When has a union created a job?

[noose4]

So if you maintain that union jobs and non union jobs pay the same, then you have made the case there is no need for unions. Especially factoring union dues in.
Yet you have neglected to mention all the jobs lost because of unions. With high labor costs, subsituting capital makes more sense. So more work is automated. This is the origin of the term "union featherbedding" and unions fought automation tooth and nail.
Outsourcing occurs because unit labor costs are high. Note the term unit labor costs. But outsourcing would take place regardless. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

That case was not made by me, workers tend to get more in pay and benefits through collective bargaining(union) than they would negotiating wages and benefits by themselves.
.

Only in the aggregate and only in the short term. An individual worker who is talented will make more on his own, negotiating his own compensation.
In the long term the company will adjust to higher labor costs by cutting back production and moving it elsewhere. Ask all those UAW workers in Detroit who have been unemployed for 10 years.

That just is not so, talented and non talented working people have remained stagnant or gone backwards financially the last few decades along with receiving less benefits and losing pensions and such.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Nope, strength in numbers produces a better contract than a single non skilled negotiator negotiating against a skilled negotiator for wages and benefits. Alone the better worker might get $10 an hour while lesser worker gets $7 but through collective bargaining they both walk away with $15 an hour plus benefits.

the decline of union representation in private industry is why the middle/working class has been declining the past 50 years.

what I puit in bold...

Yes...that is exactly what happens.

The lesser worker gets 15 an hour even though he doesnt deserve it...

Now....lets incorporate human nature....

So they both walk away with 15 an hour...

But the better worker says "I bust my ass all day long; only call in sick when I am really sick; never allow a few inches of snow stop me from getting to work; ...and that guy over there used every sick day and every excuse he can to avopid coming to work......and we both got the same raise....

What is the liklihood that you will see the work ethic of the better worker trend to that of the lesser worker?

Unions reward the least acceptable work ethic.

It is that simple.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

Nope, strength in numbers produces a better contract than a single non skilled negotiator negotiating against a skilled negotiator for wages and benefits. Alone the better worker might get $10 an hour while lesser worker gets $7 but through collective bargaining they both walk away with $15 an hour plus benefits.

the decline of union representation in private industry is why the middle/working class has been declining the past 50 years.

what I puit in bold...

Yes...that is exactly what happens.

The lesser worker gets 15 an hour even though he doesnt deserve it...

Now....lets incorporate human nature....

So they both walk away with 15 an hour...

But the better worker says "I bust my ass all day long; only call in sick when I am really sick; never allow a few inches of snow stop me from getting to work; ...and that guy over there used every sick day and every excuse he can to avopid coming to work......and we both got the same raise....

What is the liklihood that you will see the work ethic of the better worker trend to that of the lesser worker?

Unions reward the least acceptable work ethic.

It is that simple.

And that is the REALITY!!!
My Dad worked 30 years as a union factory worker.
Often he would come home totally angry as to how a few other union workers did as you stated loafed, didn't pull their fair share and others like my Dad had to make it up.
Of course I thought my Dad was exaggerating as sons do when hearing their Dads complain...
BUT I saw it was true when I had summer jobs while going to college at the same factory!

I had to have union dues deducted from my hard earned paycheck and saw daily the abuses that a few union workers did just as my Dad said!
Now of course that was a "FEW" workers BUT they were protected by the Union! Of course management agreed to the union contracts and in discussions with union leaders I heard the leaders agree these workers were protected but as the leaders said..'the mgmt. could have stood up!"

The unions took as much as they could.. i.e. good contract negotiations!

Short term though!

Because that factory my Dad worked at for 30 years after 100 years in the community moved because they couldn't continue to raise the prices of the goods they sold to cover the labor costs!

The short term was good for the Union...Long Term .. goose is dead!

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope, companies will hire as many workers as is necessary to get the job done.

No. They will pay overtime. They will outsource production. They will cut the amount they produce and raise prices. There are many strategies to deal with higher labor costs.

And such applies to both union and non union workforces.

