Why I love unions.

[MrJonno]

Unionism is a natural part of capitalism , people form companies ie unions and sell their services together to other companies

[Seth]

The Germans seem to cope ok with Unions.

Might have something to do with the fact that Germans use unions to ensure safe working conditions and fair wages, whereas American unions are political organizations that have nothing to do with anything but supporting leftist political candidates and stealing money from union members to pad the bank accounts of union bosses.

[Jason]

Without unions you would all be working for one groat a month without holidays. So shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about or better still show me some benign capitalist system.

No we wouldn't. If we were, the 85 percent of the workers who ARE NOT in unions would be working for a groat without holidays. Remarkably, they aren't. Some ninety-four percent of them are working at non-union jobs and are being paid far above minimum wage and have things like health insurance and vacations.

That's an incredibly stupid argument for someone orders of magnitude more intelligent than anyone here. Non-union workers enjoy those benefits because the threat of unionization is always there. My brother worked for Toyota for 10 years and they offered benefits only slightly less than unionized auto companies because they did not want the CAW getting voted in. In fact, according to him, in their screening process of 4 or 5 interviews they weeded out people who showed tendencies or sympathies towards unionization. The fact is, they would not give those benefits if it were not for the unions in place. This applies everywhere, and that's a FACT.

[Jason]

The Germans seem to cope ok with Unions.

Might have something to do with the fact that Germans use unions to ensure safe working conditions and fair wages, whereas American unions are political organizations that have nothing to do with anything but supporting leftist political candidates and stealing money from union members to pad the bank accounts of union bosses.

Might have something to do with the fact that American corporations are political organizations that have nothing to do with anything but supporting right wing political candidates and stealing money from the proles to pad the bank accounts of CEOs.

[Seth]

Without unions you would all be working for one groat a month without holidays. So shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about or better still show me some benign capitalist system.

No we wouldn't. If we were, the 85 percent of the workers who ARE NOT in unions would be working for a groat without holidays. Remarkably, they aren't. Some ninety-four percent of them are working at non-union jobs and are being paid far above minimum wage and have things like health insurance and vacations.

That's an incredibly stupid argument for someone orders of magnitude more intelligent than anyone here. Non-union workers enjoy those benefits because the threat of unionization is always there.

Nonsense. Non-union workers, who are in the vast majority and rising as union membership declines, enjoy those benefits because they are of value to the employer, who must compete with other employers for skilled employees who are selling their skills for an agreed-upon wage/benefits plan. Without skilled workers, employers cannot produce, or cannot OUTproduce their competitors and cannot increase market share and therefore profits. When employers increase market share and profit, their skilled workers, who are aware of their value, are in a position to negotiate better wages because they have demonstrated greater value to the company. If the employer does not keep pace with the market price for that labor, he will lose a valuable employee in whom the employer has invested significant amounts in training, to a competitor. It's a free market function that works quite well at keeping wages competitive...not so high that the employer cannot make a profit (which is exactly what killed Hostess)...and not so low that the employer loses his competitive edge by being stuck with inferior, non-productive employees...otherwise defined accurately as "union members."

Unions don't guarantee anything, they just suck away productivity while serving the political interests of corrupt union bosses.

My brother worked for Toyota for 10 years and they offered benefits only slightly less than unionized auto companies because they did not want the CAW getting voted in. In fact, according to him, in their screening process of 4 or 5 interviews they weeded out people who showed tendencies or sympathies towards unionization. The fact is, they would not give those benefits if it were not for the unions in place. This applies everywhere, and that's a FACT.

No it's not, it's union propaganda. Unionized employees comprise less than 15 percent of the workforce, and in most cases, with a few notable exceptions like the auto industry, are not in control of anything.

[Jason]

Without unions you would all be working for one groat a month without holidays. So shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about or better still show me some benign capitalist system.

No we wouldn't. If we were, the 85 percent of the workers who ARE NOT in unions would be working for a groat without holidays. Remarkably, they aren't. Some ninety-four percent of them are working at non-union jobs and are being paid far above minimum wage and have things like health insurance and vacations.

