Unions in the US

[JBeukema]

You know what's so funny about the last two posts?

Workers need to be protected by unions from the government...not industry.

The Government that the Unions created and are responsible for. The best thing we could do for the Republic is outlaw Unions, all of them. Outlaw Unions and Monopolies.

Not much one for history, are you?

 

[JBeukema]

The Wobblies

 

[JBeukema]

Matewan (1987) - IMDb

 

[JFK_USA]

There's a lot of truth to both B and C, as far as the organized modern union goes. But the concept of organization of labor in general will never be obsolete. Laws can be repealed, gains can be lost, there will always need to be some mechanism for workers to stand up for themselves.

The problem with the modern organized union is too many times it's just a different elite "standing up" on their behalf instead, and not necessarily working in anyone's interests but their own.

I agree with this.

Businesses like Wal-mart actively are against unions and have horrible treatment of their workers. Republicans hate unions because its the little guy stepping out of place.

 

[liebuster]

A, B, and C

Some are evil communists that hate america. At least a few of the top leadership are.

Some are obsolete and have served their purpose.

Some are greedy and are detrimental to their purpose.

Its hard for me to support them with all the corruption so having them keep on fighting is not right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Standard Oil? Carnegie Steel? The Western Railroads? IBM until the 1970's? Natural monopolies exist...naturally, without government interference or legislation.

Your rightwing radio taught you well.

Except none of them were really monopolies. Nor did they engage in monopoly practices

Your kidding, right? Standard and IBM were both unquestionably monopolies. Railroads were by any definition a monopoly.

.

IBM's "monopoly" lasted how long? Why aren't they a monopoly now?
And as mentioned railroads were a monopoly because of gov't, as is usually the case. There aren't many natural monopolies in a capitalist system.

 

[shintao]

Except none of them were really monopolies. Nor did they engage in monopoly practices

Your kidding, right? Standard and IBM were both unquestionably monopolies. Railroads were by any definition a monopoly.

.

IBM's "monopoly" lasted how long? Why aren't they a monopoly now?
And as mentioned railroads were a monopoly because of gov't, as is usually the case. There aren't many natural monopolies in a capitalist system.

Really? Inventor patients are a monopoly. I am really concerned however that you don't understand what the word monopoly means. And I doubt you can show me one union that has exclusive total control of any commodity. You might say the Jews have total control of the American government, to helping Israel. Would you like to rip your religion out of government??

 

[goldcatt]

I don't understand that point.
An employer is offering a job for a given wage.
An employee is offering his labor for a given wage.
They negotiate and come to an agreement based on many factors, including and especially "is this the best deal I can get?" Pretty much like anything else.
Do you ask for representation when you buy a car from a dealer? This is so even though the dealer is in a much stronger position than you are.

Of course you don't understand it. Because you're so fixated on "representation" you have no idea what a union even is, its actual purpose or how it operates.

Now...I've already posted in this thread that I think the modern union needs a major overhaul. But the entire purpose of a labor union is collective bargaining to level the playing field and provide the balance to the relative power of the employer. On that level, the union is a necessity as the counterbalance.

Note: Repeating yourself isn't argumentation. It is merely repeating yourself.
I've already taken you to the woodpile on unions' illegality. Do you need another lesson?

Actually, Pubes, before even getting to the point on negotiation I want you to answer my two points in the posts you conveniently "skipped" on your way to declaring vicktery of teh interwebz:

1. Rather than tossing out the short title of the first antitrust law that shows up on a google search, did you actually open one of the pages to discover what it says and have anything remotely resembling an actual argument for your position based on that finding?

a. Here's a hint: It says some stuff you obviously don't know about. Google is your friend but only if you actually open and read the pages it finds.

2. You're on the record in many places on this board as supporting the Citizens United decision, yet you claim unions are not associations under the First Amendment. Never mind the fact that SCOTUS clearly determined otherwise in CU itself, please explain to me how you reconcile the "fact" that corporations, which are fictitious entities specifically designed to separate their activities from that of their owners and operators, are associations within the meaning of the First Amendment under the CU decision and unions, which are actually made up of their membership for the purpose of supporting their membership rather than being specifically designed for legal separation, are not "associations" and have no First Amendment protections?

So you have no concept of modern antitrust legislation, no concept of the meaning of a Supreme Court decision you choose to spout off about, no concept of the legal and structural organization of the labor union and no concept of the right of association. No shocker there.

Oh, and never mind. You're not Pubes. Pubes had waaaay more class and smarts than you.

 

[asterism]

I find it interesting that near all the posters who could be rightfully said to be left of center have agreed that there are significant problems with the way many unions operate today and have been open in their criticisms whilst many on the right have refused to honestly discuss the history of unionization or their past accomplishments, choosing instead to focus on a caricaturization of them as inherently evil agencies which are somehow wholly responsible for unemployment and all of America's economic ills.

