Disparities in opinion towards executives and union workers

[LnGrrrR]

Reading through some of the threads, a strange disparity struck me:

Union workers are usually derided as lazy, unproductive, etc etc, and it's often said that they shouldn't have such promises/gaurantees/etc written into their union contract.

However, the same people will promote executives making as much as they can, calling it the free market at work. They don't seem to be much concerned with tax loopholes, and generally think that the less a government hassles a corp/executive, the better.

Why the derisiveness towards unions, who have struck a deal for their best interests? Isn't that a free market-type function? What's the difference between wanting to earn more, and wanting to earn the same while doing less work?

Is the big issue that unions have some protections enshrined by law? Or does it just make people feel like unions are 'gaming the system', that they're being weaselly somehow?

The attitude towards the two seems quite disparate to me. *shrug*

[NoOptionB]

Screw them both. Small business ftw. The real economic Warriors.

[Winehole23]

The free association of workers hinders the freedom of employers to squeeze them.

Essentially, the little guy hates his own status and defends that of his boss. He wants to be the big, bad exploiter, and resents the efforts made to defend his own economic interests.

[jman3000]

From my personal experience at a major telecommunications company both union and non union workers are lazy as all fuck.

[NoOptionB]

The free association of workers hinders the freedom of employers to squeeze them.

Essentially, the little guy hates his own status and defends that of his boss. He wants to be the big, bad exploiter, and resents the efforts made to defend his own economic interests.

You have it all figured out don't you? :lmao

Perhaps the little guy is a realist and is content with the amount he is getting paid due to his current work load. Little guy understands if he continues to work hard he will surpass his peers and move up. Along the way, little guy is responsible with his earned income and intelligently invests it on his own instead of relying on others.

Union...


Little guy can't move up because little guy does not have seniority.



Little guy there is an opening!....wait.....hold on Little guy....dumb fat man cannot get fired because daddy union prevents it...sorry little guy...you'll have to wait a couple more years for an opening.

[Wild Cobra]

Reading through some of the threads, a strange disparity struck me:

Union workers are usually derided as lazy, unproductive, etc etc, and it's often said that they shouldn't have such promises/gaurantees/etc written into their union contract.

There are several problems with unions. Protecting employees who abuse the union protections are my biggest complaints.


However, the same people will promote executives making as much as they can, calling it the free market at work.

Non union competitive pay? Supply and demand, and the system works fine.


They don't seem to be much concerned with tax loopholes, and generally think that the less a government hassles a corp/executive, the better.

Loopholes are written in by the lawmakers for those who pander to them. I'm for less r-taxes, preferable no corporate/business tax. At least remove all loopholes.

What makes you think we agree with loopholes?


Why the derisiveness towards unions, who have struck a deal for their best interests? Isn't that a free market-type function? What's the difference between wanting to earn more, and wanting to earn the same while doing less work?

So you agree they're lazy?

Unions are a combined group of people who use their combined power to do what is best for the group. Problem is, that is not the case for all individuals. If you like group mentality over that of the individual, please move to a communist or socialist country.

Unions treat everyone equal. The piss poor worker gets paid the same as the stellar worker for the same seniority. Is that fair?


Is the big issue that unions have some protections enshrined by law? Or does it just make people feel like unions are 'gaming the system', that they're being weaselly somehow?

Unions were a good thing once upon a time, and some unions are still pretty good. Too many have become too powerful, and are doing more harm than good. The unions that piss me off the most are those who cover government employees. These jobs should be for people who want to do good things, not because they have a powerful union, so they are the best jobs. Worse yet, there is no real concern to balance a government employee union. Who represents the tax payers who actually foot the bill in negotiations?


The attitude towards the two seems quite disparate to me. *shrug*

If you say so. I personally like personal liberties rather than communal liberties.

[LnGrrrR]

Unions are a combined group of people who use their combined power to do what is best for the group. Problem is, that is not the case for all individuals. If you like group mentality over that of the individual, please move to a communist or socialist country.


As I've said before, I think all jobs should allow union and non-union employees, and those who wish to join the union may do so and those who don't, don't have to. But only union employees would get the benefits the union has bargained for.

But, of course, companies could choose to hire all union, no union, or a mix.

If a person agrees to join a union, then they're made that choice personally. Does it suck for someone who could make more? Perhaps... but they're free to try and work for someplace that doesn't have a union.

[Winehole23]

Perhaps the little guy is a realist and is content with the amount he is getting paid due to his current work load.I know very few people content with what they're getting paid.


Little guy understands if he continues to work hard he will surpass his peers and move up. Along the way, little guy is responsible with his earned income and intelligently invests it on his own instead of relying on others.All true. but none of this is inconsistent with trade unionism.


Union...


Little guy can't move up because little guy does not have seniority.