That's an incredibly stupid argument for someone orders of magnitude more intelligent than anyone here. Non-union workers enjoy those benefits because the threat of unionization is always there.

Nonsense. Non-union workers, who are in the vast majority and rising as union membership declines, enjoy those benefits because they are of value to the employer, who must compete with other employers for skilled employees who are selling their skills for an agreed-upon wage/benefits plan. Without skilled workers, employers cannot produce, or cannot OUTproduce their competitors and cannot increase market share and therefore profits. When employers increase market share and profit, their skilled workers, who are aware of their value, are in a position to negotiate better wages because they have demonstrated greater value to the company. If the employer does not keep pace with the market price for that labor, he will lose a valuable employee in whom the employer has invested significant amounts in training, to a competitor. It's a free market function that works quite well at keeping wages competitive...not so high that the employer cannot make a profit (which is exactly what killed Hostess)...and not so low that the employer loses his competitive edge by being stuck with inferior, non-productive employees...otherwise defined accurately as "union members."

Unions don't guarantee anything, they just suck away productivity while serving the political interests of corrupt union bosses.

That's assuming a 'seller's market', which we all know the employment market is not. It's a buyers market. Corporations will pay as little as they can and give as few benefits as they can at any given time. The fact that the threat of their employees unionizing is what keeps employees well paid and getting cushy benefits.

My brother worked for Toyota for 10 years and they offered benefits only slightly less than unionized auto companies because they did not want the CAW getting voted in. In fact, according to him, in their screening process of 4 or 5 interviews they weeded out people who showed tendencies or sympathies towards unionization. The fact is, they would not give those benefits if it were not for the unions in place. This applies everywhere, and that's a FACT.

No it's not, it's union propaganda. Unionized employees comprise less than 15 percent of the workforce, and in most cases, with a few notable exceptions like the auto industry, are not in control of anything.

[/quote]
Who said 'control'? It's a threat to Toyota. The union (CAW in this case) is a threat to Toyota and in order to keep it out they pay nearly as well and have a nearly as good benefit package plus the employees don't have to pay union dues. It works well for both, however, it would not exist if it were not for the threat of unionization.

[Seth]

The Germans seem to cope ok with Unions.

Might have something to do with the fact that Germans use unions to ensure safe working conditions and fair wages, whereas American unions are political organizations that have nothing to do with anything but supporting leftist political candidates and stealing money from union members to pad the bank accounts of union bosses.

Might have something to do with the fact that American corporations are political organizations that have nothing to do with anything but supporting right wing political candidates and stealing money from the proles to pad the bank accounts of CEOs.

They aren't stealing anything, it's THEIR MONEY. The workers get paid up front, before the risks of market failure show themselves, while the corporation and investors risk their investment for a larger return because, unlike the worker, they stand to lose everything if the company fails. All the worker loses is his job...he still gets paid before anyone else even when the company closes.

And it's not like the worker is entitled to have a job with any particular employer after all. If he gets laid off, he can go market his skills to someone else and compete with everyone else in the labor market. That keeps him competitive...meaning he's required to maintain and improve his skill set so that he offers value to an employer. Since nobody's entitled to a job, that encourages people to work hard to be valuable and productive.

Unions, on the other hand, use political and economic force to keep incompetent, inept, valueless employees in jobs the employer either doesn't need or want or that could be done much more efficiently and cost-effectively by a more skilled employee. In forcing employers to pay for slackers, idlers and incompetents merely because they are union members, the unions shoot themselves in the foot by reducing productivity and profit in an orgy of selfishness that eventually does to the company precisely what happened to Hostess...they drive it into the ground with their outrageous wage and benefit demands and their low productivity, and the company goes out of business and then they are ALL out of jobs.

And the only thing that saved GM workers was unlawful, fraudulent and immoral intervention by Barack Obama and his minions who stole directly from the secured bondholders and handed the company to the unions at public expense. Nobody wins when government tips the scales, and GM will eventually collapse again because the unions are too greedy for their own good.

[Seth]

Without unions you would all be working for one groat a month without holidays. So shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about or better still show me some benign capitalist system.

