsible for keeping the incompetent members in jobs, in fact most unions have expulsion procedures in place to prevent that from happening.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But to that everyone benefits from a Union was the claim and it's easily false. No one is saying that corporations benefit everyone, so that's a moot point.
We shouldn't. But the demands are proving to be excessive, judging by the recent State budgetary crises and the myriad other crushing corporate failures that have plagued our economy in the last 4 years or so.
It's a shell game, and this is the economic equivalent of blaming the victim.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Because that's the worst possible and one of the most illegal outcomes of a unionless job.
What you are observing is "politically organized retirees", not "politically organized employees", judging from how budgets are split between existing and retired state workers.
e: I should note that if the Fed had successfully achieved its mandates over the past three years or so, these crises would be much less pressing.
The organized labor movement.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'm puzzled why you seem to have a fundamental problem with this. The people running these companies are, well, people.
And you seem to think that just because businesses get those concessions that they're not going to do what they damn well please? The whole point is to force the government to make concessions without making any of your own.
Yes, it was a big deal, but it wasn't entirely due to union activity. It wasn't even mostly due to union activity. Unions negotiated deals with management that turned out to be terrible deals for the company, but that is hardly the fault of the unions, because management failed to account for demographic trends, changing technology, and the fact that they couldn't produce a decent car for a decade and a half.
Also, Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security is another issue entirely; they have nothing to do with unions. As for public sector pensions, once again, it is a matter of states voting for extensive public services, and then being unable to fund them. Because people hate paying taxes.