When has a union created a job?

[Dragon]

and it doesnt mean they would be getting paid less.

No, but let me be clearer: they CERTAINLY wouldn't be paid more. And if they're being paid only as well, they have gained nothing, except perhaps the privilege of feeling superior to others.

Employees in the private NON UNION sector actually dictate their salary. . . .

If one is good at one does, he/she has two factors working in their favor

1) they generate revenue for their employer
2) their leaving for the competition will result in the employer losing their talent AND the competitoion GETTING their talent

I am fully aware of this. In fact, it is common knowledge. Since it does not change my thinking on this subject one bit, why bother bringing it up again? It simply doesn't imply what you claim it implies. It most absolutely does not mean that employees in non-union shops can "dictate their salaries." In fact, union employees can't do that, either, nor should they be able to do so. But they are able to bargain for their salaries as equals.

Here's another thing that unions do. Let's say a company invests in some new equipment and techniques that allow an improvement in productivity of 25%. In a non-union environment, the company will simply take that increased productivity as increased profit. If the market exists, they will make and sell more product; if not, they will lay off 25% of the workers and take more profit by reducing costs.

In a union environment, though, when the contract comes up for renegotiation, the union will press for across-the-board pay increases to reflect the improved productivity. And they'll probably get it. This will allow wages to keep pace with productivity, assuming unions are strong throughout the economy.

When that doesn't happen, there isn't enough buying power in the economy to absorb the increased production of goods, and the economy slumps. This is why unions are good for the economy, and why unions create jobs -- indirectly.

 

[Jarhead]

and it doesnt mean they would be getting paid less.

No, but let me be clearer: they CERTAINLY wouldn't be paid more. And if they're being paid only as well, they have gained nothing, except perhaps the privilege of feeling superior to others.

Employees in the private NON UNION sector actually dictate their salary. . . .

If one is good at one does, he/she has two factors working in their favor

1) they generate revenue for their employer
2) their leaving for the competition will result in the employer losing their talent AND the competitoion GETTING their talent

I am fully aware of this. In fact, it is common knowledge. Since it does not change my thinking on this subject one bit, why bother bringing it up again? It simply doesn't imply what you claim it implies. It most absolutely does not mean that employees in non-union shops can "dictate their salaries." In fact, union employees can't do that, either, nor should they be able to do so. But they are able to bargain for their salaries as equals.

Again, you see it as appropriate for tow people..one with a poor work ethic and one with a great work ethic to be allowed to bargain as equals. Is that fair to the one with a great work ethic?

Here's another thing that unions do. Let's say a company invests in some new equipment and techniques that allow an improvement in productivity of 25%. In a non-union environment, the company will simply take that increased productivity as increased profit. If the market exists, they will make and sell more product; if not, they will lay off 25% of the workers and take more profit by reducing costs.

In a union environment, though, when the contract comes up for renegotiation, the union will press for across-the-board pay increases to reflect the improved productivity. And they'll probably get it. This will allow wages to keep pace with productivity, assuming unions are strong throughout the economy.

So let me get this straight....An employer INVESTS in new technology with HIS money...and if it increases productivity by 25% there is an issue with him taking the profits? So let me ask you this....if he invests 100K in that new technology and it does nothing for prodcutivity....and it winds up being a loss...are you in favor of the union employees sharing in the loss?

When that doesn't happen, there isn't enough buying power in the economy to absorb the increased production of goods, and the economy slumps. This is why unions are good for the economy, and why unions create jobs -- indirectly.

are you aware that you see business ownership as a partnership with the employees...even though the employees risk nothing and the employer risks everything?

 

[Jarhead]

In non union environemtns, better empolyees get raises

Which means that the better employees are being paid more than the rest of them. But it doesn't mean those better employees are being paid more than they would be if they had a union.

let me ask you a question Dragon...

As a consumer....is there a top dollar you set for yourself hen buying something?

For example...some people see a car as nothing more than transportation. Others see is as a materialistic object and would pay more for a car based on luxury...

But look at the one who sees it as a means of transportation.

They have a choice...

Pay 20K for a nice car
Pay 60K for a nicer car.

