An America without unions...? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : An America without unions...?


fella
11-25-2012, 09:30
So, the general sentiment on GT seems extremely anti-union.

I myself have worked one union job, and found the union-environment there revolting in many ways (though the pay was good).

However, if America were to eliminate any artificial wage supports, I foresee the complete destruction of the constructive segment of America's economy.

If the cost of labor were to become completely market-driven, American manufacturers would enevitably be forced to compete exclusively on price (effectively determined by the variable cost of labor). Our manufacturing sector would devolve into a system much (more) like that of China 15 years ago -- cheap junk produced by cheap, unskilled labor.

The only other alternative I see is a further mechanization of manufacturing -- eliminating labor costs ie.jobs even further... The natural evolutions of capitalism and consumerism cannot support an economy prefaced on high-skill/high-wage labor and mass-production of quality, boutique goods -- The only situation which would provide market-support of high wages.

Either way, the economic fortunes of most Americans suffer if wages are determined solely by the (generally) short-sighted American companies.

Any thoughts?

canis latrans
11-25-2012, 09:32
So, the general sentiment on GT seems extremely anti-union.

I myself have worked one union job, and found the union-environment there revolting in many ways (though the pay was good).

However, if America were to eliminate any artificial wage supports, I foresee the complete destruction of the constructive segment of America's economy.

If the cost of labor were to become completely market-driven, American manufacturers would enevitably be forced to compete exclusively on price (effectively determined by the variable cost of labor). Our manufacturing sector would devolve into a system much (more) like that of China 15 years ago -- cheap junk produced by cheap, unskilled labor.

The only other alternative I see is a further mechanization of manufacturing -- eliminating labor costs ie.jobs even further... The natural evolutions of capitalism and consumerism cannot support an economy prefaced on high-skill/high-wage labor and mass-production of quality, boutique goods -- The only situation which would provide market-support of high wages.

Either way, the economic fortunes of most Americans suffer if wages are determined solely by the (generally) short-sighted American companies.

Any thoughts?

yes. you have no reasoning ability.

ClydeG19
11-25-2012, 09:37
You don't think Americans will pay a premium for quality? There will always be a market for a well made/presented product, regardless of the sector.

fella
11-25-2012, 10:01
You don't think Americans will pay a premium for quality? There will always be a market for a well made/presented product, regardless of the sector.

Yes, however the luxury market is a VERY small fraction of GDP.
My thoughts relate more to established patterns which manifest given certain economic conditions. Specifically, that only relatively small (economically insignificant) markets (which compete on quality -- at a higher price) can flourish when faced with low (labor) cost competition.

For example, esteemed American companies such as Kershaw and spyderco, who formerly assembled all products in-house in the USA have shifted much of their production toward cheap Chinese mass-produced product lines.

Why China? Few unions, extremely low wages...

American, high-quality Spyderco=$80. Lower quality Chinese Spyderco=$25.

jakebrake
11-25-2012, 10:06
china has extremely loose labor laws. (i say that tongue in cheek). the problem, with a unionized america, is the unions will fight to keep an employee that is working under the influence of illegal substances (seen it), intentionally desytroying company property (seen it), stealing time (seen it) etc, etc,. and then demanding pay increases for less work.
when said company finally can't compete and goes under, whose fault is it? the customer that got tired of buying the "union made" oft inferior product? the "evil greedy" corporation? or the "worker friendly" union?

devildog2067
11-25-2012, 10:11
So, the general sentiment on GT seems extremely anti-union.

I would, in general, disagree with that statement.

The general sentiment on GT is anti-"what unions in this country have become." There's a difference. Unions haven't represented the best interests of the workers that make them up in a very, very long time, and it seems the workers are too stupid to see that truth.

However, if America were to eliminate any artificial wage supports, I foresee the complete destruction of the constructive segment of America's economy.

That idea is entirely without merit. It's quite stupid.

If the cost of labor were to become completely market-driven, American manufacturers would enevitably be forced to compete exclusively on price

What prevents us from being forced to compete on price now?

(Hint: the answer is nothing)

In order to succeed, a product must deliver value. That's not the same as price--it's a function of both price and quality. For some products, it's possible to command a premium price for a higher-quality item. For others, it is not.

(effectively determined by the variable cost of labor).

In addition, you ignore the fact that labor is not actually the main cost driver of many products.

For t-shirt manufacture, it is (that's why t-shirt manufacture left the US ages ago, and in fact, it's leaving China now in search of even lower-cost locales). But for industrial heavy equipment manufacture, it's not. The cost of labor is a tiny fraction of the overall cost of the product, and therefore labor savings have a minimal impact. That's why we still make bulldozers here.

devildog2067
11-25-2012, 10:15
Yes, however the luxury market is a VERY small fraction of GDP.

He's not talking about luxury goods.

He's talking about the American (or European) made goods that American companies pay a premium to purchase daily--from industrial electric motors to pumps to compressors to heavy equipment to trucks to airplanes.

That's a huge fraction of GDP. The American manufacturing sector is alive, well, and healthy.


My thoughts relate more to established patterns which manifest given certain economic conditions. Specifically, that only relatively small (economically insignificant) markets (which compete on quality -- at a higher price) can flourish when faced with low (labor) cost competition.

This, once again, is simply wrong. I've listed a number of examples above. Boeing is a $70 billion company, and they compete against lower-labor-cost competitors just fine.

Kasinefect
11-25-2012, 10:30
In the 1920's, my grandfather met with other employees and organized a chapter of a union where they worked. At the time he told me, pay was 20 cents an hour, shifts were 12 hours long, you worked 6 and sometimes 7 days a week. If you had a problem with this, there was a crowd of men outside the gate just waiting for your job. Obviously times were hard. When the local was organized, things improved for the workers, pay and conditions got better, and he retired after putting in 48 years of service.

Before he died in the mid 80's, he told me that he had seen things go too far and unions had changed the situation into one that many workers did not care about the quality of their work or e ven showing up. "Make 8 and hit the gate" was a saying I often heard.

The truth is somewhere in the middle as I have seen abuses by both labor and management too numerous to count.

LawScholar
11-25-2012, 10:38
An America without unions would be every bit as bad, and probably worse, and the crappy union-bullied system we have now. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. We need unions strong enough to challenge blatantly abusive employers (ala Upton Sinclair situations) but not so strong that they can become political and economic bullies.

Riverkilt
11-25-2012, 10:47
Back in 1962 and 63 I worked in the mines as boy of 17 and 18. There was no OSHA then. Today one mine is closed as an environmental hazard. The other was a uranium mine and I receive treatment for the effects of working there. I was a member of the United Mine Workers and was damned glad for what little mine safety they insisted on from the owners. Back then the union was the only safety measure we had. I happily paid my union dues to be part of the union instead of just a boy working underground.

There's much more to a good life than getting rich or helping someone else get rich with your own sweat and risking your life. The fat cat owners of the mines never visited, let alone go underground and see the conditions we worked in.

Unions emerged because there was a need for them and they will continue to exist as long as there is a need for them. That need is usually generated by the greedy fat cat owners with no respect or empathy for the working folk who make them rich.

Later I worked at a factory that the union (Garment workers) wanted bad. They held union election after union election but the union never won. Why? Because the owners paid the workers BETTER than the other union shops and treated the workers with dignity and respect. Today, most fat cat owners would never think of that simple solution to getting rid of unions.

devildog2067
11-25-2012, 10:51
That need is usually generated by the greedy fat cat owners with no respect or empathy for the working folk who make them rich.

The idea of "greedy fat cat owners" is just as stereotyped and just as stupid as the idea of "lazy union thugs."

Both exist, neither is common. Most "owners" work far harder than the "working folk" and most of them aren't very "rich" either. The average small business owner is far less wealthy than the average neurosurgeon, for example.

ClydeG19
11-25-2012, 10:54
The idea of "greedy fat cat owners" is just as stereotyped and just as stupid as the idea of "lazy union thugs."

Both exist, neither is common. Most "owners" work far harder than the "working folk" and most of them aren't very "rich" either. The average small business owner is far less wealthy than the average neurosurgeon, for example.

Shhh, that wouldn't play into anyone's agenda. Perception is reality.

Riverkilt
11-25-2012, 10:54
Granted, but I've known a bunch of them that do fit that stereotype....which is why I used it.

And, I'm not talking "small business" I was talking mining companies...huge corporations

PaulMason
11-25-2012, 10:58
So, the general sentiment on GT seems extremely anti-union.

I myself have worked one union job, and found the union-environment there revolting in many ways (though the pay was good).

However, if America were to eliminate any artificial wage supports, I foresee the complete destruction of the constructive segment of America's economy.

If the cost of labor were to become completely market-driven, American manufacturers would enevitably be forced to compete exclusively on price (effectively determined by the variable cost of labor). Our manufacturing sector would devolve into a system much (more) like that of China 15 years ago -- cheap junk produced by cheap, unskilled labor.

The only other alternative I see is a further mechanization of manufacturing -- eliminating labor costs ie.jobs even further... The natural evolutions of capitalism and consumerism cannot support an economy prefaced on high-skill/high-wage labor and mass-production of quality, boutique goods -- The only situation which would provide market-support of high wages.

Either way, the economic fortunes of most Americans suffer if wages are determined solely by the (generally) short-sighted American companies.

