[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51937845]Several of the issues you listed are the result of union expansion and greed. Keep in mind that some of the top 1% are also union bosses; it's not in their interest to give the worker leverage.
It's a shitty situation because if people start to leave the unions, they'll lose their jobs because of the unions because they have such massive pull over entire industries.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but shouldn't the solution be to fix the problem rather than nuke it? If you just nuke unions then you've removed a middleman but you're still getting pooped on and have no leverage. Again, what other options are there to gain leverage? You either need worker controlled companies or worker controlled unions. Either will do I suppose.
I'm also not sure how outsourced labor is the fault of unions, unless this is not one of the issues you're considering as union caused. I can see rising education cost as being caused in part by unions but certainly not entirely (or even majorly).
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51937953]Fair enough, but shouldn't the solution be to fix the problem rather than nuke it? If you just nuke unions then you've removed a middleman but you're still getting pooped on and have no leverage. Again, what other options are there to gain leverage? You either need worker controlled companies or worker controlled unions. Either will do I suppose.
I'm also not sure how outsourced labor is the fault of unions, unless this is not one of the issues you're considering as union caused. I can see rising education cost as being caused in part by unions but certainly not entirely (or even majorly).[/QUOTE]
Basically, the unions are union run and union "owned", they're not really worker owned like they should be. At least with the union I was royally ass fucked by, there wasn't any sort of way to get officials out of their positions, so if you had asses above you, they were there for life. It needs to be nuked and rebuilt from the ground up by people who care for the worker, not their wallets.
I blame outsourcing of labor on unions because unions made it tougher than it needed to be to run a business in certain areas of the US. You can [b]partly[/b] blame the downfall of Detroit on unionization of the auto industry. With that said, corporations probably would have moved regardless, but unions sped the process.
I think we're in fair agreement then. If things were actually worker controlled everything would be gravy.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51938099]I think we're in fair agreement then. If things were actually worker controlled everything would be gravy.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. The theory of unions of good, US application of them is literally worse than Hitler.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51937374]This is a non sequitur.[/QUOTE]
It really isn't. If workers thought they were needed, then they would be starting them. This isn't happening for one of two reasons:
1) The workers in question don't think they need unions.
2) There are plenty of other workers who don't think they need unions, therefore taking away bargaining power from those who do.
In the end, workers are the deciding factor. No business can stop all their workers from forming a union unless they can easily replace those workers with other workers who don't care.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938131]It really isn't. If workers thought they were needed, then they would be starting them. This isn't happening for one of two reasons:
1) The workers in question don't think they need unions.
2) There are plenty of other workers who don't think they need unions, therefore taking away bargaining power from those who do.
In the end, workers are the deciding factor. No business can stop all their workers from forming a union unless they can easily replace those workers with other workers who don't care.[/QUOTE]
Walmart.
Walmart gives it's managers, salary and hourly, yearly training on how to deal with potential unionization and nip it in the bud. Most large companies are like this. A lot of workers want unionization, but can't do anything about it because of the immense risk of losing their jobs.
Most large corporations would rather deal with a few empty positions than a few vocal unionists.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51938157]Walmart.
Walmart gives it's managers, salary and hourly, yearly training on how to deal with potential unionization and nip it in the bud. Most large companies are like this. A lot of workers want unionization, but can't do anything about it because of the immense risk of losing their jobs.
Most large corporations would rather deal with a few empty positions than a few vocal unionists.[/QUOTE]
No amount of managerial prodding could stop all the workers of Walmart from unionizing. There were TONS of people trying to stop unions when they first formed in the US, that's nothing new.
The workers of Walmart don't unionize because there are tons of workers who would happily work at Walmart without a union.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938171]No amount of managerial prodding could stop all the workers of Walmart from unionizing. There were TONS of people trying to stop unions when they first formed in the US, that's nothing new.
