Unions

Here's a story about what can happen when public employee unions are allowed to run amok:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...ops_98581.html

There was a time when unions protected workers from extreme exploitation and danger in the workplace. People had little information regarding fair pay for a day's work, and employers suffered few consequences when people were maimed or killed on the job. Few would argue that unions didn't markedly improve the lives of many millions of Americans in the early part of the 20th century. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Who is the exploiting owner that public employee unions are need to protect against?

Who is the exploiting owner that public employee unions are need to protect against? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Us!

Some of us selfish bastards question the idea that cops should be paid 6-figure incomes along with lavish health care and pension benefits. You don't fall into that camp do you, P.J.?

Most all that needs to be said on this already has...

I'm sure we'd all like nice 6 figure jobs that only take 36-40 hours a week and generate very little stress, but as was so aptly pointed out, ultimately that cost is passed to the consumer in some fashion.

Look at what has happened in the South over the last 50 or so years: "business friendly" (read no unions) municipalities welcomed companies with open arms.

Look at what happened to Western Europe over the last century as it wasn't globally competitive from a productivity standpoint...

Look at is happening now as our jobs go overseas...

In a macro sense, the labor market really is pretty efficient and will correct itself with workers being paid what they are worth within the context of supply and demand.

I deal with unions regularly in my business. As with many of you, I have mixed feelings. I think they do a lousy job in protecting individual worker's rights but generally do a great job in promoting the general economic welfare of the bargaining unit.

I think the area where unions have an important role is in campaign funding and lobbying. Earlier this year SCOTUS in Citizens United v. FEC held that campaign spending limits violated the First Amendment rights of both corporations and unions. Zillions of dollars are going to be spent on political advertising this year and we all know that zillions of dollars are going to be spent of lobbying.

One of the few groups that can muster enough treasure to present meaningful opposition to the candidates and agenda of Big Business is labor. Labor has the funds and expertise to do it. Unless organized labor provides funding for viewpoints that differ from those of Big Business, BB will dominate the political process, which is driven by the search of campaign dollars.

I really don't care what side you take on these issues, but it's hard to believe that its a good thing when one side dominates debate not on the strength of its ideas, but because it can buy lots more air time.

And P.J., this may be the worst syllogism of 2010. Both premises are flawed, gross generalizations and the conclusion is necessarily dead ass wrong. You can do better than that.

Unions are a form of monopoly. Monopolies are considered a bad thing in business, why would they be a good thing in labor. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'm a member of ALPA. No airline pilot works 4 days a month and makes $168k a year.......................... .............IMHO they are meaner than a junk yard dog and make poor front line employees. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Marcus----It is easy for those who oppose unions to throw stones but unionization affords worker(s) a real voice in areas that greatly affect their working lives. This holds true whether they happen to work in the air, on the ground or below. I don't see this as a bad thing!

I am of the opinon that the pendulum swings back and forth for a reason. When unions become too powerful they will eventually lose membership. By the same token, when company's become too heavy handed, union's gain membership.

But they have mutated into almost criminal enterprises. Originally Posted by Mokoa

From time to time we hear generalizations that all union's are corrupt or in this instance they have "mutated into almost criminal enterprises." That is not any more true today than an equally ridiculous generalization that since Enron was found guilty a few, short years ago that businesses "have mutated into almost criminal enterprises."

A few bad apples does not necessarily mean the entire tree is similarly affected!!!!!

Yes, there is corruption in business and in unions but to imply it runs rampant in either during this day and age, is blatantly innacurate. Especially in today's heavily regulated, anti-union climate! There are annual disclosure forms mandated by the Federal Government that must be filled out by unions. The results are the same for both businesses and unions, it serves to hold abuse and corruption to a minimum.

Life is full of checks and balances. Prior to his retirement, my Dad worked for the same major oil company for 41 years in both union and management positions. He eventually was promoted to, and eventually retired from, an upper level management position. He told me many years ago that given the fact that laws greatly favor management in a union organizing drive that if the union wins, the company is merely getting what they so richly deserve. In other words, through their actions, or lack thereof, the company has earned a union closely monitoring their daily activities!

That same principle still holds true today!

Bottom line, if company's treat their workers with a reasonable degree of fairness and dignity, there is normally not a need for a union in that facility. Those employers who don't will eventually pay a heavy price!