Any thoughts?

yes. you have no reasoning ability.

canis latrans is correct

Research the following:
Total % of the labor force unionized
Subtract Government union %
= very low percentage of the labor force is unionized
Then subtract out % of service sector unionized
= a small number for mfg?

The issue with costs in China is not just labor costs - it is taxes of all kinds and less laws/regulations from reporting to environmental to hiring/firing.

You need to do your research if you are going to discuss this.

pizza_pablo
11-25-2012, 11:01
china has extremely loose labor laws. (i say that tongue in cheek). the problem, with a unionized america, is the unions will fight to keep an employee that is working under the influence of illegal substances (seen it), intentionally desytroying company property (seen it), stealing time (seen it) etc, etc,. and then demanding pay increases for less work.
when said company finally can't compete and goes under, whose fault is it? the customer that got tired of buying the "union made" oft inferior product? the "evil greedy" corporation? or the "worker friendly" union?

Well put :thumbsup:

devildog2067
11-25-2012, 11:04
And, I'm not talking "small business" I was talking mining companies...huge corporations

Huge corporations are very, very rarely "owned" by an individual. Most of them are publicly traded, or owned by a collection of private investors through a private equity or hedge fund.

And the ones that ARE owned by an individual are typically ones that the individual built himself--generally, the opposite of a "fat cat" owner who got rich at the expense of others.

countrygun
11-25-2012, 11:24
So, the general sentiment on GT seems extremely anti-union.

I myself have worked one union job, and found the union-environment there revolting in many ways (though the pay was good).

However, if America were to eliminate any artificial wage supports, I foresee the complete destruction of the constructive segment of America's economy.

If the cost of labor were to become completely market-driven, American manufacturers would enevitably be forced to compete exclusively on price (effectively determined by the variable cost of labor). Our manufacturing sector would devolve into a system much (more) like that of China 15 years ago -- cheap junk produced by cheap, unskilled labor.

The only other alternative I see is a further mechanization of manufacturing -- eliminating labor costs ie.jobs even further... The natural evolutions of capitalism and consumerism cannot support an economy prefaced on high-skill/high-wage labor and mass-production of quality, boutique goods -- The only situation which would provide market-support of high wages.

Either way, the economic fortunes of most Americans suffer if wages are determined solely by the (generally) short-sighted American companies.

Any thoughts?


There is a connection, in your logic, that doesn't really exist.

If a worker in China stand at an aseembly line and screws "bolt "A" onto "Nut"B" and an American worker does the same thing here in the States, what makes the Chinese worker "Unskilled" labor and the American worker "Skilled" labor? I detect a hint of ethnocentricism at work.

I also note an historical oversight.

Post WWII Things "Made in Japan" were indicitive of low quality mass produced goods, as the Japanes learned to adopt our manufacturing techniques and methods. I dare to say we don't look at it that way today. So it will be, eventually with China. Look at the inroads China is making in just the mid range cutlery market.

I think a good deal of the future of our economic position will be effected by the improvements in other Countries, yes they will improve and not stay static, that is anothe flaw in your model. We have to decided if we think the American putting the nut on the bolt is going to by worth 10,20,30X the wage of someone doing it overseas.

In case you havent noticed, not everyone can be a designer or engineer, and we seem to be paying a huge portion of our labor force, not to labor, but merely to collect entitlements.

The cold fact is a Country that produces goods needs labor, if labor prices make the goods unprofitable they either don't get produced or get produced elsewhere.

G-19
11-25-2012, 11:35
So, the general sentiment on GT seems extremely anti-union.

I myself have worked one union job, and found the union-environment there revolting in many ways (though the pay was good).

However, if America were to eliminate any artificial wage supports, I foresee the complete destruction of the constructive segment of America's economy.

If the cost of labor were to become completely market-driven, American manufacturers would enevitably be forced to compete exclusively on price (effectively determined by the variable cost of labor). Our manufacturing sector would devolve into a system much (more) like that of China 15 years ago -- cheap junk produced by cheap, unskilled labor.

The only other alternative I see is a further mechanization of manufacturing -- eliminating labor costs ie.jobs even further... The natural evolutions of capitalism and consumerism cannot support an economy prefaced on high-skill/high-wage labor and mass-production of quality, boutique goods -- The only situation which would provide market-support of high wages.

Either way, the economic fortunes of most Americans suffer if wages are determined solely by the (generally) short-sighted American companies.

Any thoughts?

I agree. If there were no unions, wages in this country would plummet. That is why anti-union types want to get rid of unions, then they can pay lower wages so the investors can make more. It is all about the perspective of the person involved. As a worker I could not care less about the investors profit, and as investors they could not care less about the workers. It is all about your point of view.

I have even read posts here saying that a guaranteed minimum wage should be gotten rid of because it hurts the profit margin of companies. They claim that if minimum wage was gotten rid of then employers would hire more people. Which is total bull, they would just keep expecting people to do more for less.

Now, I do think that sometimes the unions can be over demanding. Especially when shown the books and shown the money ain't there, example: Hostess. The unions also need to quit protecting deadbeat workers, if a person is not cutting it or is substandard they should be cut. If the union actually worked for the interest of all employees they could earn some credibility again. However, I also feel that when asked to take cuts it would go a long way if the owners / investors took the same cuts as asked of the worker. Why should the workers take less, but owners / investors get raises / more return?

countrygun
11-25-2012, 11:49
I agree. If there were no unions, wages in this country would plummet. That is why anti-union types want to get rid of unions, then they can pay lower wages so the investors can make more. It is all about the perspective of the person involved. As a worker I could not care less about the investors profit, and as investors they could not care less about the workers. It is all about your point of view.

I have even read posts here saying that a guaranteed minimum wage should be gotten rid of because it hurts the profit margin of companies. They claim that if minimum wage was gotten rid of then employers would hire more people. Which is total bull, they would just keep expecting people to do more for less.

Now, I do think that sometimes the unions can be over demanding. Especially when shown the books and shown the money ain't there. The unions also need to quit protecting deadbeat workers. If the union actually worked for the interest of all employees they could earn some credibility again. However, I also feel that when asked to take cuts it would go a long way if the owners / investors took the same cuts as asked of the worker. Why should the workers take less, but owners / investors get raises / more return?

Oh, of course, the reason Chinese goods, made under basically communism, are cheaper couldn't be that the Chinese workers are paid 1/10 or less what the American workers are paid, NOOOO it has to be that the evil corporate bigwigs are making a profit, despite having to pay their workers 10X what the Chinese workers get paid, and that everyone in this Country who pays taxes is supporting those who don't. No it is definately the fault of the corporate greedheads that are paying for all of it and trying to make a profit.

G-19
11-25-2012, 11:56
Oh, of course, the reason Chinese goods, made under basically communism, are cheaper couldn't be that the Chinese workers are paid 1/10 or less what the American workers are paid, NOOOO it has to be that the evil corporate bigwigs are making a profit, despite having to pay their workers 10X what the Chinese workers get paid, and that everyone in this Country who pays taxes is supporting those who don't. No it is definately the fault of the corporate greedheads that are paying for all of it and trying to make a profit.

So you do get it. How many of those Chinese workers are forced to work for slave wages and in poor conditions by the communist government for the bribe money paid by the corporations. All in the name of profit. Is that what you want for Americans?

countrygun
11-25-2012, 12:05
So you do get it. How many of those Chinese workers are forced to work for slave wages and in poor conditions by the communist government for the bribe money paid by the corporations.

And how many Chinese are on unemployment? How many chinese live on entitlements? We can't control their form of government but in it's uniquely Chinese way their Government takes advantage of a cultural work ethic that we have lost. The real bad news is we have to compete with them in production of goods. Why are they "Buying our debt and not the other way around? We have too many "entitlements" both Govt and Union that cannot be supported by our production, but people always think that either "Uncle Sugar" or "The MAN, the corporations" have more money to give them. That has to be it, it can't be that we Americans have such an inflated view of our own individual value that we have priced our own labor above what we can afford to pay for it.

DanaT
11-25-2012, 12:07
Granted, but I've known a bunch of them that do fit that stereotype....which is why I used it.

And, I'm not talking "small business" I was talking mining companies...huge corporations

PSSSSTTT The "owners" of most large corporations are stock holders. May are now essentially owned by mutual funds. So these "greedy fat cat owners" are probably more likley to be middle class working people who are investing for retirement...

But dont let a little thing like stock ownership skew your false argument.

ClydeG19
11-25-2012, 12:09
This is the kind of thing unions were formed to help prevent. Over the years, some unions morphed into self serving entities.

http://www.ktar.com/30/1590720/112-dead-in-fire-at-Bangladesh-garment-factory-

Z71bill
11-25-2012, 12:10
I get the feeling that some actually think labor unions exist to help employees. :rofl::upeyes::rofl::rofl:

Hef
11-25-2012, 12:16
I agree. If there were no unions, wages in this country would plummet. That is why anti-union types want to get rid of unions, then they can pay lower wages so the investors can make more. It is all about the perspective of the person involved. As a worker I could not care less about the investors profit, and as investors they could not care less about the workers. It is all about your point of view.

I have even read posts here saying that a guaranteed minimum wage should be gotten rid of because it hurts the profit margin of companies. They claim that if minimum wage was gotten rid of then employers would hire more people. Which is total bull, they would just keep expecting people to do more for less.