Little guy there is an opening!....wait.....hold on Little guy....dumb fat man cannot get fired because daddy union prevents it...sorry little guy...you'll have to wait a couple more years for an opening.

I'm not exactly pro-union. I was just pointing out the inconsistency involved in supporting the free association of businesses and business owners (trade ass'ns and cartels) while denouncing the freedom of association of labor as somehow being inherently evil. It is not.

[fyatuk]

Is the big issue that unions have some protections enshrined by law? Or does it just make people feel like unions are 'gaming the system', that they're being weaselly somehow?


I think both the Executive class and unions (not workers, just the union) are both scum.

Unions more because in the areas they are actually prominent, they have way too much protections and priviledges.

Not too terribly concerned either way, though. It's all capitalism, so if you are a capitalist, why begrudge anyone the method they make money.

[Wild Cobra]

From my personal experience at a major telecommunications company both union and non union workers are lazy as all fuck.
Are you in telecommunications?

I studied electronics since 1969. I never went to college, but telecommunications jobs for electronic technicians in 1980 were paying 50k+ nonunion. I was always too bored in school, too easy... Couldn't stand the thought of college. I joined the Army in 1981 as a Startigic Microwave Systems Repairer, to get experience added to my electronics knowledge. I stayed for three tours. When I left in 1992, the best paying telecommunications job I could find repairing microwave and fiberoptic equipment was $27k. Not only was it a union job, but a monekey could do it. It no longer required skilled troubleshooting abilities.

Red light on circuit card = change circuit card.

Needless to say, I went into Semiconductor Automation equipment repair, non-union. Payed real well. When you can get a $2 per hour pay raise because of ability... What union job allows that?

[Wild Cobra]

If a person agrees to join a union, then they're made that choice personally. Does it suck for someone who could make more? Perhaps... but they're free to try and work for someplace that doesn't have a union.
It wouldn't bother me if a union just bargained fairly, without silly restriction.

Because I am a technician where I work, I cannot even move something in my way to do my job. I have to wait for an operator to move a piece of their product out of my way to do my job. If I move it, I can get fired for taking away work hours from them, which can justify more or less people for them.

It's fucking stupid. If I need to move something away from the back of the equipment so I can have access to it, I should be able to.

Now here's where it gets even stupider. We belong to the same union, even though we should have our own. The union cares more for the operators. There are maybe 20 times as many vs. technicians. They make almost as much as we do, even though there is virtually no skill required for their job.

Unions really only care about themselves. In doing so, they pander to the best interest of the majority. They don't really do what is best for all. My employer wants to pay technicians more to reduce the turnover rate. The union won't let them!

[LnGrrrR]

It wouldn't bother me if a union just bargained fairly, without silly restriction.

Because I am a technician where I work, I cannot even move something in my way to do my job. I have to wait for an operator to move a piece of their product out of my way to do my job. If I move it, I can get fired for taking away work hours from them, which can justify more or less people for them.

It's fucking stupid. If I need to move something away from the back of the equipment so I can have access to it, I should be able to.

Now here's where it gets even stupider. We belong to the same union, even though we should have our own. The union cares more for the operators. There are maybe 20 times as many vs. technicians. They make almost as much as we do, even though there is virtually no skill required for their job.

Unions really only care about themselves. In doing so, they pander to the best interest of the majority. They don't really do what is best for all.

Yeah, that's pretty asinine.

I've had issues in the military where I got chewed out for fixing a circuit... why? Because the portion of the circuit that I fixed was supposed to be fixed by a contractor. Go figure.

[SpurNation]

I don't think there's any difference between unions (or the leaders of unions) and the CEO's of business except for one supplies the labor to produce where as the other supplies the materials and work environment.

Both of which are rewarded handsomely regardless of profit & loss.

I wonder to what extent (percentage) the actual majority of union member's concerns are perpetrated in contract negotiations?

I ask this because I know several union workers in various industries that have told me that they would accept less benefits and or even pay reduction in order to help during economic slump or despair due to market conditions just to maintain their jobs. Only to be part of a growing list within their respected unions to suffer layoffs due to those market conditions which are heavily effected because of union labor laws and the union leaders negotiating contracts not making enough concessions and even more demands.

I guess the bottomline to your question might be...there is no difference except for what side of the aisle one stands on regarding the issue.

The irony of it all is that many of the parts and materials used in union based manufacturing and service are bought from non-union after market companies.

Just goes to show...everybody is on their own wagon and will defend that territory without regard to others who might be effected that aren't.

All for the name of....greed.

[Winehole23]

Just goes to show...everybody is on their own wagon and will defend that territory without regard to others who might be effected that aren't.

All for the name of....greed.I believe the economist's euphemism for the bolded is "rational self-interest."