Should labor unions be disbanded?

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
They represent the few and hurt the plenty.

They help everyone. Even the anti-union people. What many of these anti-union people don't realize is that union workplaces set the standard that all other workplaces are measured against. Unions improved wages, working conditions, and safety for their members decades ago, and non-union workplaces raised their standards in order to keep workers from unionizing. The people who badmouth the unions have directly benefited from what unions have accomplished.

There is no evidence that they "hurt the plenty" as you say. I'm not aware of unions hurting anyone (except for maybe those strikebreakers they beat up back in 1911.)

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Was your father employed by the union and contracted to the employer or was he employed by the company and had a unionized job?

Honestly I'm not sure. I know that the union would usually move him to "tougher" jobs as foreman. So I guess he was employed by the union. I do know that when he decided to start his own business to keep steady work coming the union threatned him and basically said if his company didn't go union they would never see work.

I've broke down and started reading comments and I hear a lot of hating on the union. But we really need to look at what the union has done for our labor laws. We have vaca time, child labor laws, work limits, time and a half, on and on, because of the union. We definitely owe them a lot of thanks, but I think we also have to consider, "do we still need them?".

I did have a union job once ( I worked at Meijer as a Kid) and they made Meijer let me keep my nose ring. Silly I know, but there are somethings that the Union can do that we as regular employees can't.

I really dont think this is a yes/no question.

Besides there are enough non union shops that if you dont want to work union you dont have to. If you dont want a union at your place of employment you have that voice to. But if you feel the need for a union at your place of employment and enough other employees feel the same way then that option should be there.

A union was talking with people where I work. Didnt last long, not because of management, but because the union had nothing to offer us.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>

"In doing so, however, they have reduced the number of jobs available." Picture a firm with no union. They produce were thier marginal costs equate to their marginal revenue in order to generate the most profits. The marginal costs entail employee compensation, i.e. wages and fringe benefits. Now let's assume that a union comes in, increasing wages and fringe benefits. The marginal costs of the firm will 'shift'. Whether this firm is a competitive firm (which entails a completely homogenous product....agriculture is perhaps the only business considered perfectly competitive) or competitive monopolist, the shift in thier marginal costs causes a reduction in the product made. Again marginal costs and marginal revenue determine the amount produced by a profit maximizing company. What happens when the amount of the product being produced is reduced? The company needs less employees. Hergo, there are less jobs in the unionized sector. The number of people who are WILLING to work has not been reduced, rather, the number of employees DEMANDED by the employer has been reduced.....therefore, the number of jobs has been reduced. This result has been produced artificially by the raising of union wages.

Now, these people who would like to work for the union, but can't b/c of a decrease of positions enter the 'non-union' sector. A flood of supply (in a demand-supply scenerio for labor, the employees are the suppliers) into the labor market of the non-union sector creates a surplus of labor. What happens when there is surplus of anything? Let's imagin winter coats. A producer makes 100 winter coats and sells them at a cost of 50$. There are only 25 consumers willing and able to purchase these winter coats at that price so the company is left with 75 winter coats. What happens? The company lowers the price of coats in order to clear thier inventory. This same scenerio is applied to the non-union sector. There are too many employees willing to work and not enough jobs. The wage of the non-union sector will be bid down by the excess supply of labor. You said: "individual companies have the individual power to set their prices." As you have seen from the winter coat example, companies cannot just set a half-hazard price.

"Most, if not all, unions have monopoly power, which they can use to raise wages above competitive levels." --- Unions restrict employment in this way. They control the pool of possible employees and cause the inflation of wages as explained above.

"If, which there are as evident in the auto industry between domestic and foreign manufacturers, any number of "competing" companies can produce the equivalent product at a lower price that would usually indicate more selling power. And no union can set the price of, say, a non-union company." --- I'm not too sure what you are trying to say here. When companies can produce the same product (a homogenous product) at a lower price, this does not entail selling power. Let's take the example of two French farmers who produce corn. Again, agriculture is one of the only examples of perfect competition, which is what you are referencing here. If farmer A is able to produce 100 bushels and sells it for $2.00 a bushel and farmer B produces 100 bushels and sells it for $3.00 a bushel......needless to say, farmer B would be out of business. His price would be bid down to $2.00 a bushel. In perfect competition, the players have no control over the selling price of the product and therefore they have no leverage.

The product prices are set by the market---forces of supply and demand. Companies do not arbitrarily set prices. I'm still not too sure of your arguement though.

Arctic49519 wrote:

<quoted text>
They help everyone. Even the anti-union people. What many of these anti-union people don't realize is that union workplaces set the standard that all other workplaces are measured against. Unions improved wages, working conditions, and safety for their members decades ago, and non-union workplaces raised their standards in order to keep workers from unionizing. The people who badmouth the unions have directly benefited from what unions have accomplished.
There is no evidence that they "hurt the plenty" as you say. I'm not aware of unions hurting anyone (except for maybe those strikebreakers they beat up back in 1911.)

Unions do not necessarily improve wages. See my post above and it is explained in detail. Beyond this though, it is nearly impossible for a unionized company to compete on the global market. With that said, when there is a product that you can either buy from a union at $5.00, but that same product can be purchased from, say, Germany, at only 2.50$(b/c the product was produced at the market wage instead of the union wage), which product are you going to buy? Most Americans will invest in the product costing $2.50. What happens when the unionized American company can't sell it's inventory? It lays off workers and cuts costs at every turn in order to still make a profit and atleast cover thier 'average variable costs'. If this doesn't help, the company either closes down for good, or packs up to leave where their marginal costs (employee compensation) will be more managable.