Now, I do think that sometimes the unions can be over demanding. Especially when shown the books and shown the money ain't there, example: Hostess. The unions also need to quit protecting deadbeat workers, if a person is not cutting it or is substandard they should be cut. If the union actually worked for the interest of all employees they could earn some credibility again. However, I also feel that when asked to take cuts it would go a long way if the owners / investors took the same cuts as asked of the worker. Why should the workers take less, but owners / investors get raises / more return?

Employees have a limited responsibility to (and investment in) the company. They are paid for that according to a compensation agreement they willingly entered into with the company. They are owed nothing more.

DanaT
11-25-2012, 12:19
Look at the inroads China is making in just the mid range cutlery market.

Anecdotally, I have noticed that Chinese (or Asians, I cannot tell what the different nationalities are from looking at them, hearing them, or seeing the language written) really like high end German cutlery. I was in Cologne yesterday and decided to go shopping. I was looking for some more knives (no idea why) and stopped in the ZWILLING J.A. HENCKELS store. 85% of people in there were asian and signs were in german and some asian language (I assume Chinese).

Then I went into the WMF store. I was looking for espresso spoons. (this is getting a little metro, now, huh). At least 50% were asian and almost 90% of the people looking at knives were asian.

devildog2067
11-25-2012, 12:46
I agree. If there were no unions, wages in this country would plummet.

I don't belong to a union. My wages put me in the ~5th percentile for income earners in the United States.

Doctors don't belong to unions. Google's software engineers don't belong to unions. Why is it that so many professions have no problems keeping their wages high without unions?

devildog2067
11-25-2012, 12:46
I have even read posts here saying that a guaranteed minimum wage should be gotten rid of because it hurts the profit margin of companies.

A guaranteed minimum wage should be abolished because it hurts EVERYONE. Not just the profit margins of companies.

devildog2067
11-25-2012, 12:50
How many of those Chinese workers are forced to work for slave wages and in poor conditions

"Forced"? Just like here in America, by and large, Chinese workers are free to quit. They work the jobs they do because they have no better options.

PaulMason
11-25-2012, 12:50
I agree. If there were no unions, wages in this country would plummet. That is why anti-union types want to get rid of unions, then they can pay lower wages so the investors can make more. It is all about the perspective of the person involved. As a worker I could not care less about the investors profit, and as investors they could not care less about the workers. It is all about your point of view.

I have even read posts here saying that a guaranteed minimum wage should be gotten rid of because it hurts the profit margin of companies. They claim that if minimum wage was gotten rid of then employers would hire more people. Which is total bull, they would just keep expecting people to do more for less.

Now, I do think that sometimes the unions can be over demanding. Especially when shown the books and shown the money ain't there, example: Hostess. The unions also need to quit protecting deadbeat workers, if a person is not cutting it or is substandard they should be cut. If the union actually worked for the interest of all employees they could earn some credibility again. However, I also feel that when asked to take cuts it would go a long way if the owners / investors took the same cuts as asked of the worker. Why should the workers take less, but owners / investors get raises / more return?


What number does it have to 'plummet' to for your scenario to be true?

Less then 7% of non govermental employees are union.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Another one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

canis latrans
11-25-2012, 12:51
A guaranteed minimum wage should be abolished because it hurts EVERYONE. Not just the profit margins of companies.

min. wage laws ESPECIALLY hurt young workers!

Z71bill
11-25-2012, 13:12
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-19
I agree. If there were no unions, wages in this country would plummet.


In the short term - wages would remain about the same - companies don't normally cut people's pay unless they have no other choice.

In the medium term wage RATES for some jobs would drop - so average country wide rates would be lower - but the number of jobs would also increase - so the overall impact would be hard to determine - but would be small.

In the long term you would have a greater number of jobs AND higher average pay - so higher total wages. IMHO the range from top earners to bottom earners would be greater -

Freedom & open competition will almost always lead to better utilization of resources - better resourced utilization will always mean greater wealth.

Sort of - you want strong unions that tries to give "workers" a bigger piece of pie - or a free market that makes a BIGGER pie - giving workers even more than they would have had with a union - and also giving the "owners of capital" an even BIGGER slice.

With union - $1,000 pie - workers get $600 owners get $400.

With no union - $1,500 pie workers get $700 owners get $800.

Which pie do you want as a worker?
Which pie do you want as an owner?

Problem is liberals and unions will want to use %

We had 60% - now we only get 47%

So they would rather have 60% of $1,000 VS 47% of $1,500.

Same as the political spin on tax cuts only different.

vetmedglock30
11-25-2012, 13:17
When the minimum wage increased, I stop all high school seasonal workers. My company is small. Consequently, it was only five jobs. However, those jobs represented someones first job.

DanaT
11-25-2012, 13:18
I am forced to spend weeks a time away from home for work. An ocean between me and home. Damn company that uses me as slave labor in a foreign country. Maybe a union could help me out??

Patchman
11-25-2012, 15:16
In 1911, there was the Triangle Shirt factory fire where 146 garment workers were killed. (At the time, no unions were around to demand safe working conditions). Today, I heard on the radio that in Pakistan, some 200 or so garment workers were also killed in a clothing factory fire.

I'm sure Pakistan has very, very strong labor unions. And factory managements are always looking out for the best interests of their work force.

mj9mm
11-25-2012, 15:39
unions, or union employee's, have nothing to do with "quality" made products. unions only exist to collect dues to support democrat/liberal politicians. there is a little differance between trade unions and other unions, but consumer driven economics should determine our market.

Bren
11-25-2012, 15:51
So, the general sentiment on GT seems extremely anti-union.

I myself have worked one union job, and found the union-environment there revolting in many ways (though the pay was good).

However, if America were to eliminate any artificial wage supports, I foresee the complete destruction of the constructive segment of America's economy.

If the cost of labor were to become completely market-driven, American manufacturers would enevitably be forced to compete exclusively on price (effectively determined by the variable cost of labor). Our manufacturing sector would devolve into a system much (more) like that of China 15 years ago -- cheap junk produced by cheap, unskilled labor.

The only other alternative I see is a further mechanization of manufacturing -- eliminating labor costs ie.jobs even further... The natural evolutions of capitalism and consumerism cannot support an economy prefaced on high-skill/high-wage labor and mass-production of quality, boutique goods -- The only situation which would provide market-support of high wages.

Either way, the economic fortunes of most Americans suffer if wages are determined solely by the (generally) short-sighted American companies.

Any thoughts?

Your "theory" ignores every element of the market except wages.

As one example, you assume product quality has no effect on profits.

In short, no, you don't get it.

RonS
11-25-2012, 16:03
There are no acceptable simplistic answers to complex questions, not even "Kill them all, God will surely know his own." A nation with capitalism and no balancing force would be a slave state in a couple of generations, a nation with unions coupled with a socialist government would self destruct like the USSR did.

Balance is everything.

Patchman
11-25-2012, 16:26
There are no acceptable simplistic answers to complex questions, not even "Kill them all, God will surely know his own." A nation with capitalism and no balancing force would be a slave state in a couple of generations, a nation with unions coupled with a socialist government would self destruct like the USSR did.

Balance is everything.

Stop posting. "Balance is everything."

You. Make. Too. Much. Sense.

heliguy
11-25-2012, 16:27
Unions are evil. There is no need for them in our times. They contribute to the decline of America.

mj9mm
11-25-2012, 16:34
There are no acceptable simplistic answers to complex questions, not even "Kill them all, God will surely know his own." A nation with capitalism and no balancing force would be a slave state in a couple of generations, a nation with unions coupled with a socialist government would self destruct like the USSR did.

Balance is everything.

unions do nothing to balance anything in our work force. we have more than enough laws to keep things in check. i was in a union nearly all my working life, and the only time in 35 years i had trouble was when another union member was nailed for violating a major safety procedure and she tried to blame me for the problem. an engineer from management saved me on that one.

Annhl8rX
11-25-2012, 16:41
A reduction in labor costs, and the corresponding reduction of cost to consumers, on certain goods would lead to increased demand of other goods.

If I pay $24,000 instead of $30,000 for a new Chevy Generocar, I have more money to spend on other stuff. That means I can either buy more stuff I want, or I can buy higher quality stuff.

canis latrans
11-25-2012, 17:27
if unions are so wonderful, why do they have to use threats and intimidation to coerce membership?

dwhite53
11-26-2012, 04:51
Unions.

Customer of mine had to move a manufacturing operation of theirs from a local facility to one in Maryland which is a union facility. This was a corporate directive.

My customer went up with the machine and proceeded to try to get it up and running. Things he used to do here, adding oil, fixing small mechanical issues were forbidden to all but the correct union brother in Maryland. Machine was down 30 minutes waiting for the union maintenance guy to come by to put oil in the machine. Stupid.

Trained the new people the best he could.

Two months later they're falling behind in production. Used to get 8 parts a day here. Union plant gets two. HQ is pissed. HQ commands my customer to go back to Maryland and sort things out. HQ implies my customer lied about their production here.

He's going back to Maryland for two weeks and documenting everything. Said in two to three days he should have enough documentation to show what the problem is and he's coming home whether they like it or not. Not his job to make the baboons work harder.

All the Best,
D. White

jason10mm
11-26-2012, 08:01
I feel that most of the basic principles a union was designed to uphold (safety in the workplace, fair and ethical treatment of employees) have been codified into law, thus the union has little interest in those areas anymore. Instead they spend more time dealing with the hiring and firing practices and pay scale.