They opt to pay 20K becuase they can not see it worth paying 60K for a car.

Do you agree that such is how many consumers think? Do you see any fault in it?

Can you asnwer the above question Dragon?

 

[Jarhead]

and it doesnt mean they would be getting paid less.

No, but let me be clearer: they CERTAINLY wouldn't be paid more. And if they're being paid only as well, they have gained nothing, except perhaps the privilege of feeling superior to others.

Employees in the private NON UNION sector actually dictate their salary. . . .

If one is good at one does, he/she has two factors working in their favor

1) they generate revenue for their employer
2) their leaving for the competition will result in the employer losing their talent AND the competitoion GETTING their talent

I am fully aware of this. In fact, it is common knowledge. Since it does not change my thinking on this subject one bit, why bother bringing it up again? It simply doesn't imply what you claim it implies. It most absolutely does not mean that employees in non-union shops can "dictate their salaries." In fact, union employees can't do that, either, nor should they be able to do so. But they are able to bargain for their salaries as equals.

Here's another thing that unions do. Let's say a company invests in some new equipment and techniques that allow an improvement in productivity of 25%. In a non-union environment, the company will simply take that increased productivity as increased profit. If the market exists, they will make and sell more product; if not, they will lay off 25% of the workers and take more profit by reducing costs.

In a union environment, though, when the contract comes up for renegotiation, the union will press for across-the-board pay increases to reflect the improved productivity. And they'll probably get it. This will allow wages to keep pace with productivity, assuming unions are strong throughout the economy.

When that doesn't happen, there isn't enough buying power in the economy to absorb the increased production of goods, and the economy slumps. This is why unions are good for the economy, and why unions create jobs -- indirectly.

with this one line...you have completely redefined the economic premise that prices are dictated by the ratio of supply and demand.

Sure...productivity increases, and salaries dont, then demand will decrease...and thus the prices will decrease accordingly until demand meets supply.

Where did you come up with what I put in bold?

 

[Dragon]

with this one line...you have completely redefined the economic premise that prices are dictated by the ratio of supply and demand.

Sure...productivity increases, and salaries dont, then demand will decrease...and thus the prices will decrease accordingly until demand meets supply.

Where did you come up with what I put in bold?

What you have described does not happen. We have decades of industrial economic history to prove it. The reason is of course that prices are not perfectly elastic; they cannot be reduced to the point where profit per sale drops to zero.

Thus, it is not altogether true that prices are dictated by the ratio of supply and demand, although obviously these factors are important. Of the two, demand is the driver, except when supply depends on some non-expandable factor, e.g. when it depends on a natural resource in short supply.

What happens when demand slacks is not that prices drop to the point where they match demand, although they may fall slightly in the beginning. What happens is that production drops until supply matches demand. The problem with that, is that drops in production involve laying off workers, which means that demand falls further still, causing a further drop in production and more layoffs and so on. This phenomenon is called a "recession." It has happened many times. If what you described above were an economic reality, there would never have been such a thing as a recession in all history. Obviously, then, it is not true.

When unions, together with government policy, keep wages high as a function of productivity, and keep income gaps relatively narrow, the economy does well. Historically, this occurred in the U.S. economy from the end of World War II until the OPEC oil embargo of 1973. This period of history saw an economy that far outperformed both what went before and what came after by more than two to one. Recessions didn't entirely disappear, but they were short and mild compared to those of the pre-Roosevelt and post-Reagan economy both.

As a consumer....is there a top dollar you set for yourself hen buying something?

Obviously the answer is yes. Where are you trying to go with this?

are you aware that you see business ownership as a partnership with the employees...even though the employees risk nothing and the employer risks everything?

Yes. And I have no apologies for that. To do otherwise is to see working people as a commodity, which means in effect as slaves.

 

[Jarhead]

with this one line...you have completely redefined the economic premise that prices are dictated by the ratio of supply and demand.

Sure...productivity increases, and salaries dont, then demand will decrease...and thus the prices will decrease accordingly until demand meets supply.

Where did you come up with what I put in bold?

