Why does the Rightwing Conservatives Hate Unions?

[rightwinger]

You act as if the employer and the employee are on equal ground, this is false, they are not. The employer is not beholden to the employee and has the RIGHT to take chances with his or her business. Sometimes those risks fail, sometimes they don't.

How right you are...
And the employee is not beholden to the employer and has the RIGHT to union representation to ensure he is properly compensated

Um.... the employee IS beholden to the employer. If the employee is not proper compensated, they can seek employment elsewhere.

Or they can collectively bargain with the employer. Employers prefer to bargain with employees one on one. No employee is irreplaceable but it is hard to replace your entire workforce.

 

[Immanuel]

The problem with labor unions these days is corruption within the upper echelons. This is the same problem we have in government. Those who run the show get rich while those who provide the labor are... well dumped on.

Immie

 

[Jarhead]

How right you are...
And the employee is not beholden to the employer and has the RIGHT to union representation to ensure he is properly compensated

Um.... the employee IS beholden to the employer. If the employee is not proper compensated, they can seek employment elsewhere.

Or they can collectively bargain with the employer. Employers prefer to bargain with employees one on one. No employee is irreplaceable but it is hard to replace your entire workforce.

So collective bargaining to you is "give us what we demand or you will go out of business"

Me? I prefer the employees value to be based on the demand for the job.

Just as prices are based on the demand for the product.

 

[syrenn]

How right you are...
And the employee is not beholden to the employer and has the RIGHT to union representation to ensure he is properly compensated

Um.... the employee IS beholden to the employer. If the employee is not proper compensated, they can seek employment elsewhere.

Or they can collectively bargain with the employer. Employers prefer to bargain with employees one on one. No employee is irreplaceable but it is hard to replace your entire workforce.

Want to bet? I say fire them all.

Fire them all and see if they want a job at the new offering.

Job and a pay check vs. no job and no pay check.

 

[Mr Natural]

So, to sum up this brilliant discussion, let's just say that the Labor Movement forced wages up for all workers (unionized or not) to the point where employers had to go abroad to seek cheaper labor to fatten up their bottom lines and we all would have been a lot better off if we were satisfied with making less money and working under shitty conditions for longer hours.

Prosperity through lower wages! That's the ticket!

 

[Jarhead]

So, to sum up this brilliant discussion, let's just say that the Labor Movement forced wages up for all workers (unionized or not) to the point where employers had to go abroad to seek cheaper labor to fatten up their bottom lines and we all would have been a lot better off if we were satisfied with making less money and working under shitty conditions for longer hours.

Prosperity through lower wages! That's the ticket!

or it can be said this way:

let's just say that the Labor Movement forced wages up for all workers (unionized or not) to the point where employers had to go abroad to seek cheaper labor to keep their prices competative with similar products being imported into the US and we all would have been a lot better off if we were satisfied with making a little less money but with more people employed and thus a more proseprous country overall.

Prosperity through pure competition! Thats the ticket!

 

[syrenn]

So, to sum up this brilliant discussion, let's just say that the Labor Movement forced wages up for all workers (unionized or not) to the point where employers had to go abroad to seek cheaper labor to fatten up their bottom lines and we all would have been a lot better off if we were satisfied with making less money and working under shitty conditions for longer hours.

Prosperity through lower wages! That's the ticket!

Or how about we sum it up like this:

This is the job. This is what is required of the job. If you cannot preform the job to standards you will be fired from said job. This is what we offer for the job. If you want the job its yours. If you do not want the job you are free to not take the job and find work elsewhere.

 

[Jarhead]

So, to sum up this brilliant discussion, let's just say that the Labor Movement forced wages up for all workers (unionized or not) to the point where employers had to go abroad to seek cheaper labor to fatten up their bottom lines and we all would have been a lot better off if we were satisfied with making less money and working under shitty conditions for longer hours.

Prosperity through lower wages! That's the ticket!

Or how about we sum it up like this:

This is the job. This is what is required of the job. If you cannot preform the job to standards you will be fired from said job. This is what we offer for the job. If you want the job its yours. If you do not want the job you are free to not take the job and find work elsewhere.

exactly...

and in a free market....if the job is offering an unfair salary, only lesser workers will opt for the job resulting in a decrease in the quality of the output of the company and thus a decrease in business and profits.

Why can't you people realize that the real reason for the unions was to avoid issues such as child labor, unsafe working conditions and sweat shop environments.....

Well, those things are now protected by the law. We dont need unions for that anymore.

As it pertains to salary and benefits, let the people set the market rate.

It works with pricing...it will work with salary.

 

[rightwinger]

Um.... the employee IS beholden to the employer. If the employee is not proper compensated, they can seek employment elsewhere.

Or they can collectively bargain with the employer. Employers prefer to bargain with employees one on one. No employee is irreplaceable but it is hard to replace your entire workforce.

So collective bargaining to you is "give us what we demand or you will go out of business"

Me? I prefer the employees value to be based on the demand for the job.

Just as prices are based on the demand for the product.

Employees have a value. Not only the skills they bring to the job but in the collective knowledge of how you run your business. Their value is more as a whole rather than as a bunch of individuals

 

[rdean]

What's to love? What's to even like?

Negatives Effects of the Modern Unions:
(1) They are the number 1 reason American Manufacturing has moved over seas!(2) They strong-arm Politicians into providing inflated and tax payor funded Pension Plans, and over-valued benefits. The strong arm the State government in creating too many government organizations and unless jobs.
(3) They kill employers by strong arming them into unreasonable employment contracts
(4) They are a business killing and job killing arm of the marxist movement
(5) Corruption is so rambid, money is wasted so enormously, that Unions do so much more damage to the workers they represent then actually help them!