I would be more enthusastic about unions if they would police themselves more. A "union" employee should be held to professional standards and the other employees shouldn't allow bad apples to hang around. Instead the brightest prospects usually bail because the union limits the rewards I can bestow in them for retention and the sub-par employees linger becayse the union limits the punishments I can dole out to encourage leaving or behavior reform. The end effect is a gradual lowering of employee quality since the workplace is not a closed system.

glocking26
11-26-2012, 08:29
Lots of illegal's , unsafe job sites, 50 hour work weeks, crap wages, Now the down side they take the dues money and do want they want with it. It's a give and take.

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 08:33
I agree. If there were no unions, wages in this country would plummet. That is why anti-union types want to get rid of unions, then they can pay lower wages so the investors can make more. It is all about the perspective of the person involved. As a worker I could not care less about the investors profit, and as investors they could not care less about the workers. It is all about your point of view.

I have even read posts here saying that a guaranteed minimum wage should be gotten rid of because it hurts the profit margin of companies. They claim that if minimum wage was gotten rid of then employers would hire more people. Which is total bull, they would just keep expecting people to do more for less.

Now, I do think that sometimes the unions can be over demanding. Especially when shown the books and shown the money ain't there, example: Hostess. The unions also need to quit protecting deadbeat workers, if a person is not cutting it or is substandard they should be cut. If the union actually worked for the interest of all employees they could earn some credibility again. However, I also feel that when asked to take cuts it would go a long way if the owners / investors took the same cuts as asked of the worker. Why should the workers take less, but owners / investors get raises / more return?

Thinking you'd find this useful

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/economics-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html

JMS
11-26-2012, 09:28
Doctors don't belong to unions. Google's software engineers don't belong to unions. Why is it that so many professions have no problems keeping their wages high without unions?

Most belong to associations that have lobbyists in DC making sure that favorable conditions exist for them. They're not exactly going at it alone, no?

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 09:51
Most belong to associations that have lobbyists in DC making sure that favorable conditions exist for them. They're not exactly going at it alone, no?

Doctors, maybe. Software engineers? Management consultants?

.264 magnum
11-26-2012, 09:54
Most belong to associations that have lobbyists in DC making sure that favorable conditions exist for them. They're not exactly going at it alone, no?

The AMA etc. are not labor unions, not even close.

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 09:56
Most belong to associations that have lobbyists in DC making sure that favorable conditions exist for them. They're not exactly going at it alone, no?

There is a world of difference between a trade association and collective bargaining.

LawScholar
11-26-2012, 09:58
I don't belong to a union. My wages put me in the ~5th percentile for income earners in the United States.

Doctors don't belong to unions. Google's software engineers don't belong to unions. Why is it that so many professions have no problems keeping their wages high without unions?

Heh, if you make that much you should probably know how percentiles work. Unless you make less than 95% of Americans, you meant the 95th percentile, right?

Just havin' fun, no offense! :)

czsmithGT
11-26-2012, 10:00
Granted, but I've known a bunch of them that do fit that stereotype....which is why I used it.

And, I'm not talking "small business" I was talking mining companies...huge corporations

If you are thinking of companies like Massey Energy I can sympathize with your feeling. Even though it is a public company with stockholders, you would be hard pressed to find a company with a board of directors and corporate officers that cared less about the safety and well being of its employees or a bigger scumbag than former CEO Don Blankenship.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 10:02
Heh, if you make that much you should probably know how percentiles work. Unless you make less than 95% of Americans, you meant the 95th percentile, right?

Just havin' fun, no offense! :)

Mea culpa, I turn over my king sir.

It is fairly typical to speak in terms of "top 5" or "top 1" percent when describing numbers like these, so I assumed that it would be clear from context what I meant when I said 5th percentile. But you are correct, there is room for misinterpretation.

JMS
11-26-2012, 10:46
Doctors, maybe. Software engineers? Management consultants?

Software Engineers- http://www.acm.org/public-policy

Management Consultants- http://amcf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=24

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 10:58
Software Engineers- http://www.acm.org/public-policy

Management Consultants- http://amcf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=24

The AMCF is an absolute joke. Look at their membership list. None of the MBB firms or 2nd tier firms, nor the consulting arms of the Big 4 accounting firms, are members. These firms represent 95%+ of management consulting revenues.

At any rate--what is your point? Yes, there are professional associations of software engineers and management consultants. They're not unions. They don't have the ability to organize strikes.

These organizations don't have any power. They lack the ability to ensure that "favorable conditions exist for them." They don't even really have any membership. Heck, I've never even heard of the AMCF until just now and I'm a management consultant in one of the world's best management consulting firms.

I agreed, somewhat, with your citing of doctors because the government does erect fairly significant barriers to entry to the medical profession (which seem pretty appropriate, but that's another discussion). So yes, I could see an argument that the AMA asks the government to create a supply-side crunch for doctors, keeping wages high. I personally wouldn't agree with it but the argument could be made.

But all software engineers need is an idea and some coding skills. Heck, they don't even really need a degree. There's minimal barriers to entry in the field.

JMS
11-26-2012, 11:07
These organizations don't have any power. They lack the ability to ensure that "favorable conditions exist for them."

If lobbying firms didn't have any power they would cease to exist.

The problem with this thread and many others is that there is no middle ground. A number of members on this forum scream foul if someone thinks that a company should offer their employees health benefits, yet scream foul when that same employee that can't get health benefits through work turns to the government for help.

In the mean time most find it easier to look down their nose at others and what 'should' be, rather than trying to place yourself in their shoes and try to figure out what you would do if you were in that situation.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 11:24
If lobbying firms didn't have any power they would cease to exist.

The ACM is not a lobbying firm. It's an academic society.

I'm a member of APS (the American Physical Society). I get a nice newsletter once a month. We have a yearly conference where students present academic work. There is some legislative outreach work, but it's not a political or lobbying organization.

The ACM is the same, from what I understand.

A number of members on this forum scream foul if someone thinks that a company should offer their employees health benefits,

I don't think companies should offer health benefits, in the sense that there's no real reason for companies to offer health insurance as part of your compensation package. It makes no sense. I don't get my car insurance through my employer, why should I get my health insurance through them?

Having said that, it's now become a common/traditional benefit, so as long as all parties involved are doing it voluntarily, it's fine.

(Sidebar: this practice became common during WWII, when the federal government imposed wage controls. Companies had to compete for the best talent, but were unable to offer more wages due to the federal regulations, so they were forced to find ways around the system. They ended up offering health benefits as an additional incentive. In other words, the entire system has come about as the result of the federal government meddling in the labor market.)

yet scream foul when that same employee that can't get health benefits through work turns to the government for help.
What does that have anything to do with someone asking the federal government for free stuff?

Why should the federal government pay for something that someone can't provide for themselves?

(The answer to the above, of course, is that we've decided as a society that we can't just let people die in the streets due to inability to pay. But we're going to have to draw a line somewhere--we can't afford not to.)

In the mean time most find it easier to look down their nose at others and what 'should' be, rather than trying to place yourself in their shoes and try to figure out what you would do if you were in that situation.
I HAVE been in that situation. I was an unemployed, unskilled former car salesman once. I decided I needed to go get some skills, so I did. It was hard work, but I came through it with a couple of degrees and the opportunity to pursue a couple of great careers.

I understand that the exact path I took isn't available to everyone, but this is still America. We're still the greatest land of opportunity the world has ever known. The opportunities are out there, they take hard work and a little bit of luck.

JMS
11-26-2012, 11:31
(The answer to the above, of course, is that we've decided as a society that we can't just let people die in the streets due to inability to pay.)

I HAVE been in that situation. I was an unemployed, unskilled former car salesman once.

Did you hold the same perspective when you were uninsured? If you got sick you were relegated to die? If your children got sick during that time period, would you have let them die?

czsmithGT
11-26-2012, 11:41
... nor the consulting arms of the Big 4 accounting firms ...

Where does their membership list indicate that?

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 11:42
Did you hold the same perspective when you were uninsured? If you got sick you were relegated to die? If your children got sick during that time period, would you have let them die?

You are missing the point, moving the goalposts, and putting words in my mouth.

I said, and you quoted, that "we" (as a society) have decided that people shouldn't be left to die in the streets due to an inability to pay. I did not express an "opinion" on the matter, I simply stated a fact.

I'm not sure how we got there from unions and health benefits.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 11:44
Where does their membership list indicate that?

You're right, apparently there are two tiers of membership. I was looking at associate members. The Big 4 firms are indeed represented in their membership. However, I was right about the MBB firms, they are not.

LawScholar
11-26-2012, 11:45
Mea culpa, I turn over my king sir.

It is fairly typical to speak in terms of "top 5" or "top 1" percent when describing numbers like these, so I assumed that it would be clear from context what I meant when I said 5th percentile. But you are correct, there is room for misinterpretation.

It was clear, no worries, I just couldn't resist being a an Internet jerk. Not sure why. Congrats on your success, though! I hope to get there myself.

JMS
11-26-2012, 11:46
You are missing the point, moving the goalposts, and putting words in my mouth.

I said, and you quoted, that "we" (as a society) have decided that people shouldn't be left to die in the streets due to an inability to pay. I did not express an "opinion" on the matter, I simply stated a fact.

I'm not sure how we got there from unions and health benefits.

You also stated "But we're going to have to draw a line somewhere--we can't afford not to.)"

So the line is drawn in the sand before you made it big and have company supplied healthcare, what do you do?

