When has a union created a job?

[noose4]

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!

Unions hire people all the time, they have clerical staff to cover paper work and maintenance workers to maintain their offices and buildings. I am damn glad we have unions to fight against big money's effort to further erode the U.S. working/middle class, and I am damn proud to be a union member. Conservatives might think working people doing more for less while having benefits and pensions cut while big business has never done better financially is a good thing but as for me I disagree.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

I ask again..

Joe has a great work ethic.
Tom has found that line of what is the least acceptable work ethic.

Why is it ok for them to be treated as equals when negotiating compensation?

 

[noose4]

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.

I ask again..

Joe has a great work ethic.
Tom has found that line of what is the least acceptable work ethic.

Why is it ok for them to be treated as equals when negotiating compensation?

Because they both do better under a collectively bargained contract than they would do with an individually negotiated one., and it is a myth that within a union the better worker can not advance, the trade unions have different levels workers must work at and achieve.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Your scenario of the robber works only when the employer is the only one in town, and the employee has no other place to go. Even so, the employee can always say no. No one forces him to take a job.

A consultant might work for only one company at a time. So the loss of a long term contract would be devastating. He can take steps to mitigate that, like having a second line of work. So too the employee. But a talented employee with good job skills can usually write his own ticket. The incompetent stumble-bums are the ones who need protecting.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I ask again..

Joe has a great work ethic.
Tom has found that line of what is the least acceptable work ethic.

Why is it ok for them to be treated as equals when negotiating compensation?

Because they both do better under a collectively bargained contract than they would do with an individually negotiated one., and it is a myth that within a union the better worker can not advance, the trade unions have different levels workers must work at and achieve.

No, the talented worker will do worse, the stumble-bum will do better. They will equal out. Which is why union representation in private industries has been declining for 50 years.

 

[Dragon]

Joe has a great work ethic.
Tom has found that line of what is the least acceptable work ethic.

Why is it ok for them to be treated as equals when negotiating compensation?

Because the alternative is to let both Joe and Tom be exploited and paid less than they should be. Because, as much as you might like to think differently, the interests of employers and of workers are not conjoined -- they are naturally opposed.

Personally, I think union rules could benefit from recognizing superior performance. I think the fear that this will empower the boss to divide workers against each other, while not entirely unwarranted, can be gotten around. But the solution to this lies in reforming the union, not in destroying it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Joe has a great work ethic.
Tom has found that line of what is the least acceptable work ethic.

Why is it ok for them to be treated as equals when negotiating compensation?

Because the alternative is to let both Joe and Tom be exploited and paid less than they should be. Because, as much as you might like to think differently, the interests of employers and of workers are not conjoined -- they are naturally opposed.

Personally, I think union rules could benefit from recognizing superior performance. I think the fear that this will empower the boss to divide workers against each other, while not entirely unwarranted, can be gotten around. But the solution to this lies in reforming the union, not in destroying it.

Presumably Joe and Tom can look at numbers and figure out which one is higher. They will both find the job that gives them the most of what they want. Therefore there is no exploitation. Now, once hired Tom might become an alcoholic stumble bum and never earn his paycheck. So in that sense you are right that there can be exploitation, although here it is the worker exploiting the employer. Which happens a lot more than the other way around.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

How poor does the American working class have to get before conservatives will stop bitching about them?

They are not bitching about the working class LIAR.

Its the moucher class.

Teachers, and firefighters, and police, and steelworkers, and truck drivers, and garbage collectors, and janitors, and electricians, and carpenters, and miners...etc...

...people like that are moochers?

But, according to you, if all the people like those above were just poorer, everything in America would be wonderful...

If you don't like the "status" of your living conditions where you work, then get additional education and training for a higher level position. If you want a strong retirement and pention, then learn to be a corporate manager or CEO of a major company. If you don't like working for someone else with a limited income, what's stopping you from becoming a business owner?

It appears from the protests in places like Wisconsin, that teachers are more concerned with issue like "tenure" than the quality of education the kids today are receiving. Why is the discussion always centered around teachers receiving more benefits, but yet they are afraid to comment on the LEVEL of education many children are graduating with today when they leave high school and need to look for employment? Which is the priority here?

 

[Jarhead]

Joe has a great work ethic.
Tom has found that line of what is the least acceptable work ethic.

Why is it ok for them to be treated as equals when negotiating compensation?

Because the alternative is to let both Joe and Tom be exploited and paid less than they should be. Because, as much as you might like to think differently, the interests of employers and of workers are not conjoined -- they are naturally opposed.