What you have described does not happen. We have decades of industrial economic history to prove it. The reason is of course that prices are not perfectly elastic; they cannot be reduced to the point where profit per sale drops to zero.

Thus, it is not altogether true that prices are dictated by the ratio of supply and demand, although obviously these factors are important. Of the two, demand is the driver, except when supply depends on some non-expandable factor, e.g. when it depends on a natural resource in short supply.

What happens when demand slacks is not that prices drop to the point where they match demand, although they may fall slightly in the beginning. What happens is that production drops until supply matches demand. The problem with that, is that drops in production involve laying off workers, which means that demand falls further still, causing a further drop in production and more layoffs and so on. This phenomenon is called a "recession." It has happened many times. If what you described above were an economic reality, there would never have been such a thing as a recession in all history. Obviously, then, it is not true.

When unions, together with government policy, keep wages high as a function of productivity, and keep income gaps relatively narrow, the economy does well. Historically, this occurred in the U.S. economy from the end of World War II until the OPEC oil embargo of 1973. This period of history saw an economy that far outperformed both what went before and what came after by more than two to one. Recessions didn't entirely disappear, but they were short and mild compared to those of the pre-Roosevelt and post-Reagan economy both.

As a consumer....is there a top dollar you set for yourself hen buying something?

Obviously the answer is yes. Where are you trying to go with this?

are you aware that you see business ownership as a partnership with the employees...even though the employees risk nothing and the employer risks everything?

Yes. And I have no apologies for that. To do otherwise is to see working people as a commodity, which means in effect as slaves.

ours is a difference in economic theory.

As I see it, More often than not recessions are caused by market saturation ands a levelling out usually takes plavce in about a year and a half.

TO label wokers as slaves becuase they are deemed as a commodity is, in my eyes, rash and immature. No worker is enslaved in their job. They may quit if and when they wish. But yes, they are a commodity to the investor (business owner)...and they TOO can be an investor (business owner) if they are willing to tkae the risk.

Now..as to where I am going with the other question.....

why are you, a consumer, allowed to put a cap on the value of something, but a business owner is not allowed to as it pertains to the value of a particular position in his company.

For example.....should a business owner be able to determine the value of a receptionist? (I am not referring to the employee...I am referring to the position of recptionist)

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

HEY.. tell me if the UNION is so good, why are members FORCED to join?
If it is so wonderful, why are their DUES taken out without the members having a choice?

If you work for a union shop, you get the same benefit from that whether you are a member of the union or not. Asking why, under those circumstances, people have to be required to pay the union dues, is asking why people wouldn't want to get something for nothing.

What you fail to mention, perhaps out of convenience, that if you belong to a union and are unemployed for over 5 months you are still required to pay the same full union dues as those who are currently employed. The fact you are having to adapt your situation to cover your own bills and live under a reduced unemployment check is no real concern of theirs, as they are only concerned on whether your dues are still being paid on time, or if they have to drop you from the chance of finding union employment. Doesn't sound like a Union that "looks out for their own" and cares about their "working conditions"? the "Union Strategy" is all about finding other non-union companies, and promoting Democrat legislation that makes it easier for non-union companies to have no choice but get sucked into their union collective. With more non-union businesses being forced to go union, unions have greater lobbying power through a growing assimulation of workers from non union companies into their membership. A membership that brings in an even greater return for Union Represenatatives, as their position draws them closer to the top of the union leadership ladder, in the form of rather lucrative dues. Bottom line, Unions today care more about promoting ways that increase the number dues they are able to collect, than the members they are supposed to represent.

 

[Dragon]

ours is a difference in economic theory.

As I see it, More often than not recessions are caused by market saturation ands a levelling out usually takes plavce in about a year and a half.

What that assumes is that there is such a thing as "too much wealth production." There may be, but if so it is for environmental reasons, not economic ones.

"Market saturation" means essentially the same thing as "slack demand," but it puts the emphasis in a different place, and calls for cutbacks on production rather than improving the distribution of wealth.

TO label wokers as slaves becuase they are deemed as a commodity is, in my eyes, rash and immature. No worker is enslaved in their job. They may quit if and when they wish. But yes, they are a commodity to the investor (business owner)...and they TOO can be an investor (business owner) if they are willing to tkae the risk.