And P.J., this may be the worst syllogism of 2010. Both premises are flawed, gross generalizations and the conclusion is necessarily dead ass wrong. You can do better than that. Originally Posted by awl4knot

You going to expound on how I'm wrong or is this just going to be one of those "Neener, neener" drive attacks?

Dosen't it always depend on what side of the fence one sits?

Unions are a form of monopoly. Monopolies are considered a bad thing in business, why would they be a good thing in labor. Originally Posted by pjorourke

You going to expound on how I'm wrong or is this just going to be one of those "Neener, neener" drive attacks? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Ask and ye shall receive!

If unions were a "monopoly" as you claim, there would only be one union. Instead there are literally dozens, upon dozens of different International Unions representing workers in the United States alone!

If unions were a "monopoly" as you claim, there would only be one union. Instead there are literally dozens, upon dozens of different International Unions representing workers in the United States alone! Originally Posted by bigtex

Yea PJ, listen to my man Tex, why just last night I formed a union with some soft lips connected to a tight vagina. I think I'll be paying dues for quite some time.


BT , our BBQ joint has finially bit the bullet. Looks like me, you and H W Bush are going to have to find another hangout. Luling on Richmond 'taint bad.

Ask and ye shall receive!

If unions were a "monopoly" as you claim, there would only be one union. Instead there are literally dozens, upon dozens of different International Unions representing workers in the United States alone! Originally Posted by bigtex

No you misunderstood what I was saying. Unions create a monopoly for labor within a company -- essentially they prevent others from accepting a wage offer from a company that the union doesn't approve -- less so in right to work states, although there is always intimidation.

Airline pilots work long and hard and receive just a fraction of what they used to several years ago. I believe it's the best job in the world but it's not easy and not just anyone can do it. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Word!

I know (out-sized) air cargo quite well. It's very competitive, and anything but easy.

I worked for a company for 27 years. No union. I was well paid with excellent benefits. A union would have likely caused the company I worked for to hire a great many more people by limiting the different things i (and others) did on a daily basis. That being said I also worked a non union job for 5 years that was terrible pay, essentially no benefits, and atrocious working conditions. Unions are good and bad. The short falls are well covered in these postings.

No you misunderstood what I was saying. Unions create a monopoly for labor within a company -- essentially they prevent others from accepting a wage offer from a company that the union doesn't approve -- less so in right to work states, although there is always intimidation. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I merely did as you requested with the information that you provided. You asked for someone to "expound" on how you were wrong. Which prompted me to point out the inconsistency of your original printed words.

While I do not agree with your revised statement that "unions are a monopoly within the company." Let's assume for moment that unions actually are a "monopoly within the company." If unions are indeed a "monopoly within the company," as you suggest. Then it stands to reason that the management staff that unions deal with on a daily basis must also be a "monopoly within the company."

If that is the case, perhaps we can agree that "two wrongs make a right!"

However, taking into consideration your sudden attempt to change the meaning from your printed word, consider the following. If unions are a "monopoly within the company" as you suggest. Then it stands to reason that the management that unions deal with must also be a "monopoly within the company."

What's good for the goose, is also good for the gander! Originally Posted by bigtex

a) I was clarifying what I said, not changing it.

b) But you ignore the fact that a worker is free to work for any company they want, not just that one. And the companies customers can buy from anyone they want. The only one that can not freely trade (i.e., i.e., sell their job to a willing buyer) is the management of that particular company -- they can only sell on terms agreeable to that union -- and the government enforces that bit of thuggery. If they don't want to play, their only course of action is to shutter that location and move to somewhere that a monopoly does not exist -- a course that many have taken.

Quack! Quack!

a) I was clarifying what I said, not changing it.

b) But you ignore the fact that a worker is free to work for any company they want, not just that one. And the companies customers can buy from anyone they want. The only one that can not freely trade (i.e., i.e., sell their job to a willing buyer) is the management of that particular company -- they can only sell on terms agreeable to that union -- and the government enforces that bit of thuggery. If they don't want to play, their only course of action is to shutter that location and move to somewhere that a monopoly does not exist -- a course that many have taken.

Quack! Quack! Originally Posted by pjorourke

I must commend you on your distinctive "Quack! Quack!"

It is not surprising, given the manner in which you are trying to "Duck" from from your original printed words!