The workers of Walmart don't unionize because there are tons of workers who would happily work at Walmart without a union.[/QUOTE]
Yea, thats my point, it's impossible to unionize it, even though a lot of people there want unionization.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938131]It really isn't. If workers thought they were needed, then they would be starting them. This isn't happening for one of two reasons:
1) The workers in question don't think they need unions.
2) There are plenty of other workers who don't think they need unions, therefore taking away bargaining power from those who do.
In the end, workers are the deciding factor. No business can stop all their workers from forming a union unless they can easily replace those workers with other workers who don't care.[/QUOTE]
You ignore the economic advantages of properly functioning unions to make the argument:
If workers do not want unions, they are unnecessary.
Workers do not want unions.
Therefore, unions are unnecessary.
This is a non sequitar.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51938157]Walmart.
Walmart gives it's managers, salary and hourly, yearly training on how to deal with potential unionization and nip it in the bud. Most large companies are like this. A lot of workers want unionization, but can't do anything about it because of the immense risk of losing their jobs.
Most large corporations would rather deal with a few empty positions than a few vocal unionists.[/QUOTE]
Walmart literally brainwashes their employees into not unionizing. They play a 10 minute long video talking about how terrible unions are and how they steal your money, hurt your job and do nothing for you. It may have some points but it's so heavily propaganda because at one point they literally show a "union rep" showing up at your door with an evil grin, handing you a piece of paper asking you to sign blindly and the whole time hes wringing his hands like a stereotypical devil/jew. It's ridiculous.
[editline]9th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=bdd458;51936361]No, it's 90.2% not enough.[/QUOTE]
89.2%*
Unions can be bad
Unions can be good
Unfortunately the US has the worst elements of everything on display and it's only going to get considerably worse in the future.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938171]No amount of managerial prodding could stop all the workers of Walmart from unionizing. There were TONS of people trying to stop unions when they first formed in the US, that's nothing new.
The workers of Walmart don't unionize because there are tons of workers who would happily work at Walmart without a union.[/QUOTE]
The workers of Walmart don't unionize because there's enough desperate people out there that Walmart can just fire entire stores if they want and they'll still have cheap, exploitable labor ready to fill in for the next week. They intimidate their workers out of unionizing. I don't call that "happily working without a union."
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;51938227]The workers of Walmart don't unionize because there's enough desperate people out there that Walmart can just fire entire stores if they want and they'll still have cheap, exploitable labor ready to fill in for the next week. They intimidate their workers out of unionizing. I don't call that "happily working without a union."[/QUOTE]
Begrudgingly, then. Whatever the case may be, there are more workers willing to work without a union than workers who aren't willing to work without a union.
They are "intimidating" their workers out of striking (The logical conclusion of unionization). Yeah, sure, they want their workers to work.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938344]Begrudgingly, then. Whatever the case may be, there are more workers willing to work without a union than workers who aren't willing to work without a union.[/QUOTE]
I'm only willing to work without a union because if I demand a union I will lose my job that took me several months to get and I cannot afford to live without.
this is not unions being unwanted, this is being forced to avoid them
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938344]Begrudgingly, then. Whatever the case may be, there are more workers willing to work without a union than workers who aren't willing to work without a union.
They are "intimidating" their workers out of striking (The logical conclusion of unionization). Yeah, sure, they want their workers to work.[/QUOTE]
the alternative for many people is to go hungry and unemployed.
I don't think that should stay that way. I don't think unions are a inherintly good thing, but I think they're very valuable for the rights of the workers and getting workers away from a situation like "asking for a union can cost you your job"
[QUOTE=skylortrexle;51938347]I'm only willing to work without a union because if I demand a union I will lose my job that took me several months to get and I cannot afford to live without.
this is not unions being unwanted, this is being forced to avoid them[/QUOTE]
The logical conclusion of a union is A) a strike or B) higher wages/less work/etc.
Your employer is telling you that if you A) stop working or B) demand higher wages than some other person of comparable skill (or you will stop working), then they're going to fire you. Yes, that makes perfect sense.
[editline]9th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51938363]the alternative for many people is to go hungry and unemployed.