The point is to be able to see both sides of an issue, including unions not be inherently good or bad.

BTW how does one put words in someone's mouth if they are directly quoting them?

Hopefully you nor I are ever put in the position where we have to decide if we can afford to save our children's lives. There are plenty of people who might possibly have to make that choice. I'd rather my money goes towards that than spreading democracy to places who could care less about it. Just my .02 cents...

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 11:51
You also stated "But we're going to have to draw a line somewhere--we can't afford not to."

That's again a simple statement of fact.

There is a finite amount of money, and an infinite amount of medical needs we could spend it on.

We are going to find ourselves in a situation were we literally can't provide medical care to prevent people from dying, and it's going to come sooner rather than later.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 11:54
So the line is drawn in the sand before you made it big and have company supplied healthcare, what do you do?

If you're drowning in the ocean and there isn't a Coast Guard bird in the air to save you, what do you do?

At some level, if you can't provide for yourself, you have to accept the consequences. Personally, I think it'd be great if we could provide "free" health care to everyone. I also think it'd be great if we all get along, give free hugs, never commit crimes, and are polite to our neighbors. But we live in the real world. Resources are finite.

The point is to be able to see both sides of an issue, including unions not be inherently good or bad.

I've said a number of times that unions are not inherently good or bad, right here on GT--in fact I think right here in this thread. I'll go look for my words.


BTW how does one put words in someone's mouth if they are directly quoting them?

You went from "we have to draw a line" (statement of fact) to "would your perspective be the same" (conjecture about how I feel about the issue).

JMS
11-26-2012, 11:57
That's again a simple statement of fact.

There is a finite amount of money, and an infinite amount of medical needs we could spend it on.

We are going to find ourselves in a situation were we literally can't provide medical care to prevent people from dying, and it's going to come sooner rather than later.

The bigger problem I see is hospitals jammed with 90 year olds whose bodies are shutting down on them, yet the family insists that no amount of money be spared to save them, to allow them one more month on earth.

I think you would also see that being self insured is prohibitively expensive, $1000 a month when you're unemployed isn't feasible.

There is no system that is perfect, my problem is people taking sides and spending more time/energy defending their position than trying to find a middle ground.

czsmithGT
11-26-2012, 12:01
We are going to find ourselves in a situation were we literally can't provide medical care to prevent people from dying, and it's going to come sooner rather than later.

I think a big part of the problem is that AMA lobbying (among other things) has made it harder to increase the supply of trained doctors, while the supply of needy patients has continued to increase.

JMS
11-26-2012, 12:02
You went from "we have to draw a line" (statement of fact) to "would your perspective be the same" (conjecture about how I feel about the issue).

The problem with drawing a line depends on which side of the line you as an individual stands on. I find it interesting, since you've seen both sides how you feel about the issue on a personal level. Do you hold a different perspective now that you're fully insured and your children are insured vs. hoping and praying that nothing happens until you land on your feet or made something of yourself?

fwm
11-26-2012, 12:04
The first union was formed in England in the 1800s, by Carl Marx, using his experiments in what we now call communism to form it.

When the union is expanded to the government, communism is what we call it. Beyond establishing some safety aspects when no one else would, not much in the way of 'good for the nation' come from it. Safety is now controlled and enforced in spite of the unions.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 12:04
The bigger problem I see is hospitals jammed with 90 year olds whose bodies are shutting down on them, yet the family insists that no amount of money be spared to save them, to allow them one more month on earth.

So where does one draw the line? 70? 50? Who gets to decide?

You see, as soon as you start thinking about it in these terms, the fact that I stated ("we have to draw a line somewhere") becomes true.

I think you would also see that being self insured is prohibitively expensive, $1000 a month when you're unemployed isn't feasible.
Ferraris are prohibitively expensive for me--I have a good job and yet I still can't afford one.

Should the government be forced to subsidize the price until I can?

You say "of course not"--but again, now you're in a situation where you have to draw a line. The government shouldn't have to pay for my Ferrari if I can't afford one. But what about "a" car? There are lots of places in this country where it's impossible to get to work if you don't have a car. Should the government be "required" to provide cars to those who can't afford them?

I suspect your answer, again, will be no. What about phones? No? Ok, now we're past the easy stuff.

What about food? Which foods should be covered? How much? Should it depend on how big of a person you are? Where do you draw the line?

There is no system that is perfect, my problem is people taking sides and spending more time/energy defending their position than trying to find a middle ground.

In all of this, you are missing the fact that there does indeed exist a position which doesn't require a middle ground: Let everyone provide, for him- or herself, whatever they can afford. Now we don't have to "draw a line"--everyone can have whatever they can pay for, and they don't have to justify it to anyone.

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 12:08
The problem won't be fixed until we as a society decide to let people die in the streets rather than force someone else to pay for them.

If you can extend my grandma's life by 2 months and it costs $1MM to do it -- and someone else pays for it -- by all means doc. Do whatever you can.

But when it means that the kids inheritance will be eaten up by it, they might choose rationally.

I'd rather them make the decision than some bureaucrat, which is what is going to happen here shortly.

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 12:10
End Medicare. End Medicare tax.

Implement catastrophic term health insurance policies that allow companies to actually price in the risk.

De-regulate

Problem solved.

janice6
11-26-2012, 12:13
The American labor force NOW, consists of 11.4% Union. We are already competing with world labor without a majority of union shops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

"In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%, compared to 18.6% in Germany, 27.5% in Canada, and 70% in Finland.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1) Union membership in the private sector has fallen under 7%[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#cite_note-BLS01272012-2) — levels not seen since 1932. "

JMS
11-26-2012, 12:14
So where does one draw the line? 70? 50? Who gets to decide?

You see, as soon as you start thinking about it in these terms, the fact that I stated ("we have to draw a line somewhere") becomes true.


Ferraris are prohibitively expensive for me--I have a good job and yet I still can't afford one.

Should the government be forced to subsidize the price until I can?

You say "of course not"--but again, now you're in a situation where you have to draw a line. The government shouldn't have to pay for my Ferrari if I can't afford one. But what about "a" car? There are lots of places in this country where it's impossible to get to work if you don't have a car. Should the government be "required" to provide cars to those who can't afford them?

I suspect your answer, again, will be no. What about phones? No? Ok, now we're past the easy stuff.

What about food? Which foods should be covered? How much? Should it depend on how big of a person you are? Where do you draw the line?



In all of this, you are missing the fact that there does indeed exist a position which doesn't require a middle ground: Let everyone provide, for him- or herself, whatever they can afford. Now we don't have to "draw a line"--everyone can have whatever they can pay for, and they don't have to justify it to anyone.

Life (as in Life, Liberty....)

I pay taxes with the understanding that there are people that can't afford to put food on the table (for whatever reason), I pay taxes with the understanding that there are people that can't afford health insurance (for whatever reason) but at 30 years old with 2 children shouldn't be written off as garbage just because they can't provide. I'd rather err on the side that someone truly does need help when they are down and out than worry about if every penny I pay in taxes is being leeched by users. I would hope if I'm ever in a bad place there is a safety net for me and my family.

Life happens, when I did collections I called a customer that was 4 payments behind and was about to get his car repossessed. I asked him, why after having such an impecabble history did he fall behind all of a sudden. He let me know that his newborn son passed away and he needed to buy a coffin, he apologized to me profusely and stated that he understood we had to take his car. Because I have the ability to empathize and understand I was able to move his 4 payments to the back of the loan (extending the loan by 4 months) and get him caught up.

Life isn't black and white, if it was you better pray that you're never on the wrong side.

Rant over =)

JMS
11-26-2012, 12:17
The problem won't be fixed until we as a society decide to let people die in the streets rather than force someone else to pay for them.

Does the same apply to your children as well if you were in dire straits?

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 12:19
I pay taxes with the understanding that there are people that can't afford to put food on the table (for whatever reason), I pay taxes with the understand that there are people that can't afford health insurance (for whatever reason) but at 30 years old with 2 children shouldn't be written off as garbage just because they can't provide.

That's fine. That's why YOU pay taxes.

Personally, I'd rather pay the minimum taxes and help those you want to help by giving money to charity, but it's your right to feel that way about your tax dollars.

It still does not change the fundamental, underlying fact. The pot of money is not infinite. So someone who's 30 years old with 2 children who can't afford health insurance for "whatever reason" shouldn't be "written off."

What about 35 year olds? What about people with no kids? What about people with 10 kids?

There is more help needed than there is money to pay for it. At some level, a line must be drawn. I personally would rather stop taking peoples' money through taxation, and let each person make the choice where to draw their own personal line with their own personal assets.

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 12:19
Life (as in Life, Liberty....)

I pay taxes with the understanding that there are people that can't afford to put food on the table (for whatever reason), I pay taxes with the understanding that there are people that can't afford health insurance (for whatever reason) but at 30 years old with 2 children shouldn't be written off as garbage just because they can't provide. I'd rather err on the side that someone truly does need help when they are down and out than worry about if every penny I pay in taxes is being leeched by users. I would hope if I'm ever in a bad place there is a safety net for me and my family.



I pay taxes knowing full well that every single penny is being spent on welfare.

I'd much rather pay less in taxes and give to charity so that they could handle it more efficiently, like they did before.