Personally, I think union rules could benefit from recognizing superior performance. I think the fear that this will empower the boss to divide workers against each other, while not entirely unwarranted, can be gotten around. But the solution to this lies in reforming the union, not in destroying it.

And as I said earlier...the first step is to eliminate collective bargaining.

VBut I gotta tell you.....and dont take this as an insult for I find you quite intelligent...

But there is NO WAY yoiu own a business. I do. And I service business owners...and business owners do not think the way you say they think.

Business owners are always wrapped up in KEEPING their most loyal , talented and productive workers....perhaps from a greed standpoiint...but that is their "bread and butter",,,

And thus why one with a great work ethic can dicate his salary and his stavbbility.

And as I said...I see it and experience it in negotiations everyday.

Just had one today die on me. The guy got TOO greedy...he got a 15% increase on his existing salary....but inisted on a 20% sign on bonus......I got the employer to agree to the sign on bonus 6 months in assumingt target initiatives were met.....the candidate inisted on it immeidtaely...implying that he did not think he can meet the goals...and he lost.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Unions make jobs disappear.

 

[Dragon]

Your scenario of the robber works only when the employer is the only one in town, and the employee has no other place to go.

It also works if all employers in town offer essentially the same deal. Which is usually the case, unless one employer in a field is especially bad or especially good.

Even so, the employee can always say no. No one forces him to take a job.

No? Let me ask you this. Suppose you, I, and another guy are standing in a room. The other guy pulls a gun, puts it to your head, and says, "Give Dragon all your money."

I say nothing. I do nothing. I'm not forcing you to do anything. When you give me your money, are you doing it freely, merely because I, personally, am not the one holding a gun to your head?

A consultant might work for only one company at a time. So the loss of a long term contract would be devastating.

True. But not usual. And it's certainly not true for me. I can lose any one client and not worry about it much. Actually, I'm determined to keep it that way.

But a talented employee with good job skills can usually write his own ticket. The incompetent stumble-bums are the ones who need protecting.

You're characterizing 90%+ of the work force as"incompetent stumble-bums," which says more about you than about anyone else. But I disagree that a talented employee with good job skills can "write his own ticket." That's a wild exaggeration. Let's say someone comes to you -- I don't know what business you're in, or if you're even in business for yourself, and if so whom you hire, but let's say you're in need of a new computer network engineer. Some guy comes in with an incredible resume and fantastic references from past work. This is a dream employee. He's probably the best network engineer in the whole world.

You ask what he wants in the way of salary, and he says he wants a million a year with full health care and a month off each year in December-January. Do you give it to him?

Of course you don't; that would be absurd. The market for network engineers sets rough top and bottom limits for pay, as well as expected averages. You're not free to depart wildly from that range. Offer much below what your competitors do and you won't be able to hire anyone for the job. Offer much above it and you'll put yourself at a competitive disadvantage due to tying up your capital.

But what a union presence in the field does is to reset the parameters and drive up the average. The same rules apply: you still can't go much above or below what your competitors pay, and you still will pay more for really good workers than for average ones. (You won't hire "incompetent stumble-bums" at all.) But all of these values will be reset upwards.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Has no one here read 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair? It is an accurate depiction of worker conditions before unions. Workers were being exploited in such horrendous ways. I honestly think that some of you conservatives want people to suffer, and simply alter reality and facts with your mind to fit a storyline in your head that really isn't true. Unions were created to protect workers from ultra-low wages, ultra-harsh working conditions, and ultra-long working days. You should be thankful for unions.

Um, yes the Jungle was required reading in my public high school in Chicago. And yes it depicted horrible working conditions in the Chicago stockyards before labor laws were enacted. However, even at 16 years old I knew it was a book..........classified as fiction. I've no doubt some of those things were happening but as books go I'm guessing it was "enhanced" a little.

There was a time when Unions really were there for the working man and woman, now it's just about lining their pockets and getting their cronies elected with ginormous campaign contributions.

That is a common thread for conservatives. We once needed unions but now they are no longer necessary

Don't you think it is up to the workers to decide when unions are no longer needed

When you look at the drop of people who decide to remain employed by a union, and how the union has exchanged political lobbying over caring for its individual members they ALREADY represent, I believe that decision ia already being decided.

 

[Dragon]

And as I said earlier...the first step is to eliminate collective bargaining.

First step to what? First step to something, sure. Just not something acceptable.

VBut I gotta tell you.....and dont take this as an insult for I find you quite intelligent...

But there is NO WAY yoiu own a business.

I do, but I'm the sole employee of it. For purposes of this discussion, that doesn't really count. However --

I do. And I service business owners...and business owners do not think the way you say they think.

