Why does the Rightwing Conservatives Hate Unions?

[boedicca]

There are three main reasons why jobs move overseas:

- Unions have distorted the compensationroductivity ratio
- Over regulation and over taxation have increased the cost of doing business
- The customers are overseas

The last one is a major one, and oft ignored by the rabid left.

 

[shintao]

I dislike them because it often rewards the laziest employees on the backs of the hardest working with a collective group contract. If I outwork the guy next to me, I deserve more than him. In fact, I will not go on strike to save his job. If I work harder and better, my employer should reward me, not him. If a business is interested in success and being competitive, it rewards it's best workers while getting rid of it's worst workers. Common sense.

Unions go against all of the above.

Not all union members make the same money for the same job with less training, and if the employer has someone lazy they lay them off citing a dozen different reasons. Any employment has a time with rewarding workers properly. That is why we have affirmative action and glass ceilings and good o' boy hiring. It is so popular they make movies about it. Strikes normally do not occur over the firing or layoff of one individual unless it was grossly unfair, and an act that any private sector worker might sue for or take to the labor commission for a ruling. The Union will first meet with the employers and discuss the matter with the employee present.

 

[Truthmatters]

Nobody said they didn't have the right to freely assemble, nor to work in unison as long as their employer freely agrees to such an arrangement. In the real world, working in unison generally results in very low productivity as work is reduced to the lowest common denominator of performance. Most employers, with the exception of career politician-public union ones, try to avoid such low productivity schemes.

Did the founders create this government for productivity or for individual rights?

 

[GWV5903]

The animosity is chilling, but never the less consistent and irritating. Maybe we could actually have a discussion without the name calling, and find out exactly what is the right cons problem with Unions.

It seems to me Unions are a role model for what Capitalism stands for. To exploit the corporation for fair living wages & benefits, in exchange for an honest days work. And to get a fair working package a negotiation takes place and a contract written explaining what each side expects from the other side (labor vs. business). Nothing is hidden.

Capitalism allows workers to negotiate their own wage & benefits as individuals or as a collective, with the idea of extracting the maximum from the employer for each hour of work performed. The employer hires as many people as he wishes, from those that will work for him, and exploits workers for the lowest wages & benefit packages he can get for his hour of labor.

So the Union member or private sector worker gives an honest days work, and the employer gives an honest days wages & benefits.

So why do rightys hate Unions? They support America and prefer capitalism?

Detroit ring any bells? UAW? Do you believe these are shining examples of union success?

Just curious, lol....

Crappy products, out-of-touch marketing, piss-poor management, and foreign competition is what did in Detroit.

Not the workers.

Sure, the cost for the union members had no effect at all (you're an idiot).....

Didn't your messiah say something about shared sacrifice, cutting back, keep your tires inflated?

Wait, didn't the UAW ask for a waiver from Obamacare??? Oh, they where granted waivers....

You're an IDIOT!!!!!

 

[Mr Natural]

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!

You could make the same list about US Corporations....only they control more politicians

as well as making all the rules and owning the equipment and the playing field.

 

[Jarhead]

To answer the question of why the right wing hates unions..

Speaking for myself...

I dont. I appreciate unions in the same light as I appreciate an advocate.

They speak loudly and for a cause....and they do not take into consideration how their "demands" may affect others as long as it has a positive outcome for who they represent.

Now do not get me wrong. I respect what they do and why they do it.

I do not appreicate their tactics and their approach.

 

[rightwinger]

Huh? What was the minimum wage 30 years ago....?

30 years ago, a CEO would make about 20 times the average worker in that company. Now they make 300 to 400 times as much. Look at the CEO of Cigna. They produce nothing. They are merely middle men for hospitals, doctors and nurses. The CEO received a paycheck of $120,000,000.00. Is this what you are defending?

Question, how many insurance policies do you have to "skim" to make a single salary of $120,000,000.00? I wonder what the other executives from that company make? Don't you? What about all the other companies?

CEO wages have what to do with employee unions again?

They have to do with CEOs demanding that workers accept less pay due to rough economic times while their own compensation skyrockets

JFK once said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

Right now that rising tide only lifts the yachts

 

[Jarhead]

30 years ago, a CEO would make about 20 times the average worker in that company. Now they make 300 to 400 times as much. Look at the CEO of Cigna. They produce nothing. They are merely middle men for hospitals, doctors and nurses. The CEO received a paycheck of $120,000,000.00. Is this what you are defending?

Question, how many insurance policies do you have to "skim" to make a single salary of $120,000,000.00? I wonder what the other executives from that company make? Don't you? What about all the other companies?

CEO wages have what to do with employee unions again?

They have to do with CEOs demanding that workers accept less pay due to rough economic times while their own compensation skyrockets

JFK once said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

Right now that rising tide only lifts the yachts

BUt those CEO's you refer to are few and far between. Most CEO's, such as myself of a small business, take less if anything during hard times with the only negative ramifications to the employees are no raises and no bonuses.