But with union contracts being richer, the likelihood of them doing it is much higher.
You again prove my point.

 

[The Rabbi]

That case was not made by me, workers tend to get more in pay and benefits through collective bargaining(union) than they would negotiating wages and benefits by themselves.
.

Only in the aggregate and only in the short term. An individual worker who is talented will make more on his own, negotiating his own compensation.
In the long term the company will adjust to higher labor costs by cutting back production and moving it elsewhere. Ask all those UAW workers in Detroit who have been unemployed for 10 years.

That just is not so, talented and non talented working people have remained stagnant or gone backwards financially the last few decades along with receiving less benefits and losing pensions and such.

Proof? Of are you just talking out of your ass, again?

 

[noose4]

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.

Nope, strength in numbers produces a better contract than a single non skilled negotiator negotiating against a skilled negotiator for wages and benefits. Alone the better worker might get $10 an hour while lesser worker gets $7 but through collective bargaining they both walk away with $15 an hour plus benefits.

the decline of union representation in private industry is why the middle/working class has been declining the past 50 years.

what I puit in bold...

Yes...that is exactly what happens.

The lesser worker gets 15 an hour even though he doesnt deserve it...

Now....lets incorporate human nature....

So they both walk away with 15 an hour...

But the better worker says "I bust my ass all day long; only call in sick when I am really sick; never allow a few inches of snow stop me from getting to work; ...and that guy over there used every sick day and every excuse he can to avopid coming to work......and we both got the same raise....

What is the liklihood that you will see the work ethic of the better worker trend to that of the lesser worker?

Unions reward the least acceptable work ethic.

It is that simple.

And it is better to get $15 an hour rather than $10 an hour, it is that simple.

 

[noose4]

Nope, strength in numbers produces a better contract than a single non skilled negotiator negotiating against a skilled negotiator for wages and benefits. Alone the better worker might get $10 an hour while lesser worker gets $7 but through collective bargaining they both walk away with $15 an hour plus benefits.

the decline of union representation in private industry is why the middle/working class has been declining the past 50 years.

what I puit in bold...

Yes...that is exactly what happens.

The lesser worker gets 15 an hour even though he doesnt deserve it...

Now....lets incorporate human nature....

So they both walk away with 15 an hour...

But the better worker says "I bust my ass all day long; only call in sick when I am really sick; never allow a few inches of snow stop me from getting to work; ...and that guy over there used every sick day and every excuse he can to avopid coming to work......and we both got the same raise....

What is the liklihood that you will see the work ethic of the better worker trend to that of the lesser worker?

Unions reward the least acceptable work ethic.

It is that simple.

And that is the REALITY!!!
My Dad worked 30 years as a union factory worker.
Often he would come home totally angry as to how a few other union workers did as you stated loafed, didn't pull their fair share and others like my Dad had to make it up.
Of course I thought my Dad was exaggerating as sons do when hearing their Dads complain...
BUT I saw it was true when I had summer jobs while going to college at the same factory!

I had to have union dues deducted from my hard earned paycheck and saw daily the abuses that a few union workers did just as my Dad said!
Now of course that was a "FEW" workers BUT they were protected by the Union! Of course management agreed to the union contracts and in discussions with union leaders I heard the leaders agree these workers were protected but as the leaders said..'the mgmt. could have stood up!"

The unions took as much as they could.. i.e. good contract negotiations!

Short term though!

Because that factory my Dad worked at for 30 years after 100 years in the community moved because they couldn't continue to raise the prices of the goods they sold to cover the labor costs!

The short term was good for the Union...Long Term .. goose is dead!

Yet for some reason he stayed there for thirty years and even hooked his son up with work, such a terrible thing that union job was.

 

[noose4]

No. They will pay overtime. They will outsource production. They will cut the amount they produce and raise prices. There are many strategies to deal with higher labor costs.

And such applies to both union and non union workforces.

But with union contracts being richer, the likelihood of them doing it is much higher.
You again prove my point.

Of course, the corporations want slaves,so the better the worker has it the more likely big money will take measures against it.