Yup, it demonstrates the level of corruption people are willing to accept.

 

[midcan5]

When's the last time you met a lefty that wasn't screeching about punishing somebody or something for every ill real or imagined?

It's a way of life for these nut jobs.

You do realize the person you so obviously admire in your avatar is a member of a Union. Kinda odd don't you think? Or could it be that some sensible people - nutjobs must be pretty smart - realize people and corporations aren't perfect and personal freedoms rely on trust and a contract that means something. You think.

National Football League Players Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The National Football League Players Association, or NFLPA, is the labor union of players in football's National Football League. It was founded in 1956, but only achieved recognition and a collective bargaining agreement in 1968. After a lost strike in 1987, the union was formally decertified, converting into a professional association in order to pursue antitrust litigation designed to win free agency for its members. When that tactic worked it reformed as a union and resumed collective bargaining with the league in 1993."

 

[editec]

I know that many of you just cannot admit it, but unions are largely responsible for the quality of life that the average working American enjoyed in the last 20th century.

When unions drove up the salaries and made going to work a safer experience, one where workers actually had SOME rights?

They ended up making the nature of working for most Americans a path to the middle class.

That former highway to the middle class affluence is now reduced to a goatpath poised to be completely obliterated under an avalanche of Randian philosophical theory.

We've ALREADY seen how Greenspans' Randian theories in opposition to regulation just about killed this economy, and few of you seem to understand that.

So naturally I expect the same people who cannot get that, to also not get how unions can be a powerfully positive influence in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

But I can also see that many of us here really don't like the whole idea of democracy.

In my opinion the kind of government many of you really seem to want (based on the kinds of things you post about government and economics) is some kind of oligarchical-lead basically CLASSIST Republic.

Real democracy scares the bejesus out of many of you and unions are a powerful subset of that liberal philosophy, so naturally many of you have a visceral dislike for them

 

[rightwinger]

Absolutely

There has to be a balance between the strength of management and the strength of labor. Our history has horror stories on both sides

Which goes back to the fact that the entire reason for labor unions is to provide equality in negotiations between labor and management. And negotiations where both sides have approximately equal power are always going to yield the best results.

It's all about balance.

I don't understand that point.
An employer is offering a job for a given wage.
An employee is offering his labor for a given wage.
They negotiate and come to an agreement based on many factors, including and especially "is this the best deal I can get?" Pretty much like anything else.
Do you ask for representation when you buy a car from a dealer? This is so even though the dealer is in a much stronger position than you are.

When each worker is forced to negotiate individually, some make out, some get screwed.

I can be single with no connections to the community....if I don't like the job...I'm out of there. Management offers me a good salary to stay

You may have a sick mother and need to stay in the community. Management knows your situation and offers you a pittance knowing you can't leave

Collective bargaining allows all employees to negotiate as a group preventing management from singling out employees because of their personal situation

 

[asterism]

Which goes back to the fact that the entire reason for labor unions is to provide equality in negotiations between labor and management. And negotiations where both sides have approximately equal power are always going to yield the best results.

It's all about balance.

I don't understand that point.
An employer is offering a job for a given wage.
An employee is offering his labor for a given wage.
They negotiate and come to an agreement based on many factors, including and especially "is this the best deal I can get?" Pretty much like anything else.
Do you ask for representation when you buy a car from a dealer? This is so even though the dealer is in a much stronger position than you are.

When each worker is forced to negotiate individually, some make out, some get screwed.

I can be single with no connections to the community....if I don't like the job...I'm out of there. Management offers me a good salary to stay

You may have a sick mother and need to stay in the community. Management knows your situation and offers you a pittance knowing you can't leave

Collective bargaining allows all employees to negotiate as a group preventing management from singling out employees because of their personal situation

When each worker is forced to negotiate collectively, some make out, some get screwed.

 

[daveman]

...whilst many on the right have refused to honestly discuss the history of unionization or their past accomplishments...

Looks like you haven't been reading my posts.

 

[8537]

Except none of them were really monopolies. Nor did they engage in monopoly practices

Your kidding, right? Standard and IBM were both unquestionably monopolies. Railroads were by any definition a monopoly.

.

IBM's "monopoly" lasted how long?

About thirty years.

Why aren't they a monopoly now?

Well, a couple reasons. 1, their patents expired. 2, the natural economy of scale involved and the monopsony both dried up with new technology.

There aren't many natural monopolies in a capitalist system.

Lol...How many options for Cable television service does your house have? How many options for water? wastewater? Electricity? High fixed costs + low marginal costs = natural monopoly...even in a capitalist system.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't understand that point.
An employer is offering a job for a given wage.
An employee is offering his labor for a given wage.
They negotiate and come to an agreement based on many factors, including and especially "is this the best deal I can get?" Pretty much like anything else.
Do you ask for representation when you buy a car from a dealer? This is so even though the dealer is in a much stronger position than you are.