No we wouldn't. If we were, the 85 percent of the workers who ARE NOT in unions would be working for a groat without holidays. Remarkably, they aren't. Some ninety-four percent of them are working at non-union jobs and are being paid far above minimum wage and have things like health insurance and vacations.

That's an incredibly stupid argument for someone orders of magnitude more intelligent than anyone here. Non-union workers enjoy those benefits because the threat of unionization is always there.

Nonsense. Non-union workers, who are in the vast majority and rising as union membership declines, enjoy those benefits because they are of value to the employer, who must compete with other employers for skilled employees who are selling their skills for an agreed-upon wage/benefits plan. Without skilled workers, employers cannot produce, or cannot OUTproduce their competitors and cannot increase market share and therefore profits. When employers increase market share and profit, their skilled workers, who are aware of their value, are in a position to negotiate better wages because they have demonstrated greater value to the company. If the employer does not keep pace with the market price for that labor, he will lose a valuable employee in whom the employer has invested significant amounts in training, to a competitor. It's a free market function that works quite well at keeping wages competitive...not so high that the employer cannot make a profit (which is exactly what killed Hostess)...and not so low that the employer loses his competitive edge by being stuck with inferior, non-productive employees...otherwise defined accurately as "union members."

Unions don't guarantee anything, they just suck away productivity while serving the political interests of corrupt union bosses.

That's assuming a 'seller's market', which we all know the employment market is not. It's a buyers market. Corporations will pay as little as they can and give as few benefits as they can at any given time. The fact that the threat of their employees unionizing is what keeps employees well paid and getting cushy benefits.

Complete nonsense. Employers who compensate their employees fairly get better productivity and better profits. Unions are a minor inconvenience to the vast majority of employers, because 70 percent of them are small businesses who don't have to worry about unions in the first place.

My brother worked for Toyota for 10 years and they offered benefits only slightly less than unionized auto companies because they did not want the CAW getting voted in. In fact, according to him, in their screening process of 4 or 5 interviews they weeded out people who showed tendencies or sympathies towards unionization. The fact is, they would not give those benefits if it were not for the unions in place. This applies everywhere, and that's a FACT.

No it's not, it's union propaganda. Unionized employees comprise less than 15 percent of the workforce, and in most cases, with a few notable exceptions like the auto industry, are not in control of anything.

[/quote]

Who said 'control'? It's a threat to Toyota. The union (CAW in this case) is a threat to Toyota and in order to keep it out they pay nearly as well and have a nearly as good benefit package plus the employees don't have to pay union dues. It works well for both, however, it would not exist if it were not for the threat of unionization.

Nonsense. Toyota pays its workers well because it wants skilled, loyal, dedicated employees. Of course it doesn't want a union involved because all unions do is drag down the company and bankrupt it, but that's not why Toyota pays well.

[Jason]

No we wouldn't. If we were, the 85 percent of the workers who ARE NOT in unions would be working for a groat without holidays. Remarkably, they aren't. Some ninety-four percent of them are working at non-union jobs and are being paid far above minimum wage and have things like health insurance and vacations.

That's an incredibly stupid argument for someone orders of magnitude more intelligent than anyone here. Non-union workers enjoy those benefits because the threat of unionization is always there.

Nonsense. Non-union workers, who are in the vast majority and rising as union membership declines, enjoy those benefits because they are of value to the employer, who must compete with other employers for skilled employees who are selling their skills for an agreed-upon wage/benefits plan. Without skilled workers, employers cannot produce, or cannot OUTproduce their competitors and cannot increase market share and therefore profits. When employers increase market share and profit, their skilled workers, who are aware of their value, are in a position to negotiate better wages because they have demonstrated greater value to the company. If the employer does not keep pace with the market price for that labor, he will lose a valuable employee in whom the employer has invested significant amounts in training, to a competitor. It's a free market function that works quite well at keeping wages competitive...not so high that the employer cannot make a profit (which is exactly what killed Hostess)...and not so low that the employer loses his competitive edge by being stuck with inferior, non-productive employees...otherwise defined accurately as "union members."