And if they have capital to invest.

While there are obvious differences between chattel slavery and wage slavery, neither one should be considered freedom. An employer may quit his job only if he has a way of surviving without it, which means either that he has another job lined up to go to, or that he is being paid enough that he can survive unemployed for a while. The first doesn't mean he's free, it just means he's a slave with the privilege of choosing who he's going to serve. The second is a result of higher wages, and is an argument for unions: because that's the only way in which wage slavery begins to approximate freedom.

why are you, a consumer, allowed to put a cap on the value of something, but a business owner is not allowed to as it pertains to the value of a particular position in his company.

Because I, as a consumer, entirely own my money without any arguable moral obligations except for supporting my family, charitable giving, and paying my taxes.

If you are a business owner, however, your business ceases to be morally "yours" in sole ownership from the day you hire your first employee. When someone else's livelihood depends on it, then morally that person owns a share. (Of course I realize that isn't the LEGAL reality, but that's not what I'm talking about.) You may then no longer argue absolute ownership rights or make parallels with the rights in property of a private individual.

EDIT: I think what I'm saying here can be said more simply. From my moral perspective, if a way of looking at things empowers some people to treat others like dirt, it's a bad way of looking at things.

 

[Dragon]

HEY.. tell me if the UNION is so good, why are members FORCED to join?
If it is so wonderful, why are their DUES taken out without the members having a choice?

If you work for a union shop, you get the same benefit from that whether you are a member of the union or not. Asking why, under those circumstances, people have to be required to pay the union dues, is asking why people wouldn't want to get something for nothing.

What you fail to mention, perhaps out of convenience, that if you belong to a union and are unemployed for over 5 months you are still required to pay the same full union dues as those who are currently employed.

It wasn't out of convenience but because it has nothing to do with what healthmyths said. He was talking about people in a union shop who AREN'T members of the union still having to pay dues as long as they work there.

 

[Jarhead]

ours is a difference in economic theory.

As I see it, More often than not recessions are caused by market saturation ands a levelling out usually takes plavce in about a year and a half.

What that assumes is that there is such a thing as "too much wealth production." There may be, but if so it is for environmental reasons, not economic ones.

"Market saturation" means essentially the same thing as "slack demand," but it puts the emphasis in a different place, and calls for cutbacks on production rather than improving the distribution of wealth.

TO label wokers as slaves becuase they are deemed as a commodity is, in my eyes, rash and immature. No worker is enslaved in their job. They may quit if and when they wish. But yes, they are a commodity to the investor (business owner)...and they TOO can be an investor (business owner) if they are willing to tkae the risk.

And if they have capital to invest.

While there are obvious differences between chattel slavery and wage slavery, neither one should be considered freedom. An employer may quit his job only if he has a way of surviving without it, which means either that he has another job lined up to go to, or that he is being paid enough that he can survive unemployed for a while. The first doesn't mean he's free, it just means he's a slave with the privilege of choosing who he's going to serve. The second is a result of higher wages, and is an argument for unions: because that's the only way in which wage slavery begins to approximate freedom.

why are you, a consumer, allowed to put a cap on the value of something, but a business owner is not allowed to as it pertains to the value of a particular position in his company.

Because I, as a consumer, entirely own my money without any arguable moral obligations except for supporting my family, charitable giving, and paying my taxes.

If you are a business owner, however, your business ceases to be morally "yours" in sole ownership from the day you hire your first employee. When someone else's livelihood depends on it, then morally that person owns a share. (Of course I realize that isn't the LEGAL reality, but that's not what I'm talking about.) You may then no longer argue absolute ownership rights or make parallels with the rights in property of a private individual.

With market saturation I am referring to the market being saturated with the product.
For example....when flat screens came out, there was a great demand...as time went on, the demand decresed as the obsolescence time of the product increased compared to the old tube TV's.
Cars now have 100K warrantees....no longer 12K of a decade ago.
Many products have reached their technological peak....giving little reason for people to go out and buy a new one...until their old one dies on them.