Life happens, when I did collections I called a customer that was 4 payments behind and was about to get his car repossessed. I asked him, why after having such an impecabble history did he fall behind all of a sudden. He let me know that his newborn son passed away and he needed to buy a coffin, he apologized to me profusely and stated that he understood we had to take his car. Because I have the ability to empathize and understand I was able to move his 4 payments to the back of the loan (extending the loan by 4 months) and get him caught up.

Life isn't black and white, if it was you better pray that you're never on the wrong side.

Rant over =)

Did you send him a personal check to help?

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 12:21
Does the same apply to your children as well if you were in dire straits?

Yes..

I would liquidate my assets, take second or third jobs. I would work myself to the bone. If that wasn't enough I would seek charity.

But lets talk in terms of facts and the facts are old people are consuming the healthcare dollars in this country, not toddlers with cancer.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 12:24
But lets talk in terms of facts and the facts are old people are consuming the healthcare dollars in this country, not toddlers with cancer.

And those old folks had an entire lifetime to save some money or make other arrangements for their own healthcare.

When we're talking in terms of my personal feelings on the subject, I'm pretty ok with helping kids out. I have a big soft spot for kids. I just don't delude myself into thinking that my personal feelings should be the basis for laws in this country.

JMS
11-26-2012, 12:25
Personally, I'd rather pay the minimum taxes and help those you want to help by giving money to charity, but it's your right to feel that way about your tax dollars.

You and CF must be twins :rofl:

I'd rather pay minimum taxes and not for war, can I pick and choose as well?

JMS
11-26-2012, 12:28
Yes..

I would liquidate my assets, take second or third jobs. I would work myself to the bone. If that wasn't enough I would seek charity.

You must have more hours in the day than I have, between taking your child to the hospital and spending half the day there, when would you possible work your second or third job? Talk to some other members of this forum who do go to charities for help, nobody is giving and therefore they aren't able to get the help they need.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 12:31
I'd rather pay minimum taxes and not for war, can I pick and choose as well?

The federal government's responsibility to provide for the national defense is spelled out in the Constitution. A responsibility to provide health insurance is not.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 12:34
nobody is giving and therefore they aren't able to get the help they need.

OK.

If the help isn't available from anywhere... then what?

The answer is the same as if I'm drowning in the ocean, or I'm stranded in Antarctica without shelter, or if a gang of vicious thugs chooses to attack me and I'm unable to defend myself effectively. Ultimately, that's how the world works.

JMS
11-26-2012, 12:34
The federal government's responsibility to provide for the national defense is spelled out in the Constitution. A responsibility to provide health insurance is not.

When was our last defensive war?

At the end of the day you and I disagree, again neither one is 100% right but there is some merit in both perspectives. Somethings got to change. I wish you continued success and company provided health care coverage =)

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 12:37
When was our last defensive war?

I'd argue 2001, when we invaded Afghanistan. Before that? WWII.

I'm with you, I think our defense spending is out of control--but at least that's something the government is SUPPOSED to do.

At any rate, the fact that defense spending is broken is utterly unrelated and irrelevant to a discussion about health care (which, I'd argue, is unrelated to the topic of unions, but I did follow you down this rabbit hole so I'll take some of the blame). It's fallacious to assert that money we save on defense spending should instead be spent on providing health care to those who can't afford it. There is no relationship between the two.

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 12:48
You must have more hours in the day than I have, between taking your child to the hospital and spending half the day there, when would you possible work your second or third job? Talk to some other members of this forum who do go to charities for help, nobody is giving and therefore they aren't able to get the help they need.

That's because the people who are in a position to give are being taxed to death paying for your welfare programs which are bankrupting us.

Charity doesn't function real well in oppressive socialism.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 12:50
You and CF must be twins :rofl:

I'd rather pay minimum taxes and not for war, can I pick and choose as well?

Perhaps you missed my earlier post. 100% of federal tax revenue is spent on welfare programs.

Thanks to that your great great grandkids will be paying for war.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

DanaT
11-26-2012, 13:44
50 hour work weeks

OMFG!!:wow::wow::wow:

50 hour work weeks? :wow::wow:

I haven't been HOME in almost 5 weeks...

What is a 50 hour work week like? What do you do with all your spare time working only 50 hours?

DanaT
11-26-2012, 13:50
I also think it'd be great if we all get along, give free hugs

JMS always give me free hugs. Maybe you just need to live in a better world. :tongueout:

DanaT
11-26-2012, 13:58
The problem with drawing a line depends on which side of the line you as an individual stands on. I find it interesting, since you've seen both sides how you feel about the issue on a personal level. Do you hold a different perspective now that you're fully insured and your children are insured vs. hoping and praying that nothing happens until you land on your feet or made something of yourself?

We could cut off foreign aid and use that money to pay for health insurance. Do you support that idea? Take care of our own first? I bet How about we just cut $3.2 Billion / year? Or should we go for two countries and cut about $5 Billion per year. About a third of all foreign aid goes to two countries.

How much medical services could $5 Billion at home buy?

Spiffums
11-26-2012, 14:06
blah blah blah blah blah you all need to get more topics to talk about. This is getting as old as people posting the DEA agent shooting himself.

czsmithGT
11-26-2012, 14:12
We could cut off foreign aid and use that money to pay for health insurance. Do you support that idea? Take care of our own first? I bet How about we just cut $3.2 Billion / year? Or should we go for two countries and cut about $5 Billion per year. About a third of all foreign aid goes to two countries.

How much medical services could $5 Billion at home buy?

It would pay for about 16-17 hours per year of total US health care cost

DanaT
11-26-2012, 14:32
It would pay for about 16-17 hours per year of total US health care cost

Per year? Or per year per person?

czsmithGT
11-26-2012, 14:33
Per year? Or per year per person?

Per year.

DanaT
11-26-2012, 14:51
Per year.

Yes, but that is across all people, so per person per year?

It seems you took the total hours or health care, total cost, and came out with an hourly rate of about $312M (16*312 = 4992).

So that would be all people treated in a year for 16 to 17 hours.

syntaxerrorsix
11-26-2012, 15:11
covered

czsmithGT
11-26-2012, 15:26
Yes, but that is across all people, so per person per year?

It seems you took the total hours or health care, total cost, and came out with an hourly rate of about $312M (16*312 = 4992).

So that would be all people treated in a year for 16 to 17 hours.

Well, yes- wasn't that the question? 5 billion dollars would pay for about 16-17 hours worth of total US health care costs. Unless my math was incorrect, which I guess is possible, between 2.6 and 3 trillion dollars is the current total for health care cost in the US so 5 billion $ in foreign aid would pay all healthcare cost in the US for less than a day.

DanaT
11-26-2012, 15:37
Well, yes- wasn't that the question? 5 billion dollars would pay for about 16-17 hours worth of total US health care costs. Unless my math was incorrect, which I guess is possible, between 2.6 and 3 trillion dollars is the current total for health care cost in the US so 5 billion $ in foreign aid would pay all healthcare cost in the US for less than a day.

But considering the average person uses less than a day per year, that is a pretty good start, no? Seems like that could pay for 80% or more of the population.

CBennett
11-26-2012, 15:53
My relationship with them is love hate or I guess maybe hate tolerate for only 1 reason. I CAN NOT stand that they protect cater to and coddle those people who should get canned/fired/terminated because of what they have done on the job or even outside the job that violates job standards..If the union could let that one thing go and if a guy screws up and is in the wrong they would just say...sorry you screwed up we cant help you in this matter...id be a lot more ok with them..but they are the exact OPPOSITE...they know a guy should be canned but fight tooth and nail to keep him in his job..thats BS.

Now the tolerate part is..They are the only ones that "stand up for" and protect(at least at our level) the workers rights. By this I mean...The Management and Employees have a master agreement they both sit down and hammer out points about the job and how things are done that BOTH SIDES AGREE TO Management says yes we like that and can do that...employees likewise same deal..but then when its suddenly convenient for them to violate that agreement they agreed to in writing...they ALWAYS try to do so..and the only thing that stops them from doing this is the union..this has to do with just about anything you can think of from working environments,times,hours,OT and how its given out and or paid...If manangement can find a way to go back to the good old boy system where the only employees getting "taken care of" is their "boys" thats what happens. and its just wrong..and they used to do it all the time from giving their "boys" the prime OT to the prime jobs and days off didnt matter that these people were not always qualified or deserving they were friends (ass kissers) of the management so they got what they wanted...who put a stop to it...the unions and im thankful for that...so im still at that love hate point... I hate that they(unions) seem to be the only thing stopping us as employees from getting "screwed over" by management...I wish we had good enough management to actually well not need to be unionized and they did what they said they would do and not say something then do the exact opposite.

I dont know if the answer is unions but there HAS to be some kind of checks and balances VS or between Management/companies and employees to stop sweatshop like conditions and rampant MISmanagement and Companies/management breaking their "promises" to employees or even violating their OWN rules they made and or agreed to lol..

czsmithGT
11-26-2012, 15:57
But considering the average person uses less than a day per year, that is a pretty good start, no? Seems like that could pay for 80% or more of the population.

No you are not understanding. Divide 2.6 to 3 trillion dollars by 365 and that is the average daily cost of all healthcare for all people in the United States. Then at that rate of spending, see how many days the 5 billion dollars saved by all people in the United states through eliminating foreign aid will last.

hotpig
11-27-2012, 09:53
You don't think Americans will pay a premium for quality? There will always be a market for a well made/presented product, regardless of the sector.

This is why Wal Mart exploded on the business scene.:whistling:


You are right there will always be a tiny little market for quality products.