 

[Jarhead]

what I puit in bold...

Yes...that is exactly what happens.

The lesser worker gets 15 an hour even though he doesnt deserve it...

Now....lets incorporate human nature....

So they both walk away with 15 an hour...

But the better worker says "I bust my ass all day long; only call in sick when I am really sick; never allow a few inches of snow stop me from getting to work; ...and that guy over there used every sick day and every excuse he can to avopid coming to work......and we both got the same raise....

What is the liklihood that you will see the work ethic of the better worker trend to that of the lesser worker?

Unions reward the least acceptable work ethic.

It is that simple.

And that is the REALITY!!!
My Dad worked 30 years as a union factory worker.
Often he would come home totally angry as to how a few other union workers did as you stated loafed, didn't pull their fair share and others like my Dad had to make it up.
Of course I thought my Dad was exaggerating as sons do when hearing their Dads complain...
BUT I saw it was true when I had summer jobs while going to college at the same factory!

I had to have union dues deducted from my hard earned paycheck and saw daily the abuses that a few union workers did just as my Dad said!
Now of course that was a "FEW" workers BUT they were protected by the Union! Of course management agreed to the union contracts and in discussions with union leaders I heard the leaders agree these workers were protected but as the leaders said..'the mgmt. could have stood up!"

The unions took as much as they could.. i.e. good contract negotiations!

Short term though!

Because that factory my Dad worked at for 30 years after 100 years in the community moved because they couldn't continue to raise the prices of the goods they sold to cover the labor costs!

The short term was good for the Union...Long Term .. goose is dead!

Yet for some reason he stayed there for thirty years and even hooked his son up with work, such a terrible thing that union job was.

or such a great employer they were despite the union.

Can look at it either way.

 

[noose4]

Only in the aggregate and only in the short term. An individual worker who is talented will make more on his own, negotiating his own compensation.
In the long term the company will adjust to higher labor costs by cutting back production and moving it elsewhere. Ask all those UAW workers in Detroit who have been unemployed for 10 years.

That just is not so, talented and non talented working people have remained stagnant or gone backwards financially the last few decades along with receiving less benefits and losing pensions and such.

Proof? Of are you just talking out of your ass, again?

If you are so uninformed I wont be able to help you, read a non right wing propaganda book or watch information from non right wing sources once in a while, you might even be able to find some of the data posted some where on this very message board if you look hard enough.

 

[noose4]

And that is the REALITY!!!
My Dad worked 30 years as a union factory worker.
Often he would come home totally angry as to how a few other union workers did as you stated loafed, didn't pull their fair share and others like my Dad had to make it up.
Of course I thought my Dad was exaggerating as sons do when hearing their Dads complain...
BUT I saw it was true when I had summer jobs while going to college at the same factory!

I had to have union dues deducted from my hard earned paycheck and saw daily the abuses that a few union workers did just as my Dad said!
Now of course that was a "FEW" workers BUT they were protected by the Union! Of course management agreed to the union contracts and in discussions with union leaders I heard the leaders agree these workers were protected but as the leaders said..'the mgmt. could have stood up!"

The unions took as much as they could.. i.e. good contract negotiations!

Short term though!

Because that factory my Dad worked at for 30 years after 100 years in the community moved because they couldn't continue to raise the prices of the goods they sold to cover the labor costs!

The short term was good for the Union...Long Term .. goose is dead!

Yet for some reason he stayed there for thirty years and even hooked his son up with work, such a terrible thing that union job was.

or such a great employer they were despite the union.

Can look at it either way.

Yeah Fathers with union jobs get the pull to hook their kids up with jobs thanks to their unionized status, and the complaint was about how awful it was having to be union yet he stayed 30 years and hooked his son up also.

 

[Dragon]

So if you maintain that union jobs and non union jobs pay the same

I don't. I maintain that third world pay scales are so much lower than non-union pay that the difference between union and non-union pay makes no difference FOR WHAT IS CAUSING OUTSOURCING.

Do try to read for comprehension. Or, if you already did, do try to post honestly. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.