As for your "moral obligation" theory...

First...let me say this...whereas I disagree with you, I understand that theory quite well...and I have a great deal of respect for it....and at one time I actually toyed with a belief in that theory..

Until, during a debate with Professor Tussing of Syracuse University the question came up..

"does the employee have the moral obligation to share in the losses if the business owner loses everything"

And all 12 people in the debate said "no"

And that is when I decided it is all about risk. If you are willing to take the risk, you should be allowed to reap the rewards....and deal with the losses.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you work for a union shop, you get the same benefit from that whether you are a member of the union or not. Asking why, under those circumstances, people have to be required to pay the union dues, is asking why people wouldn't want to get something for nothing.

What you fail to mention, perhaps out of convenience, that if you belong to a union and are unemployed for over 5 months you are still required to pay the same full union dues as those who are currently employed.

It wasn't out of convenience but because it has nothing to do with what healthmyths said. He was talking about people in a union shop who AREN'T members of the union still having to pay dues as long as they work there.

The response was in reference to the discussion of forced payment of union dues when someone becomes a union member. I was adding to the discussion on union dues and these "payments for receiving benefits." Healthmyths brought up a good question about members being forced to join and then having to pay for union dues.

people have to be required to pay the union dues, is asking why people wouldn't want to get something for nothing.

I happen to notice that don't recall many union members receiving any benefits, that are still paying union dues, while on long term unemployment?

 

[The Rabbi]

Except every member of the firm agreed to it. Union members have no such power. Further, if the company didnt like what the consulting firm was offering, they could hire a different consulting firm down the street. How does that work out with unionized shops? It doesn't.

Well, if you want to say that a consulting firm is entering an entirely different field of contracting than workers on a factory floor, which is true in many ways, then your entire analogy falls to pieces and you can go back and retract your original post about this as irrelevant to the discussion.

That might in fact be the best course of action, being the most truthful and honest. If you're interested in such values.

I didnt create the analogy. You seem to want to say that this business arrangement is analogous to union-employer arrangements. It obviously isn't. Thanks for recognzing that and back to our regularly scheduled ass whooping.

 

[The Rabbi]

Or for that matter.. when has a group of poor people created jobs?

Or why don't we declare ALL businesses are NONPROFIT!

Which means there will be committees , i.e. central planners in D.C. that will tell all oil, transportation, manufacturers how often they will drill, or pump or when cars can be on the roads, or how many iPads can be built because
Central planning" says there isn't enough lithium available for the batteries because Central planning hasn't signed the Afghanistan agreement from China!

NOT for profits meaning NO Federal income/state/local/sales or property taxes!

Come on all of you are in favor of withdrawing from these evil profit making banks and putting into those kindly nonprofit credit unions right???
AFter all they have "union" in their name!

So who will pay the property taxes after all NONPROFITS are exempt!

Again.. tell me all you OWS supporters.. why not do away with ALL evil for profit companies?

Because that seems to be the logical extension!

The answer to your subject line question reminds me of this company slogan:

"At BASF, we don't make a lot of the products you buy. We make a lot of the products you buy better."

Unions don't make jobs. They make the jobs that already exist better.

They make SOME of the jobs that exist better for those who already occupy them. Every one can go get screwed. That's the union way.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I saw men begging for 12 hour a day jobs to make $0.75 a day and their mid day meal. I saw grown men cry because they were unable to put food on the table for their families.

Where did you ever see that?

West Tennessee during 1939, 1940 and 1941. The unemployment rate almost reached 50%. The $0.75 a day work was as field laborers on farms. I'm going on 78 years old. Like I said...people who have never seen what it used to be like before unions don't have a clue. Don't worry...right now they're in the middle of a scheme which when it comes to fruition will result in what used to be the middle class in America will be able to earn proportionately about what a worker in Maylasia makes.

The wealthy and those in control have pulled off a scam which resulted in the government handing nearly a trillion dollars to banks with no directions and no restrictions on how they used it. Bush, Paulson and Bernanke pulled it off. They convinced the congress that the sky would fall within weeks if they didn't approved it. Then...Bernanke sent another three trillion to banks from the Fed at a couple of percent interest so they never would have to miss a bonus for their already wealthy bankers.