I don't think that should stay that way. I don't think unions are a inherintly good thing, but I think they're very valuable for the rights of the workers and getting workers away from a situation like "asking for a union can cost you your job"[/QUOTE]
If you can't fire someone for striking, then you've effectively lost all ability to negotiate as an employer.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938364]The logical conclusion of a union is A) a strike or B) higher wages/less work/etc.
Your employer is telling you that if you A) stop working or B) demand higher wages than some other person of comparable skill (or you will stop working), then they're going to fire you. Yes, that makes perfect sense.[/QUOTE]
well sure it does but at a certain point it caves in it would seem
what if the wages aren't good enough? what if the hours are too much? I know your reply would be "Then the workers will choose to work at better places and that company will go under". I do not believe that is very true in todays world.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938344]Begrudgingly, then. Whatever the case may be, there are more workers willing to work without a union than workers who aren't willing to work without a union.
They are "intimidating" their workers out of striking (The logical conclusion of unionization). Yeah, sure, they want their workers to work.[/QUOTE]
Nah they just want to make their bottom line bigger
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938364]
If you can't fire someone for striking, then you've effectively lost all ability to negotiate as an employer.[/QUOTE]
And the employee has no real power in the first place, so I assume the company holding all of it is of more value to you than the person holding some power?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51938372]Nah they just want to make their bottom line bigger[/QUOTE]
Of course they do, just like the worker wants to make their bottom line bigger. That's everyone's goal in the situation. It's the entire reason we have negotiations.
[QUOTE]well sure it does but at a certain point it caves in it would seem
what if the wages aren't good enough? what if the hours are too much? I know your reply would be "Then the workers will choose to work at better places and that company will go under". I do not believe that is very true in todays world.[/QUOTE]
Of course it's true! If, say, Intel consistently underpaid their workers relative to the industry norm, then they would have an extremely hard time getting good talent and would suffer as a business. This applies to all skilled industries.
When it comes to low/no skill jobs, then yes, of course workers don't have much negotiating power. They have VERY little economic value. I know that sounds mean, but it's the truth. They provide little economic benefit to the company and are easy to replace.
[editline]9th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51938376]And the employee has no real power in the first place, so I assume the company holding all of it is of more value to you than the person holding some power?[/QUOTE]
Every person has some power, but it's relative to your economic value. If you are digging holes all day, then you probably won't have much negotiating power. If you are a quantum physicist at the top of your field, then you are going to have incredible negotiating power.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938394]Of course they do, just like the worker wants to make their bottom line bigger. That's everyone's goal in the situation. It's the entire reason we have negotiations.
Of course it's true! If, say, Intel consistently underpaid their workers relative to the industry norm, then they would have an extremely hard time getting good talent and would suffer as a business. This applies to all skilled industries.
When it comes to low/no skill jobs, then yes, of course workers don't have much negotiating power. They have VERY littler economic value. I know that sounds mean, but it's the truth. They provide little economic benefit to the company and are easy to replace.[/QUOTE]
And as being easy to replace, deserve miserable lives that are made more difficult by the nature of that "easily replacable" element, and automation and a million other things.
Should we return to the times where companies sheltered the poor in company housing, and that was essentially all those people lived to do?
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938394]Of course they do, just like the worker wants to make their bottom line bigger. That's everyone's goal in the situation. It's the entire reason we have negotiations.[/QUOTE]
The difference between the two is that the worker actually needs their bottom line to be bigger.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938394]If you are a quantum physicist at the top of your field, then you are going to have incredible negotiating power.[/QUOTE]
not with this administration apparently
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51938399]And as being easy to replace, deserve miserable lives that are made more difficult by the nature of that "easily replacable" element, and automation and a million other things.