I'm not saying anything about "how business owners think." I'm saying things about how they MUST behave, given the realities of the market. And yet:

Business owners are always wrapped up in KEEPING their most loyal , talented and productive workers

What about the rest of their workers? And what percentage of them would you say fall into that "most loyal, talented and productive" category?

And thus why one with a great work ethic can dicate his salary and his stavbbility.

Did you see the hypothetical I posted above about the terrific network engineer asking for a million bucks a year? Do you not agree that is absurd even for the best network engineer on the planet?

Inability to ask for something absurd means that one cannot "dictate." May we please dispense with hyperbole? Of course it's true that a really, really good employee can ask for and get more than an average one; that's not in dispute. Do you understand that it is also not in conflict with anything I'm saying, nor any reason to say that unions are not needed?

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course you don't; that would be absurd. The market for network engineers sets rough top and bottom limits for pay, as well as expected averages. You're not free to depart wildly from that range. Offer much below what your competitors do and you won't be able to hire anyone for the job. Offer much above it and you'll put yourself at a competitive disadvantage due to tying up your capital.

That's it right there. You nailed it. That is exactly right. There is a market for any skill and level within that skill set. Offer too little you will never hire anyone. Offer too much and you wont have money for anything else.
Except unions circumvent that mechanism. Unions say you must hire these people on those terms. There is no real negotiation. Thus they drive up labor costs beyond what the market suggests they ought to be. Employers therefore don't have money for other things, like other positions or other equipment that will keep the company competitive. Therefore they fall further and further behind until eventually they must get bailed out or go under or both. This is precisely the story of the steel and railroad industries in this country. Unions killed those jobs.

 

[naturegirl]

Typical Union journeyman makes $35.00 per hour, apprentice makes $20.00 an hour. Times are tough, company is losing money. Company can lay off apprentice for lack of work, or he can cut journeyman's hours so he can continue to pay apprentice. Journeyman says no way, lay off apprentice, I'm not taking a cut in pay, lay him off. Now who does the work of the apprentice??

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Unions and the Government ran them out. Don't put words in my mouth, I never said it was a good thing but you really need to wake up and smell the coffee. In a global economy the rich don't need the US, it's workers, it's government or it's Unions. They can go where they are wanted, where people want to work for a fair wage, not some ridiculous hourly rate with even more benefits. Too many US citizens think they can strong arm businesses into doing what they want, it doesn't work that way anymore.

That's part of the problem. Liberals think ALL THE WORLD evolves around the United States. It's the attitude of: "Why shouldn't corporations build in the United States and employ American workers?" What they don't understand is, Corporations don't need the United States when they are constantly driving to compete in a global market, you have to attract businesses to WANT to come back to the United States. They complain how all the jobs are going overseas, yet they can't give any benefits or reason as to why a business would WANT to stop and plant stakes here? Where is the incentive?

Democrats want to raise taxes and close loop holes on Corporations, because they are incapable of seeing beyond their own boundries they live in. Do they honestly believe more costly regulations and taxes will somehow cause a business owner to say: "You know what? It may very well be more expensive to build and maintain a factory to meet the constant overflow of regulations in the United States, as opposed to a country in Europe. However, we need to look at these unions who seem to put pay over production and don't necessarily share in the interest of seeing my corporation succeed in the global market."

 

[Jarhead]

And as I said earlier...the first step is to eliminate collective bargaining.

First step to what? First step to something, sure. Just not something acceptable.

VBut I gotta tell you.....and dont take this as an insult for I find you quite intelligent...

But there is NO WAY yoiu own a business.

I do, but I'm the sole employee of it. For purposes of this discussion, that doesn't really count. However --



I'm not saying anything about "how business owners think." I'm saying things about how they MUST behave, given the realities of the market. And yet:

Business owners are always wrapped up in KEEPING their most loyal , talented and productive workers

What about the rest of their workers? And what percentage of them would you say fall into that "most loyal, talented and productive" category?

And thus why one with a great work ethic can dicate his salary and his stavbbility.

Did you see the hypothetical I posted above about the terrific network engineer asking for a million bucks a year? Do you not agree that is absurd even for the best network engineer on the planet?

Inability to ask for something absurd means that one cannot "dictate." May we please dispense with hyperbole? Of course it's true that a really, really good employee can ask for and get more than an average one; that's not in dispute. Do you understand that it is also not in conflict with anything I'm saying, nor any reason to say that unions are not needed?

Not sure why you dont get it.

Your hypothetical was rediculous....for when I say "can dictate their salary", I obviously mean within reason.

You say "what about the less loyal and dedicated and talented"....

I say...become more loyal, dedicated and talented and you will reap the rewards.