Watch what the banks do if this Occupy movement continues to gather momentum...they will shut the banks down and we will have another great depression. What do they have to lose...they will still be rich as six feet up a bull's ass.

The unions may have aided to the conditon and treatment of some workers THEN, but todays union doesn't operate the same way. As far as treatment of workers, that's what groups like OSHA and Department of Labor are there for. Unions need to once again re-establish themselves as caring more for the treatment of workers and working conditions, instead of simply how many companies they can get to go union through Washington lobbyists promoting legislation for "political" gain.

Union supporters speak of their efforts for the 8 hour work day, safety conditions that improved, paid holidays, etc (which actually I don't know of many union companies that make allowances for paid holidays or sick leave). However, can any of you state what improvements the union has done for "the average worker" that has helped with job conditions within the past 10 years?

 

[The Rabbi]

In non union environemtns, better empolyees get raises

Which means that the better employees are being paid more than the rest of them. But it doesn't mean those better employees are being paid more than they would be if they had a union.

Except they do.
When GM opened their Spring Hill Saturn plant the employees were staunchly against the unions for exactly this reason. They made more money with better benefits than when they had been union members. Eventually the UAW forced their way in. The plant is now closed, btw. Victim of bad management and high costs.

 

[Againsheila]

easy, when unions forced companies to pay better wages and benefits, their employees spent that money, creating jobs in the economy. I remember when they used to figure that every job at Boeing provided 5 jobs outside of Boeing. Do you really think they would have done that without unions?

 

[Dragon]

I didnt create the analogy. You seem to want to say that this business arrangement is analogous to union-employer arrangements. It obviously isn't.

No, you didn't create the analogy, but neither did I. That was healthmyths.

If it's not a good analogy to union work, the reason is that it's not a good analogy to employment, period. Which means we have left the area of life where the concept of a union has any meaning, which obviates the entire reason that healthmyths brought it up.

In fact, his story has no significance for unions whatsoever and the entire thing may be disregarded.

 

[Dragon]

When GM opened their Spring Hill Saturn plant the employees were staunchly against the unions for exactly this reason. They made more money with better benefits than when they had been union members. the UAW forced their way in. The plant is now closed, btw. Victim of bad management and high costs.

It's always possible to support any position by reference to a cherry-picked anecdote. The problem is that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." It's very easy to prove that unions are associated with higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions.

Actually, if that weren't the case, there would be no opposition to them on the part of corporations and the politicians, think tanks, and propaganda outlets that serve their interests.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didnt create the analogy. You seem to want to say that this business arrangement is analogous to union-employer arrangements. It obviously isn't.

No, you didn't create the analogy, but neither did I. That was healthmyths.

If it's not a good analogy to union work, the reason is that it's not a good analogy to employment, period. Which means we have left the area of life where the concept of a union has any meaning, which obviates the entire reason that healthmyths brought it up.

In fact, his story has no significance for unions whatsoever and the entire thing may be disregarded.

No, the basic idea is still good: that freely negotiated agreements are the best for everyone involved. Unions don't allow that. They demand everyone get treated equally. That's great if you're a stumbling incompetent but frustrating if you're good and enthusiastic about your job. That's why unions are favored by stumbling incompetents and opposed by the enthusiastic.

 

[Dragon]

No, the basic idea is still good: that freely negotiated agreements are the best for everyone involved. Unions don't allow that.

Sure they do. In fact, negotiations between single employees and their employers are what aren't free. Free negotiations are only possible between equals. Between an employer and a single employee, the negotiations are similar to what goes on between a robber with a gun and an unarmed man.

The reason why the comparison doesn't work is because a consultant is in a much different, and better, bargaining position w/r/t a company than someone looking for a job. A consultant does something analogous to what I do for a living, not what a factory worker does. He is in a better bargaining position because each customer is not an employer, but merely a customer: getting that contract is beneficial, but not getting it doesn't mean doom. Since he's better positioned to walk away from the deal, the consultant is able to argue for a better shake.