When each worker is forced to negotiate individually, some make out, some get screwed.

I can be single with no connections to the community....if I don't like the job...I'm out of there. Management offers me a good salary to stay

You may have a sick mother and need to stay in the community. Management knows your situation and offers you a pittance knowing you can't leave

Collective bargaining allows all employees to negotiate as a group preventing management from singling out employees because of their personal situation

When each worker is forced to negotiate collectively, some make out, some get screwed.

True......but the workers get to make the choice of having collective bargaining not management

 

[The Rabbi]

Your kidding, right? Standard and IBM were both unquestionably monopolies. Railroads were by any definition a monopoly.

.

IBM's "monopoly" lasted how long?

About thirty years.

Why aren't they a monopoly now?

Well, a couple reasons. 1, their patents expired. 2, the natural economy of scale involved and the monopsony both dried up with new technology.

There aren't many natural monopolies in a capitalist system.

Lol...How many options for Cable television service does your house have? How many options for water? wastewater? Electricity? High fixed costs + low marginal costs = natural monopoly...even in a capitalist system.

Thanks for proving my points:
Business monopolies last only because of government laws.
There are very few natural monopolies.

That should end any further comments from you on the subject.

 

[8537]

IBM's "monopoly" lasted how long?

About thirty years.



Well, a couple reasons. 1, their patents expired. 2, the natural economy of scale involved and the monopsony both dried up with new technology.

There aren't many natural monopolies in a capitalist system.

Lol...How many options for Cable television service does your house have? How many options for water? wastewater? Electricity? High fixed costs + low marginal costs = natural monopoly...even in a capitalist system.

Thanks for proving my points:
Business monopolies last only because of government laws.

no, many monopolies last because they are natural monopolies.

There are very few natural monopolies.

Well, i'll give you some credit here. you're learning. The above statement is a vast improvement over "there's no such thing as a monopoly without government legislation to that effect."

That should end any further comments from you on the subject.

Yes, after you've been prove wrong time and time again, I typically quit responding to your drivel. I'd hate to have you call me a hooker.

First you deny monopolies exist, you are proven wrong.
Then you deny they exist for very long, then you state that there are very few....

 

[goldcatt]

About thirty years.



Well, a couple reasons. 1, their patents expired. 2, the natural economy of scale involved and the monopsony both dried up with new technology.



Lol...How many options for Cable television service does your house have? How many options for water? wastewater? Electricity? High fixed costs + low marginal costs = natural monopoly...even in a capitalist system.

Thanks for proving my points:
Business monopolies last only because of government laws.

no, many monopolies last because they are natural monopolies.

There are very few natural monopolies.

Well, i'll give you some credit here. you're learning. The above statement is a vast improvement over "there's no such thing as a monopoly without government legislation to that effect."

That should end any further comments from you on the subject.

Yes, after you've been prove wrong time and time again, I typically quit responding to your drivel. I'd hate to have you call me a hooker.

First you deny monopolies exist, you are proven wrong.
Then you deny they exist for very long, then you state that there are very few....

You're catching on well to the guttersnipe's tactics.

Notice three posts of mine that have gone unanswered and a fourth replied to with a dodge and declaration of vicktery. At least he's not hiding from you. Yet.

But when his partners in disgusting behavior aren't around to cheer him on and literally all he's got is a combination of factually incorrect generalities and calling women hookers and whores, what did you expect?

 

[The Rabbi]

About thirty years.



Well, a couple reasons. 1, their patents expired. 2, the natural economy of scale involved and the monopsony both dried up with new technology.



Lol...How many options for Cable television service does your house have? How many options for water? wastewater? Electricity? High fixed costs + low marginal costs = natural monopoly...even in a capitalist system.

Thanks for proving my points:
Business monopolies last only because of government laws.

no, many monopolies last because they are natural monopolies.

There are very few natural monopolies.

Well, i'll give you some credit here. you're learning. The above statement is a vast improvement over "there's no such thing as a monopoly without government legislation to that effect."

That should end any further comments from you on the subject.

Yes, after you've been prove wrong time and time again, I typically quit responding to your drivel. I'd hate to have you call me a hooker.

First you deny monopolies exist, you are proven wrong.
Then you deny they exist for very long, then you state that there are very few....

You have never proven me wrong. On the contrary, everything you post proves my point over and over.
IBM's monopoly ended precisely because business conditions changed. ATT's monopoly ended precisely because the government stopped insuring it was a monopoly.
This is always the case with monopolies: either business conditions change and competition ends the monopoly or it continues solely due to government interference in the marketplace.