I can't figure out what right wingers talk so much out their butt.

just 7.5% of private-sector workers are union members,

Percentage of Union Workers in U.S.

What you said: (1) They are the number 1 reason American Manufacturing has moved over seas!

Just 7.5% of American workers are the reason manufacturing moved overseas.

You need both your faces slapped. This is why I get pissed at you guys. YOU JUST MAKE SHIT UP! And it's always stupid.

6% and 90%

 

[jgarden]

One of the basic principles underlying the US Constitution is a system of "checks and balances" whereby no one person or institution wields absolute power.

Teachers are one of the "cornerstones" of any modern, successful society and an attack on their democratic right to organize is an attack on them!

You're public school educated aren't you?

There are no 'checks and balances' for employment. It is to prevent abuse of power by government.

Combating "abuse of power" is not limited to government and the justification for "checks and balances" in the "private sector" of a supposedly democratic society is equally valid.

I find it interesting that "conservatives," who have a long history of organizing themselves to promote their own particular agenda, now seek to deprive those who don't share their political philosophy of the same "right!"

Why should "teachers" or any other group in society be content to relegated to 2nd class citizens?

 

[jgarden]

..... I can't figure out what right wingers talk so much out their butt.

just 7.5% of private-sector workers are union members,

Percentage of Union Workers in U.S.

What you said: (1) They are the number 1 reason American Manufacturing has moved over seas!

Just 7.5% of American workers are the reason manufacturing moved overseas.

You need both your faces slapped. This is why I get pissed at you guys. YOU JUST MAKE SHIT UP! And it's always stupid.

6% and 90%

With all due respect "rdean," you're assuming the existance of intelligent life forms - where none exist!

 

[Jarhead]

Or they can collectively bargain with the employer. Employers prefer to bargain with employees one on one. No employee is irreplaceable but it is hard to replace your entire workforce.

So collective bargaining to you is "give us what we demand or you will go out of business"

Me? I prefer the employees value to be based on the demand for the job.

Just as prices are based on the demand for the product.

Employees have a value. Not only the skills they bring to the job but in the collective knowledge of how you run your business. Their value is more as a whole rather than as a bunch of individuals

That is where I disagree 100% with you.

Their collective knowledge of how I RUN my business is irrelevant. If I want their opinion on how I want to invest my money, I will ask them.
If they feel their collective knowledge of how I run my business is worthy of my listening to them, then my loss.
If they know better....leave me and start their own.

And as a side note.....something tells me that their collective knowledge, more often than not...will result in advice that wraps around paying them more...and nothing more than that.

 

[syrenn]

Or they can collectively bargain with the employer. Employers prefer to bargain with employees one on one. No employee is irreplaceable but it is hard to replace your entire workforce.

So collective bargaining to you is "give us what we demand or you will go out of business"

Me? I prefer the employees value to be based on the demand for the job.

Just as prices are based on the demand for the product.

Employees have a value. Not only the skills they bring to the job but in the collective knowledge of how you run your business. Their value is more as a whole rather than as a bunch of individuals

So the unions claim and want everyone to believe.

Employees do have a value and worth. The value is what is being paid. No more no less. If you want the job at what is being offered....FREE WILL. Take it or leave it.

If that employee is worth more...they will get more. If a employer wants to keep workers then they will offer everything to keep them.

 

[Truthmatters]

They are not stealing from the people like rick Scott did

 

[Jarhead]

Oh Jeez...

So now making a tough decision in an effort to have costs not exceed revenue is stealing from the people.

I give up.

Good weekend all!

<S>

 

[Truthmatters]

Rick Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he committed a record fraud with his company




Columbia/HCA fraud case detailsOn March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.[18]

Following the raids, the Columbia/HCA board of directors forced Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO.[19] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement. He also left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.[20][21][22]

In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.

In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA plead guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in US history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.[3][4][5][6][7]

In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.[23] In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.

 

[rightwinger]

So collective bargaining to you is "give us what we demand or you will go out of business"

Me? I prefer the employees value to be based on the demand for the job.

Just as prices are based on the demand for the product.

Employees have a value. Not only the skills they bring to the job but in the collective knowledge of how you run your business. Their value is more as a whole rather than as a bunch of individuals

That is where I disagree 100% with you.

Their collective knowledge of how I RUN my business is irrelevant. If I want their opinion on how I want to invest my money, I will ask them.
If they feel their collective knowledge of how I run my business is worthy of my listening to them, then my loss.
If they know better....leave me and start their own.

And as a side note.....something tells me that their collective knowledge, more often than not...will result in advice that wraps around paying them more...and nothing more than that.

Any boss who thinks he knows more than the people who are actually performing the job is a pompous fool. Workers understand the job, they understand the public, they understand what goes wrong and why. Smart employers listen to their employees

Employers would prefer to be able to bargain with employees one by one. You can fire 20% of your workforce and scare the other 80% into training the replacements and scare them from asking for fair treatment or else

If firing 20% results in losing the entire 100% of the workforce you lose your ability to make a profit until you can repace and retrain the entire workforce

 

[syrenn]

Whats the matter truthdoesntmatter...no one respond to your thread? Is that why you have to bring you little pet here to throw into the mix?

 

[Truthmatters]

What thread?