Should we return to the times where companies sheltered the poor in company housing, and that was essentially all those people lived to do?[/QUOTE]
Deserve? No, of course not. I don't think anyone deserves anything beyond the protection of their human rights. I don't think companies should be responsible for providing charity to their workers. If we, as a society, decide that there needs to be a minimum living standard, then we, as a society, should supply it. We should not demand that businesses supply it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938408]Deserve? No, of course not. I don't think anyone deserves anything beyond the protection of their human rights. I don't think companies should be responsible for providing charity to their workers. If we, as a society, decide that there needs to be a minimum living standard, then we, as a society, should supply it. We should not demand that businesses supply it.[/QUOTE]
Hah
Wow
You look at a historical form of what amounts to little more than slave ownership as "The company doing the people a favour"
The people who lived in the factories were miserable, mistreated, unhappy, and died young more often than not. Should we go back to that time? You're saying quite clearly that nobody deserves anything besides their rights protected(but not the right to unionize without outside forces making that harder/impossible)
Do low level, low importance, low value workers have any recourse? What should they do? Increase their value? How can one do that with any efficiency if their work life is negatively affecting their free time to achieve self improvement? And don't say no such condition exists
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51938419]Hah
Wow
You look at a historical form of what amounts to little more than slave ownership as "The company doing the people a favour"
The people who lived in the factories were miserable, mistreated, unhappy, and died young more often than not. Should we go back to that time? You're saying quite clearly that nobody deserves anything besides their rights protected(but not the right to unionize without outside forces making that harder/impossible)
Do low level, low importance, low value workers have any recourse? What should they do? Increase their value? How can one do that with any efficiency if their work life is negatively affecting their free time to achieve self improvement? And don't say no such condition exists[/QUOTE]
They can unionize. I have no problem with unions forming on their own, as they did originally, and will again if the conditions got bad enough.
You're also ignoring the part where I said that the society should provide the minimum living standard instead of forcing it on businesses.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938421]They can unionize. I have no problem with unions forming on their own, as they did originally, and will again if the conditions got bad enough.
You're also ignoring the part where I said that the society should provide the minimum living standard instead of forcing it on businesses.[/QUOTE]
No I'm not ignoring that what so ever
but in the other thread we're arguing in you're saying corporations shouldn't have to play a role, or pay
so the entirety of everything comes down to "Society" needs to do these things, meanwhile, society is being told what to do by large corporations and groups that don't have societies interests at hearts, but their own, and we have people openly working against their own interests and you'd basically be okay with returning to an industrial england level of concern for society and concern for profit
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51938429]No I'm not ignoring that what so ever
but in the other thread we're arguing in you're saying corporations shouldn't have to play a role, or pay
so the entirety of everything comes down to "Society" needs to do these things, meanwhile, society is being told what to do by large corporations and groups that don't have societies interests at hearts, but their own, and we have people openly working against their own interests and you'd basically be okay with returning to an industrial england level of concern for society and concern for profit[/QUOTE]
When you say that society is being told what to do, I assume you're referring to lobbyists. If that's incorrect, please let me know.
I agree that corruption is impossible to control in a large and powerful government. It's one of the reasons I don't like them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938433]When you say that society is being told what to do, I assume you're referring to lobbyists. If that's incorrect, please let me know.
I agree that corruption is impossible to control in a large and powerful government. It's one of the reasons I don't like them.[/QUOTE]
No i'm referring to the social presence companies have.
Do you believe that companies like Starbucks, Mcdonalds, and Amazon play a role in influencing the general populations beliefs about things? Do you believe that as citizens, under citizen united, they spread their own social messages, ones that they believe bring them the most utility and value in a long term, or short term sense?
You don't like government, but you love companies. Why
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51938439]No i'm referring to the social presence companies have.
Do you believe that companies like Starbucks, Mcdonalds, and Amazon play a role in influencing the general populations beliefs about things? Do you believe that as citizens, under citizen united, they spread their own social messages, ones that they believe bring them the most utility and value in a long term, or short term sense?
You don't like government, [B]but you love companies[/B]. Why[/QUOTE]
Stop saying this. It's patently false and I've never said it myself.
About your questions: Sure they influence things, but so do individuals. Political leaders have HUGE influences. I'm not sure how the fact that they can influence things establishes anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.