The most obvious problems I can see if Unions were gone. Big business will work with the legislators eroding workers rights and benefits. Workers safety probably will not be far behind.

Some think that the minimum wage will be completely abolished. I think it it will go back to the 2-3.00 per hour range that I grew up with.

I understand this sounds like a perfect utopia to some of you but my concern other than workers rights and safety is will prices on everything fall with the wages.Will gas be .68 cents per gallon. How about .25 cent Pepsi?

hotpig
11-27-2012, 09:58
And those old folks had an entire lifetime to save some money or make other arrangements for their own healthcare.



I assume you have close to a million dollars saved in your health care account?

DanaT
11-27-2012, 10:01
No you are not understanding. Divide 2.6 to 3 trillion dollars by 365 and that is the average daily cost of all healthcare for all people in the United States. Then at that rate of spending, see how many days the 5 billion dollars saved by all people in the United states through eliminating foreign aid will last.

But 80% of the money is used for 10% of the people...you are not factoring that in.

By your calculation, that $5Bcould give everyone 16 hours of free health care per year. That is more than most people use.

devildog2067
11-27-2012, 10:11
I assume you have close to a million dollars saved in your health care account?

I'm 31... so no. I have a 5-figure amount saved and 30+ more years of my working life to save some more.

The point is, old people typically are where they are due to the choices they've made. I have a lot more sympathy for kids than for old people.

certifiedfunds
11-27-2012, 10:14
I assume you have close to a million dollars saved in your health care account?

Why would an elderly person spend a million dollars of their own money to extend their life a few weeks ?

I'd rather my kids inherit that money. They can do a lot more with it.

holesinpaper
11-27-2012, 10:20
So, the general sentiment on GT seems extremely anti-union.

Be anti-Federalist & anti-Statist. Problem solved.

If the government has no power, then unions cannot corrupt it. That makes unions a 'private' issue between employees and employers.

certifiedfunds
11-27-2012, 10:23
Be anti-Federalist & anti-Statist. Problem solved.

If the government has no power, then unions cannot corrupt it. That makes unions a 'private' issue between employees and employers.

It also solves the lobby problems.

hotpig
11-27-2012, 10:52
I'm 31... so no. I have a 5-figure amount saved and 30+ more years of my working life to save some more.

The point is, old people typically are where they are due to the choices they've made. I have a lot more sympathy for kids than for old people.

You need to save more because you should also save money for a rainy day and retirement besides the money for future health care. You need to make that right choices now because you are already behind.

In other words what you are saying is ridiculous. At thirty you may believe this horse hocky but in thirty more years you will be at a total 360 degrees.

I do see geriatric patients that are dying and the family wants everything done including life support. Same with patients that are 100 plus years old and wards of the state.

Mother nature is going to win and the money spent in some of these cases is just waste. However obama care will make the hard decisions on who gets what in the future.

devildog2067
11-27-2012, 11:06
You need to save more because you should also save money for a rainy day and retirement besides the money for future health care.

You asked about my health care savings account. My retirement accounts are separate.

You need to make that right choices now because you are already behind.

My personal finances are none of your business, but trust me, I'm doing just fine.


In other words what you are saying is ridiculous.
The idea that someone who has worked his whole life should have tried to plan for his or her own care is ridiculous?

Personal responsibility is ridiculous?

Whatever you say, sport.

Everyone makes choices in their life--whether it's a choice to try and make a big pile of money and take care of themselves, or to depend on someone else for their retirement. Depending on someone else isn't a bad choice at all--for example, if I were to choose to put in X years of service in exchange for a pension, that may be a rational choice. The problem is, once I retire, my fate is out of my hands. The folks who put in years of loyal service to Enron know what I'm talking about. They got screwed, and it wasn't their fault, but it's a risk they should have understood they were taking when they chose to depend on that cash flow.

I do see geriatric patients that are dying and the family wants everything done including life support.
And if it's the family's money, they should do whatever they like.

When it's the taxpayer's money, someone else is going to have a say. That's leaving the moral dimension out entirely, and just talking about the mechanics of such a system. Any system that's funded by someone else is going to empower someone else to make decisions about your care.

czsmithGT
11-27-2012, 12:11
But 80% of the money is used for 10% of the people...you are not factoring that in.

By your calculation, that $5Bcould give everyone 16 hours of free health care per year. That is more than most people use.

No, my calculation says the 5B$ would give each of our 311 million people 0,00018 seconds per year of health care at our current rate of health care spending. If, for example, only 10% of our population uses the 2 1/2 or 3 trillion $ per year we now spend on healthcare per year, then they would each get 0.0018 seconds worth of health care.

Put another way, the 5B$ in foreign aid spread across the US population is $16 per person per year. If, as you propose, only 10% of our population needs health care each year they would each get $160 to take care of their health care needs. $160 wouldn't go very far to cover the annual health care need of our sickest 10%, would it?

engineer151515
11-27-2012, 12:20
.....

If the cost of labor were to become completely market-driven, American manufacturers would enevitably be forced to compete exclusively on price (effectively determined by the variable cost of labor). ......



The cost of labor is completely market driven.

syntaxerrorsix
11-27-2012, 12:23
The cost of labor is completely market driven.

That's not entirely accurate when you consider mandated minimum wages among other things.

Z71bill
11-27-2012, 12:24
I am pretty good at financial math --

But I am having a hard time figuring out -

How - if "most" people can't possibly afford to pay for their own health care - through insurance & savings.

How the government - using money it gets from taxing people - can possibly pay the health care tab.

I think the REAL PROBLEM - is people would rather spend all their money on fun stuff and then expect someone else to pony up for their medical care.

I also sort of think some think that if the government pays for it - it is free. When in reality if you have the government involved it will cost MORE NOT LESS.

My doctor told me this - and I have heard it other places too.

If you think medical care costs a lot of money now - just wait and see how much more it will cost when the government provides it for free.

Z71bill
11-27-2012, 12:31
That's not entirely accurate when you consider mandated minimum wages among other things.

If the total cost of hiring someone - including minimum wage is $10 an hour - the company will just not hire someone for a job that is not worth at least $10 an hour. Or would at least do everything they can to avoid it.

So while your point may sound valid - the market is still the major driving force.

What would happen if minimum wage was raised up to $100 an hour? Many people would lose their jobs - because of market forces.

certifiedfunds
11-27-2012, 12:42
I am pretty good at financial math --

But I am having a hard time figuring out -

How - if "most" people can't possibly afford to pay for their own health care - through insurance & savings.

How the government - using money it gets from taxing people - can possibly pay the health care tab.

I think the REAL PROBLEM - is people would rather spend all their money on fun stuff and then expect someone else to pony up for their medical care.

I also sort of think some think that if the government pays for it - it is free. When in reality if you have the government involved it will cost MORE NOT LESS.

My doctor told me this - and I have heard it other places too.

If you think medical care costs a lot of money now - just wait and see how much more it will cost when the government provides it for free.

I think you're being obtuse. This has been explained over and over here by our resident socialist leeches. It comes from the savings man! When they cut out the profits of the insurance companies they save a bunch of money and that brings costs down!

But what I can't figure out is who it brings costs down for? My costs are going up. The law directly increased my taxes.

When someone answers THAT question they will have solved the golden riddle.

engineer151515
11-27-2012, 12:56
That's not entirely accurate when you consider mandated minimum wages among other things.

Minimum wage just devalues your currency. Sets the new "zero" point.

Prices go up for everything that needs min wage labor.

In the past, manufacturing has adjusted by increasing automation. Fewer workers.

But there are limits to automation. Manufacturing jobs are leaving this country. Even the service industry forces you to talk to computers more frequently than ever.

The market always governs the price of labor even when gov't interferes. Even the US cannot ignore fundametnal economics - especially in a global economy.

You can start paying every minimum wage worker $1000/hr and I guarantee you I will be making $5000/hr shortly.
Why?
Because the market recognizes that the value of my (skilled) labor is consistant while the relative value of the US dollar has fallen.

devildog2067
11-27-2012, 12:59
I think the REAL PROBLEM - is people would rather spend all their money on fun stuff and then expect someone else to pony up for their medical care.


Yep.

I don't mind missing out on fun stuff now because I'm saving money.

I don't even really mind all that much that some people are getting a free ride--people my age who are expecting a free ride are going to be severely disappointed.

The only thing that I really, truly fear is that I'm going to spend my life responsibly saving for my retirement, and that the government will come along and steal it after I'm too old to replace it.

How long until someone like hotpig votes to "confiscate" my 401k or HSA because it's "unfair" that I have managed to save all that money?

DanaT
11-27-2012, 13:46
No, my calculation says the 5B$ would give each of our 311 million people 0,00018 seconds per year of health care at our current rate of health care spending. If, for example, only 10% of our population uses the 2 1/2 or 3 trillion $ per year we now spend on healthcare per year, then they would each get 0.0018 seconds worth of health care.

Put another way, the 5B$ in foreign aid spread across the US population is $16 per person per year. If, as you propose, only 10% of our population needs health care each year they would each get $160 to take care of their health care needs. $160 wouldn't go very far to cover the annual health care need of our sickest 10%, would it?

$5B is a start. I wouldnt stop there.

czsmithGT
11-27-2012, 13:51
How long until someone like hotpig votes to "confiscate" my 401k or HSA because it's "unfair" that I have managed to save all that money?