Unions are a counter power that keeps businesses in check. It is like a pendulum, with Unions on one side and Businesses on the other. If you take weight from either side, they become unbalanced. So basically, businesses want to pay less and unions want more pay, what will happen if you take away a union? Every thing that they have changed to help the American worker would soon be abolished.

Seenitbefore wrote:

Sure, lets take away everyone's legal rights that we personally don't like or don't have the stones to exercise for ourselves. That's the real American way....for fascists.

SIB, it's the unions that take away individual rights.

Unions do not offer any individual rights.

GRGirl wrote:

I've broke down and started reading comments and I hear a lot of hating on the union. But we really need to look at what the union has done for our labor laws. We have vaca time, child labor laws, work limits, time and a half, on and on, because of the union. We definitely owe them a lot of thanks, but I think we also have to consider, "do we still need them?".
I did have a union job once ( I worked at Meijer as a Kid) and they made Meijer let me keep my nose ring. Silly I know, but there are somethings that the Union can do that we as regular employees can't.

After we look at that, let's then look at what the Unions have done to our public school system.

Arctic49519 wrote:

<quoted text>
They help everyone. Even the anti-union people. What many of these anti-union people don't realize is that union workplaces set the standard that all other workplaces are measured against. Unions improved wages, working conditions, and safety for their members decades ago, and non-union workplaces raised their standards in order to keep workers from unionizing. The people who badmouth the unions have directly benefited from what unions have accomplished.
There is no evidence that they "hurt the plenty" as you say. I'm not aware of unions hurting anyone (except for maybe those strikebreakers they beat up back in 1911.)

Dude, what you describe is called Free Market. Free Market and companies want good labor.

They offer better compensation and work environment to attact better workers.

It's called capitalism and the MARKET establishes the bench mark, not unions.

And thank God that productivity is not measured against "Union" standards.

aimNfire wrote:

<quoted text>
SIB, it's the unions that take away individual rights.
Unions do not offer any individual rights.

That's actually exactly what unions do.

The way to Freedom wrote:

Unions are a counter power that keeps businesses in check. It is like a pendulum, with Unions on one side and Businesses on the other. If you take weight from either side, they become unbalanced. So basically, businesses want to pay less and unions want more pay, what will happen if you take away a union? Every thing that they have changed to help the American worker would soon be abolished.

Going along with your 'pendulum' approach, if unions were disbanded, the pendulum would come to an equilibrium resting at a fair market pay inbetween the two forces. People would be paid according thier productivity and human capital.

what rights does a non union worker have when they are passed up for a promotion because someone knows someone who knows someone.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
Going along with your 'pendulum' approach, if unions were disbanded, the pendulum would come to an equilibrium resting at a fair market pay inbetween the two forces. People would be paid according thier productivity and human capital.

Very wrong! I can't believe anyone except a business owner would believe such a thing. If they do look around, it has been supply economics for thhe last 7 years and the country is going down the tubes.

hnhmom wrote:

what rights does a non union worker have when they are passed up for a promotion because someone knows someone who knows someone.

I've had plenty of friends who have worked for GM....as far as I know they gain labor from the union. The only reason they were able to gain employment there is b/c thier father or mother had been employed by the union. Unions play the same game....you must know somebody who knows somebody. This isn't even a 'right' per say. Nobody has a right to get a promotion, the same as nobody has a right to recieve a drivers license.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
Going along with your 'pendulum' approach, if unions were disbanded, the pendulum would come to an equilibrium resting at a fair market pay inbetween the two forces. People would be paid according thier productivity and human capital.

do you really think that companies are that honest to pay a person what they are worth and to treat everyone fairly.

The way to Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Very wrong! I can't believe anyone except a business owner would believe such a thing. If they do look around, it has been supply economics for thhe last 7 years and the country is going down the tubes.

What do you mean with 'supply economics'? Supply side economics? This has more to do with tax breaks and the like. I'm not sure how this fits into your arguement. The country isn't necessarily going down the tubes, rather, in comparison to countries coming out of the woodwork, we have not been able to be as competitive. Unions have had thier part in this problem.

The way to Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Very wrong! I can't believe anyone except a business owner would believe such a thing. If they do look around, it has been supply economics for thhe last 7 years and the country is going down the tubes.

EXACTLY! It's been supply side economics and the results are quite obvious. As the "tinfoil hatted" "conspiracy theorists" knew from the outset would happen.

aimNfire wrote:

<quoted text>
SIB, it's the unions that take away individual rights.
Unions do not offer any individual rights.

Unions DO NOT take away individual rights. They trade individual rights for collective rights that ANY person can refuse or walk away from.

Yes there are union corruptions. Far less though than company corruptions. Being a free agent does not guarantee nirvana.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
I've had plenty of friends who have worked for GM....as far as I know they gain labor from the union. The only reason they were able to gain employment there is b/c thier father or mother had been employed by the union. Unions play the same game....you must know somebody who knows somebody. This isn't even a 'right' per say. Nobody has a right to get a promotion, the same as nobody has a right to recieve a drivers license.

That is just beyond my ability to comprehend and I have not found one legal precedent to support that assertion. NOT ONE that proves a unionized company has to subject their right of who to hire to the union. NOT ONE. In every law I know of in this country it's the COMPANY who has the EXCLUSIVE right of who gets hired.

The company I worked for decades ago hired firstly those who had family and/or known connections to an employee...in the non-union portion of the company. Nepotism was strong and the political climate proved that out.