Reply With Quote
When having money stops giving grossly disproportionate representation. Its not hard to figure out.
And that is total bull . There will always be someone that makes more than you and someone that makes less than you. It is equally bad to look down on those making less than it is to envy those making more. The critical difference in my opinion is are they TRYING to do better...I have zero sympathy for the leeches on the system that feel they are en led to "stuff" just for existing.
When having money stops giving grossly disproportionate representation. Its not hard to figure out.
Don't forget the unions GOP-bot.
Who exactly is doing this btw? Specific examples or it doesn't count.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you expand on exactly what you are asking?
As to unions, it is my opinion that Unions have outlived their usefulness and have become bloated bureaucracies that perpetuate mediocrity in the workplace and not meritocracy and principally benefit the union bosses and the politicians they buy. They are totally unnecessary in the modern work environment. aS an example, Toyota trucks are generally considered to be the best made trucks in the world and they are produced by happy, non-union workers in a safe and environmentally friendly work place.
I agree for the most part with your opinion on the usefulness of unions. However, I find the attempts to make unionization illegal to be rather vile and hypocritical.
People should have the right to organize if they choose, just as businesses have the right to not deal with organized labor if they want to. What Free Market justification can anyone present to make unions illegal? Seems like another example of "I'm all for free markets, except when they produce an outcome I don't like."
"They are totally unnecessary in the modern work environment."
the demonization and destruction of the unions by the VRWC is the key reason why real household income, even adding the underpaid wife's income in the 80s/90s, has been stagnant for 30+ years.
Note how the remaining unions and union employees are demonized as overpaid, and to be pulled down, rather than considering non-union employees to be underpaid. The VRWC won't be satisfied until Human-Americans are impoverished and beaten down to docile, grateful, intimidated subservience. That's one reason the VRWC actually wants the disastrous job market to last as long as possible, to keep cutting salaries and benefits to intimidated employees who are mostly 1 or 2 paychecks from disaster.
Unions are not innocent of some pretty bad stuff, but the impoverishment of the non-union workforce is MUCH WORSE. I'll give you a perfect union movement if you give me a perfect employer class. deal?
I think the legislation you are referring to was an attempt to limit the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, not to actually eliminate the unions...AND this excessive power was originally given to them by the politicians they bought. I really do see public employee unions differently than the unions that negotiate with a private company. The UAW going on strike and shutting down an auto plant typically just costs money to the company. If Police, Fire, Teachers et. go on strike it directly affects public safety and well being and really comes down to being thinly veiled blackmail with the public held hostage.
I think part of the reason you don't see this argument being made is that it's not true amongst the people who would generally make this kind of argument.Note how the remaining union employees are demonized as overpaid, and to be pulled down, rather than considering non-union employees to be underpaid/
Unions typically have the effect of standardizing pay, which is beneficial for below average workers and harmful to above average workers. In many "non-skilled" labor environments this isn't a major issue (since the "best" assembly line worker isn't significantly "better" than the average assembly line worker), but if you look at teachers unions, for example, the picture changes.
The best teacher IS significantly better than the average teacher, but that teacher's compensation is not commensurate with their relative skill set. Similarly, the worst teacher's compensation isn't much different than the average (not to mention the worst teacher still manages to have a job despite sucking at it). This tends to drive the most talented out of unionized labor pool.
Empirically, it is true that unionized employees do earn higher wages than non-unionized employees of equal skill set - but this fails to account for the fact that we aren't really considering the best caliber employees in these respective pools (in some cases).
With that said, I support the right of workers to unionize, because why shouldn't they have that right? So long as membership is voluntary and there is no retribution against non-members (some times there are, this is the corruption that needs to be weeded out of unionization), then there is no reason to criminalize it.
I won't really speak to the specifics of any proposed legislation (because I'm not up to date on them so rather than "I don't know so I just assume" like some other posters, I won't comment at all), but rather the belief of some that unions should not be allowed at all.
I agree.
I think unions had a better mission when they were first formed, but have become more powerful than they still be. I can still respect unions who represent workers of corporations. Still, I am of the opinion that public employees should consider themselves public servants, rather than en led better than the average person paying their wages. I don't believe we, as tax payers, have a proper advocate in negotiations that actually cares about how tax dollars are spent.
"collective bargaining power of public employee unions,
"not to actually eliminate the unions"
huh? what's the difference?
At a local level I am more familiar with it from dealing with members of the various construction trades. Many Federal and public contracts require not only that the contractors comply with Davis Bacon requirements but that they actually be union...that along with these huge manufacturing corporations that are union virtually force your big electrical and mechanical contractors to be union...and all their employees then have to join and pay dues to a national trade union that in many cases is not aligned with their own personal political views with the policies they support and the political donations they make...these employees simply don't have a choice if they want to work in their trade...
That's right.
Pay to play.
That's a good example of the corruption I was talking about that needs to be eliminated for a union system to be effective.
outlived their usefullness. Sure they have cause major American corps. just love doing right by their employees.
Sure, and unions just love doing right by their union bosses.
FYI.
The best paying jobs I have had were not union. Employers would compete for the best employes. Nice vacation times, profit sharing, stock purchase programs, etc.
I see unions as a crutch for lowest common denominator employees. Unions replace individual bargaining with collective bargaining. I prefer to be paid better than average, than having to average my wages with that lowest common denominator worker.
"best paying jobs I have had were not union"
another logical failure, extrapolating your particular to the general.
I see union-busting as how the 1% crush employees, howto stuff their own pockets and that of their investors with what should be employee salaries.
Real salaries have remained nearly stagnant for 30 years, some have even declined (single male workers since 1975) while the 1% take of the growth in national wealth has exploded. That's how sociopathic, smash-mouth, unregulated capitalism works.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-20-2011 at 08:32 PM.
I didn't say unions weren't corrupt, I've said plenty of times here. They are just as corrupt as the corporations that spawned them.
How many union jobs have you had?
I think your pity and automatic victim view point for poor is more thinking of the less fotunate as lower species
what other way is more fair? a union rep who makes three times as much as the people paying his budget?
You just agreed with what you answered to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