The government isn't going to wait for a vote. They are just going to do it. The question is not if but when.

http://www.senseoncents.com/2012/04/will-uncle-sam-takeover-your-ira-part-ii/

DanaT
11-27-2012, 14:26
How can someone dislike onions?

certifiedfunds
11-27-2012, 14:46
How can someone dislike onions?

Mrs. C doesn't like onions or bell peppers.

CAcop
11-27-2012, 17:45
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html?_r=0

Interesting article. With union membership as low as it is I would argue we essentially do no have unions in this country.

I actually want to know if I am counted as union because legally we are an association.

czsmithGT
11-27-2012, 18:26
I actually want to know if I am counted as union because legally we are an association.

http://cityemployeesassociates.com/Union_or_association_.html

CAcop
11-27-2012, 18:34
http://cityemployeesassociates.com/Union_or_association_.html

Thanks. That explains why the other city workers can barely stand SEIU representing them.

canis latrans
11-27-2012, 18:52
I understand this sounds like a perfect utopia to some of you but my concern other than workers rights and safety is will prices on everything fall with the wages.Will gas be .68 cents per gallon. How about .25 cent Pepsi?

"under my system of cap and trade, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket"

czsmithGT
11-27-2012, 18:54
"under my system of cap and trade, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket"

Not to mention he wishes gasoline would hurry up and get to $10 a gallon.

canis latrans
11-27-2012, 18:59
Mother nature is going to win and the money spent in some of these cases is just waste. However obama care will make the hard decisions on who gets what in the future.

I thought the "Death Panel" was just a figment of Sarah Palin's imagination?

perhaps we should have "read the Bill" BEFORE we voted on it?
:upeyes: :upeyes: :upeyes:

engineer151515
11-27-2012, 19:37
How can someone dislike onions?

It's funny you say that.

One of the plants I worked in (many years ago), management was so sensitive to the subject that the word "union" dare not be spoken. So the production guys would talk about the "onion".

:rofl::rofl:

Taphius
11-27-2012, 23:49
How can someone dislike onions?

onions are discusting as well as mushrooms and cilantro.

Hef
11-28-2012, 16:39
onions are discusting as well as mushrooms and cilantro.

I like nothing but onion and cilantro on my tacos.

G-19
12-02-2012, 15:25
I see a lot of people saying that unions are bad because they contribute money to politicians to get what they want. They can cause laws to be enacted that may adversely effect the profit margin of employers, such as safety laws, discrimination laws, heathcare laws, etc.

I see their point, if there were no unions then the business owners and investors would not have to worry about the competition when it comes to getting politicians to do what they want. Why should they have to pay a decent wage? Why should they have to pay for safety measures? Why shouldn't a company be able to discriminate based on sex, race? Who cares if a company is polluting the air or water? Why should they have to pay equal pay to men and women for equal work? If only those petty unions were gone then we could go back to the 1800's way of running our businesses. Then we could really make a profit.


I am pretty sure these people did not have anyone to speak up for safety regulations. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/27/bangladesh-workers-hope-deadly-clothing-factory-fire-will-bring-change-to-labor/

devildog2067
12-02-2012, 15:29
if there were no unions then the business owners and investors would not have to worry about the competition when it comes to getting politicians to do what they want. Why should they have to pay a decent wage?

If a company cannot attract the workers that they want at the salary that they are offering, then they increase the wage until they do attract the workers that they want. It's simple economics. Labor is subject to supply and demand like anything else.

A company should have to pay the wage that their talent demands. No less and no more. "Decent" has nothing to do with anything.

G-19
12-02-2012, 15:35
If a company cannot attract the workers that they want at the salary that they are offering, then they increase the wage until they do attract the workers that they want. It's simple economics. Labor is subject to supply and demand like anything else.

A company should have to pay the wage that their talent demands. No less and no more. "Decent" has nothing to do with anything.

Nice little fantasy world you live in there. The unions were created for a reason, the need was there and still is. If there were no unions things would return to the ways of the past, all in the all mighty name of PROFIT. That is why companies went overseas, to avoid profit draining measures such as safety regulations.

All the anti union people cry about is wages. Wages were only part of why unions came about. Safety, equal pay for men and women, child labor were also elements that led to unions. Prior to unions and the laws they helped bring about it was hard for a man to get a job, because a company would hire women and children for a lot less.

devildog2067
12-02-2012, 15:45
Nice little fantasy world you live in there.
I don't belong to a union, and my salary is very, very competitive.

Top firms compete for top talent. That's the way it always has been and always will be.

The unions were created for a reason

Yep.

I don't disagree with that at all.

I don't even think that unions should go away.

What offends me about today's unions is the absolute stupidity of their actions.

If there were no unions things would return to the ways of the past, all in the all mighty name of PROFIT. That is why companies went overseas, to avoid profit draining measures such as safety regulations.

You're simply wrong.

Safety regulations are not a large part of the cost structure (neither are environmental regulations). Yes, it costs a lot more for a steel plant to conform to regulations here in the US than it does in China, but as a fraction of what it costs to run a steel plant it's not a lot.

The industries that went overseas are largely the ones where worker productivity is difficult to boost through automation, so that actual wages are a big fraction of the cost structure.

Prior to unions and the laws they helped bring about it was hard for a man to get a job, because a company would hire women and children for a lot less.

The conclusion you draw from this is "unions were good for the men who could now get jobs."

The conclusion I draw is "men artificially inflated their wages by removing others from the labor pool."

If a woman could do a job and was willing to work for less than a man--why should the company hire the man?

devildog2067
12-02-2012, 15:48
Nice little fantasy world you live in there.

PS: The price elasticity of wages is very, very clear when you look at the data. When demand for workers with a particular skill increases, wages increase.

Look at North Dakota. Due to the fracking boom they're short of labor. Wages have gone through the roof.

G-19
12-02-2012, 15:51
Safety regulations can be changed by those in power, and those in power can be bought. How come working conditions in some American owned companies overseas areas are deplorable? Could it be Profit draining? Those countries don't have unions getting in the way of businesses being able to pay politicians off. I guess in America it boils down to who pays the most, and the unions pay politicians better.

devildog2067
12-02-2012, 15:59
Safety regulations can be changed by those in power, and those in power can be bought.
You keep moving the goalposts.

First we were talking about wages, then women and children, now safety regulations.

How come working conditions in some American owned companies overseas areas are deplorable?

"How come" working conditions in some "American owned companies overseas areas" are not deplorable?

It's simple. Workers negotiate the best deal that they can manage. When they have valuable skills, they can demand things. When they don't, they can't.

I guess in America it boils down to who pays the most, and the unions pay politicians better.

Don't kid yourself--everywhere, all through history, it has always boiled down to who pays the most.

G-19
12-02-2012, 16:14
Don't kid yourself--everywhere, all through history, it has always boiled down to who pays the most.

There it is, the main reason business owners hate unions. They have more money and more voters. Money talks, BS walks. Ha Ha Ha.

Hef
12-02-2012, 17:17
I see a lot of people saying that unions are bad because they contribute money to politicians to get what they want. They can cause laws to be enacted that may adversely effect the profit margin of employers, such as safety laws, discrimination laws, heathcare laws, etc.

I see their point, if there were no unions then the business owners and investors would not have to worry about the competition when it comes to getting politicians to do what they want. Why should they have to pay a decent wage? Why should they have to pay for safety measures? Why shouldn't a company be able to discriminate based on sex, race? Who cares if a company is polluting the air or water? Why should they have to pay equal pay to men and women for equal work? If only those petty unions were gone then we could go back to the 1800's way of running our businesses. Then we could really make a profit.


I am pretty sure these people did not have anyone to speak up for safety regulations. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/27/bangladesh-workers-hope-deadly-clothing-factory-fire-will-bring-change-to-labor/

You have managed to somehow convolute the workers' rights issue with a few unrelated issues. Try to stay on topic so as not to come across as a fool in future posts.

Hef
12-02-2012, 17:20
Nice little fantasy world you live in there. The unions were created for a reason, the need was there and still is. If there were no unions things would return to the ways of the past, all in the all mighty name of PROFIT. That is why companies went overseas, to avoid profit draining measures such as safety regulations.

All the anti union people cry about is wages. Wages were only part of why unions came about. Safety, equal pay for men and women, child labor were also elements that led to unions. Prior to unions and the laws they helped bring about it was hard for a man to get a job, because a company would hire women and children for a lot less.

Tell us about your business experience. How many have you owned? How many have you run as upper management? How many people have you hired, managed, and fired?

I would like to know what actual experience your opinion of business is based on. From what I can tell, it is minimal at best.

certifiedfunds
12-02-2012, 17:44
Nice little fantasy world you live in there. The unions were created for a reason, the need was there and still is. If there were no unions things would return to the ways of the past, all in the all mighty name of PROFIT. That is why companies went overseas, to avoid profit draining measures such as safety regulations.

All the anti union people cry about is wages. Wages were only part of why unions came about. Safety, equal pay for men and women, child labor were also elements that led to unions. Prior to unions and the laws they helped bring about it was hard for a man to get a job, because a company would hire women and children for a lot less.

Profit is what produces the tax revenue that pays your salary.

G-19
12-02-2012, 19:03
Profit is what produces the tax revenue that pays your salary.

Yep. :)

canis latrans
12-02-2012, 19:29
Yep. :)

tell me, g19...is your pension plan investing in the stock market at all? :dunno: