Should labor unions be disbanded?

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Ya I have. Never set out to demean those who make MISTAKES though. Have you?

Judged:

1

1

Arctic49519 wrote:

<quoted text>
Short of re-writing or suspending the Constitution, labor unions will always exist to protect people.
In order to forcibly disband ( or you call it "relieving") would require eliminating people's rights under the pretext that it is for the "good of the state." This is the very definition of fascism. No thanks.
If you don't like unions, don't join one, but don't strip my rights away and say it's for my own good.
If you want to work in Kathy Lee Gifford sweatshop conditions, go right ahead. I'll pass.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's the issue: In empirical work, it is a stylized fact that a person who works for a union will make more than their exact counterpart. This means that if you take two people, one who works for a union and one who doesn't, who have the same human capital (schooling, general experience and technical experience), are the same gender, race,(I know this shouldn't matter, but it does oddly enough), married, no children (or same amount of children), ect. ect. the person in the union will make more than the free market participant. This lack of effeciency on behalf of the union participant causes artificial increases in prices for end products, as well as artificial increases in demand for a select group. I'm not going to go into all the economic implications of this b/c it takes too long....lol...I havn't had breakfast yet. You should read up on it though and educate yourself if you are really interested. Once you see the graphs and logic, it makes alot of sense with respect to how it negatively affects the Macro economy.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
Another great example of the inefficiencies of the union hnhmom. The severe 'specialization' of workers is not generally observed in non-unionized environments.

Arctic49519 wrote:

Unions are absolutely necessary to ensure workers get their fair share. Let's not forget the most recent example of american axle.
American Axle, which is and was profitable, demanded that the union workers take a 60% cut. AA was paying it's CEO tens of millions in bonuses. CEO D*ck Dauch received $58 MILLION in bonuses from 2003-2006.
Of course, the union went on strike earlier this year and the strike lasted a few months. The workers did not accept the 60% cut, but AA convinced them to take a concession and cut their pay by about $10-11/hr in exchange for buy-downs.
Soon after, AA slapped the workers in the face and gave CEO D*ck Dauch another $8.5 MILLION bonus, which was in addition to his $9.2 MILLION in other compensation. http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/2...
Slashing wages of workers just stuffs the pockets of the already fat cats.
Attacks on the unions are attacks on the middle class.

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
And based on our 3 branches of gov't with the checks and balances and the Founders hate of large, centralized gov't, why can't "to promote the general welfare" mean that gov't stays small and stays out of the way of the people.
I think that is a much more accurate interpretation than yours, SIB. You just choose to understand it from a socialist's point of view.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
I've posted it enough times that you should have, at least had the opportunity to, read that it has been the Republican/conservative party that has increased the size of government EVERY time they've taken "power" in the last 30 years. Clinton was the only president in the last 25 years that actually reduced the size of government.
That being said. The size of government does not necessarily mean it intrudes on the rights of the people or to not promote the general welfare. And one can not have a small government that subsidizes the profit making ventures of business. Such as, and I don't preclude the greed or opportunist behavior of borrowers, the government has now come forth to bail out financial institutions that created the sub-prime lending fiasco, though not the borrowers. To me that is another example of promoting the welfare of businesses. And as has been discussed many times before it is the tax payers that pay the expenditures of the government, not the businesses that pass their tax burden onto the people through the prices of the products and/or services consumers purchase. So who is it exactly that is bailing out these businesses? Certainly not the government. The government is simply the power facilitator for the welfare of business in doing so. And how that is staying small and out of the way of the people, I don't understand.
No I do not "just choose to understand it from a socialist's point of view". I choose to understand it from my anti-fascism point of view.

hnhmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Well i will be honest i do not understand half of what you said plus I am at work so to take the time to really get into it is hard for me. a couple of comments however, from your last post you said people would probably take the higher paying job, i am thinking that this would be even people who do not like the union..in my eyes this would be a hipocrate...secondly my husband does not have a degree but he did take a few years of college in fact he was an emt..which by the way could use a union for better pay..lastly i dont know if you are but you cant generalize that only unions pay more then the average company..i make at least 4/hr more then what most people doing my job would make and we do not have a union. I have no more special trainging or school then anyone else in this type of position.

Arctic49519 wrote:

Unions are absolutely necessary to ensure workers get their fair share. Let's not forget the most recent example of american axle.
American Axle, which is and was profitable, demanded that the union workers take a 60% cut. AA was paying it's CEO tens of millions in bonuses. CEO D*ck Dauch received $58 MILLION in bonuses from 2003-2006.
Of course, the union went on strike earlier this year and the strike lasted a few months. The workers did not accept the 60% cut, but AA convinced them to take a concession and cut their pay by about $10-11/hr in exchange for buy-downs.
Soon after, AA slapped the workers in the face and gave CEO D*ck Dauch another $8.5 MILLION bonus, which was in addition to his $9.2 MILLION in other compensation. http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/2...
Slashing wages of workers just stuffs the pockets of the already fat cats.
Attacks on the unions are attacks on the middle class.

hnhmom wrote:

<quoted text>
yes you are correct that that phrase is used and my husband has heard it alot. at the same time how many non union companies take advantage of employees by having them do things that aren't their job.

hnhmom wrote:

<quoted text>
yes you are correct that that phrase is used and my husband has heard it alot. at the same time how many non union companies take advantage of employees by having them do things that aren't their job.

hnhmom wrote:

lets talk about a salaried position when someone makes 60,000 year and has to work 60+ hours because they have to do things that arent necessarily their job. this breaks down to 19/hr approximately while at 40/hrs this would be at 28/hr. i can see in this scenario exactly why someone would want to be in a union

Ionia 2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Your right, Im sure that non union companies try and have employees do things that are " not their job ". It goes both ways. But when you have someone who has the knowledge, abitlity and desire, it makes no sense to tell them " Nope, shut down and wait ".

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
There are plenty middle class citizens who do not work for unions. W/o unions, the market would find some equilibrium and the middle class would continue to exist.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
There's a reason you make more $$$ than others. You may have more experience, or the company you work for sees your marginal worth is higher as you make them more profits. If there were another person that your company seen as 'as qualified as you' who was willing to work for 4$ less than your wage, chances are they would replace you.....companies are in the business for profits and this would increase thier profits. Wages being bid down due to a decreased demand of employees on behalf of the employers is nothing new. Given, there are some companies who show a degree of loyalty. However, realizing profits is the bottom line. I wouldn't say that a person in that hypothetical situation is a hipocrite, rather, people are rational and everybody acts in their own self interests. Whether a person was against a union or not, I would be willing to bet that they would take the 30$/hr job because there is a great incentive to. However, there is more to a job than just the pay. There may be others out there who feel that working in a nice environment rates up there with pay and would turn down a union job which does not meet this criteria. I'm not generalizing on my observations. On average,(everything is on average in statistical studies!), unionized employees will make more than a non-unionized employee, all else constant (ceteris paribus).

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
What is considered 'not thier job'? If a person isn't trained on a machine, they surely can't operate it. However, if the floor needs to be swept of debris around your machine, why shouldn't that be included in your general reponsibilities?

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
People choose to do this though. They must find some worth in the job they have accepted otherwise, they wouldn't be doing it.