Unions don't guarantee anything, they just suck away productivity while serving the political interests of corrupt union bosses.

That's assuming a 'seller's market', which we all know the employment market is not. It's a buyers market. Corporations will pay as little as they can and give as few benefits as they can at any given time. The fact that the threat of their employees unionizing is what keeps employees well paid and getting cushy benefits.

Complete nonsense. Employers who compensate their employees fairly get better productivity and better profits. Unions are a minor inconvenience to the vast majority of employers, because 70 percent of them are small businesses who don't have to worry about unions in the first place.

Of course they get better productivity and, as a result, better profits. If history has shown us anything, however, it is that greed is stupid. Corporations are greedy. They seek to slash overhead wherever possible. If unions where abolished today you wouldn't see benefits and wages fall significantly tomorrow, or next week, or even next year. It would be a slow decline over several decades, but it would happen.

My brother worked for Toyota for 10 years and they offered benefits only slightly less than unionized auto companies because they did not want the CAW getting voted in. In fact, according to him, in their screening process of 4 or 5 interviews they weeded out people who showed tendencies or sympathies towards unionization. The fact is, they would not give those benefits if it were not for the unions in place. This applies everywhere, and that's a FACT.

No it's not, it's union propaganda. Unionized employees comprise less than 15 percent of the workforce, and in most cases, with a few notable exceptions like the auto industry, are not in control of anything.

Who said 'control'? It's a threat to Toyota. The union (CAW in this case) is a threat to Toyota and in order to keep it out they pay nearly as well and have a nearly as good benefit package plus the employees don't have to pay union dues. It works well for both, however, it would not exist if it were not for the threat of unionization.

Nonsense. Toyota pays its workers well because it wants skilled, loyal, dedicated employees. Of course it doesn't want a union involved because all unions do is drag down the company and bankrupt it, but that's not why Toyota pays well.

As I said, well paid employees are more productive - the Toyota system works well for both. The only reason it exists, however, is because of the threat of unionization if they did not pay their employees well.

[Warren Dew]

And they are stupid too. Just look at the Hostess debacle. They went from having jobs, albeit not with the perks they wanted, to having no jobs at all. And the owners of Hostess will cash out their billions and go right on living the good life. Then someone will buy the Hostess patents and recipes and trademarks and re-open the company under new ownership, in a right-to-work state hostile to union bullying, and go right back to making Twinkies.

I think it's worth pointing out that right to work states have unions too. It's just that in a right to work state, workers aren't forced to join the unions, so the unions have to keep the workers' interests in mind to maintain their membership.

[JimC]

The Germans seem to cope ok with Unions.

Might have something to do with the fact that Germans use unions to ensure safe working conditions and fair wages, whereas American unions are political organizations that have nothing to do with anything but supporting leftist political candidates and stealing money from union members to pad the bank accounts of union bosses.

That indeed is the main point of unions; the other slurs might be true on occasion in various parts of the world. Certainly there are some dodgy union bosses in Oz, and sometimes they get carried away with political bullshit rather than their main task.

But overall, they are a necessary part of the checks and balances in a working society.

BTW, Seth, Marxist regimes of the past hated unions...

[amused]

Although Texas is a right to work state, there are unions and also prevailing wage laws for publicly funded construction projects. The unions make sure their wage rates are what get used as the basis for prevailing wage determinations.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Has anyone else noticed that since the decline of the Unions that the money appears to have run out - including the pension funds.........

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not a battle for public opinion (unless it's an essential service that can be mandated back to work in which case it is) CES. It's about hitting where and when it hurts. I'm addressing the general situation of course.

Well, they do seem to value public opinion, because they seek alliance from members of the consumer public, such that consumers will refrain from patronizing a business during a labor dispute, placing added pressure on the company. Things like this, fucking up travel for innocent members of the public, is not conducive to that end. I think it makes a lot of people react with a "fuck you, too" attitude.

[Coito ergo sum]

Without unions you would all be working for one groat a month without holidays. So shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about or better still show me some benign capitalist system.

Without for-profit business, our products and services would be absolute shit from a central planning office. Does that mean we got no right to bitch about their excesses?