Look...unlike you, I have employed hundreds....most of them my temps that I dispatch to my clients....but each and everyone of them are paid based on their loyalty, dedication and skill set. Those that do not show up on time? I dont offer them the higher paying opportunities. Those that do not stay up with technology and have the "old version"? Do not get the higher paying positions.

BUT...those that show up on time? They doi well with me. Those that enhance their skill set? They do well with me. Those that show loyalty? Get the same in return.

Now I have a really good question for you.....and I would love to hear your answewr on this...

Based on your "morally right theory" as it pertins to the employers having a moral obligation to share the profits with the employees (I know...not that cut and dry, but you know what I am saying)...

I had this happen to me last month...

A client in August approached me. He needed 15 temps for 2 months. It was a major project. I secured the temps and all was going well. I bill monthly, but I pay weekly...and was paying the temps as they should be paid.

I invoiced him 9-15.....in the mentime I am paying the temps....
Cpome 10-15 Oinvoiced him again...and insisted on payment fpor the 9-15 invoice.

Bottom line....he closed up on 10-18......yep....closed up and disconnected phones.......

I had laid out over 13K a week in slaaries for him......He stiffed me for nearly 100K...and that does NOT include the profit...that was what I laid out.

Yes, his "stuff" is in the hands of the marshall and I will get something back after the auction......but my attorney told me to expect a loss of over 70K.

Should those employees share that loss with me?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Employers have felt free to use intimidation, threats, spying, and other illegal methods to keep workers from forming unions.

And you don't think Unions ever use illegal methods of their own to infiltrate and spy on non-union companies?

 

[Dragon]

That's it right there. You nailed it. That is exactly right. There is a market for any skill and level within that skill set. Offer too little you will never hire anyone. Offer too much and you wont have money for anything else.
Except unions circumvent that mechanism. Unions say you must hire these people on those terms. There is no real negotiation. Thus they drive up labor costs beyond what the market suggests they ought to be.

The fallacy here is to suppose that "the market" is fixed, or has a natural range. It has a range, and it is out of the control of any one business, but it is NOT fixed. Consider.

Suppose you were running one of the two big railroad companies constructing the transcontinental railroad back in the 19th century. Now, first hypothetical, suppose the government does what it actually did: encourage lots of immigrants to come into the country from Europe and China so that there's a glut of unskilled but healthy labor that can be trained to work on railroad-building.

Second hypothetical: suppose the government doesn't do this but rather locks the borders tight and only lets a trickle of immigrants in, so you have to hire mostly U.S. citizens.

Do you think the market price for railroad labor would maybe be a bit higher under the second scenario than under the first?

That's just one example. There are many things that can be done to affect the parameters of the labor market. Most of those are in the purview of the government (labor, trade, tax, and immigration policy mostly), but some are in the purview of workers themselves, and of those forming a union is the one single most important thing they can do.

There are four statements quoted above which are untrue. They are:

"Offer too much and you wont have money for anything else." No, and that's not what I said. Offer too much and you will suffer a competitive disadvantage. You won't have AS MUCH money left for other things as your competitors do. That doesn't mean you'll have no money.

"Except unions circumvent that mechanism." No, they don't. They just change the balance of negotiating power between capital and labor, which drives all of the parameters higher. It will still be true that you can't offer too much or too little, but both of these values are increased, just as they would be in a condition of labor shortage.

"There is no real negotiation." Sure there is. Unions can't ask for the moon, or for anything that would render the business unprofitable. A business will only generate so much revenue, and it has to show a profit. When a union demands more than the business can reasonably pay, given the conditions of the market for its goods and other real-world factors, the owners are in a good position to say no. This happens all the time.

"Thus they drive up labor costs beyond what the market suggests they ought to be." No, they don't. They just drive up labor costs beyond what the market would be in the absence of a union. But there is no fixed value to "what the market suggests they ought to be." The labor market, like all markets, operates within the parameters set by conditions of supply, demand, and bargaining power. The only way that ever changes is if either the government or a monopoly determines wages by fiat.

 

[Dragon]

Employers have felt free to use intimidation, threats, spying, and other illegal methods to keep workers from forming unions.

And you don't think Unions ever use illegal methods of their own to infiltrate and spy on non-union companies?

Yes, that does happen occasionally, but it can't be compared to what an employer does, because what a union CAN do along these lines can't be compared to what an employer CAN do. A union cannot for example threaten an employee in a non-union shop with losing his job or losing a chance for promotion if he votes the wrong way.

By law, neither can an employer. In practice, though, they often can and do. And this means that we should not assume that union elections have been "fair."