I barely took enough home in 2010 to cover my cost of living. I had one employee earn more than I did. I laid off no one but DID give them all shorter days during the summer as the work wasnt there...and did not cut their pay.

THAT is how most CEO's operate.

You are only talking about the Exxons and Sony's of the world. Having them around helps the small business and the small business helps the people...so it is worth letting the exxons and such get away with it.

 

[boedicca]

In the past 30 years, employers have been demanding more and more while workers have made more and more concessions.

Workers are working more hours and receiving fewer benefits. In tough economic times, workers are told to make do with less or risk losing their jobs.
While workers are accepting concessions, they are witnessing their top executives take more compensation.

That is why unions are needed

Huh? What was the minimum wage 30 years ago....?

30 years ago, a CEO would make about 20 times the average worker in that company. Now they make 300 to 400 times as much. Look at the CEO of Cigna. They produce nothing. They are merely middle men for hospitals, doctors and nurses. The CEO received a paycheck of $120,000,000.00. Is this what you are defending?

Question, how many insurance policies do you have to "skim" to make a single salary of $120,000,000.00? I wonder what the other executives from that company make? Don't you? What about all the other companies?

Oh, here's a link.

CIGNA Denies Cancer Patient Care, CEO Makes $120 Million In Five Years - Not A Coincidence | Crooks and Liars

If you want more, go look them up. Just search CEO makes 120 million.

That is absolute crap.

The AVERAGE CEO in the U.S. earns far less than that. You are citing the compensation of a tiny handful of people who manage enormous global enterprises.

The actual average CEO compensation in the U.S. is less than $300,000 per year.

CEO Salaries - Executive Salaries - Average Salary of a CEO - PayScale

Most CEOs manage small or medium businesses and have very low multiples over their average employee pay.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The right wing is bought and paid for by big companies. That's why they want to get rid of the EPA and and regulations concerning clean air and clean water. These companies have unlimited money. And the Supreme Court said they could spend as much as they want in our elections 5 to 4. And they do.

Unions, which are like 7 or 8% of all the workers in the US can't compete with business backed Republicans. Even though they try with door to door and bake sales.

Remember the made up "pimp video" that Fox ran endlessly? Turns out it ruined a lot of people's lives for a right wing lie and smear. But for the right wing that's OK. In fact, it worked so well, they tried to do the same to Planned Parenthood. The real reason the GOP went after Acorn was because they registered a lot of minorities who would vote Democrat. Remember, the GOP is 90% white and their leadership uses this. The hatred from the base against the "black" guy in the "WHITE" House keeps them occupied. Does the Republican base really support trillions in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while the middle class unemployed is being held hostage? I suspect "no". But the right wing hates Obama so much, they are willing to drown to get him out of the WHITE House.

They keep saying, "Oh, there he goes again, making it about race". The truth is, for the right wing, it IS "all about race".

Damn you're stupid.

 

[Mustang]

Quoting Samuel Gompers:

We do want more, and when it becomes more, we shall still want more. And we shall never cease to demand more until we have received the results of our labor.

This exemplifies what is wrong with the labor movement. It's not about what is reasonably earned based upon value creation and markets. Public Employee Unions are the bastard offspring of Greed and Desire (for MORE!), and have overreached to the point where our local, state, and federal governments are defacto insolvent.

Apparently, you're not aware that greed is the cornerstone of the capitalist system. Pro athletes, movie stars, CEOs, and even talk radio hosts try to get as much money as they can. Personally, I don't see much of a difference between a group benefiting from collective bargaining and an individual having an agent working to get him the best deal possible.

Remember the show, "Friends"? The six actors on that show collectively held out for $1 million per episode from the producers until they got it.

That contrasts sharply from how much the cast of MASH were paid when they got a new contract. Alan Alda was paid twice as much per episode as everyone else, and it was still less than $50K per episode.

And just so you'll know, the states are involvent now because of the continuing economic downturn which was precipitated by the worst financial crisis since the great depression.

 

[Jarhead]

Quoting Samuel Gompers:

We do want more, and when it becomes more, we shall still want more. And we shall never cease to demand more until we have received the results of our labor.

This exemplifies what is wrong with the labor movement. It's not about what is reasonably earned based upon value creation and markets. Public Employee Unions are the bastard offspring of Greed and Desire (for MORE!), and have overreached to the point where our local, state, and federal governments are defacto insolvent.

Apparently, you're not aware that greed is the cornerstone of the capitalist system. Pro athletes, movie stars, CEOs, and even talk radio hosts try to get as much money as they can. Personally, I don't see much of a difference between a group benefiting from collective bargaining and an individual having an agent working to get him the best deal possible.

Remember the show, "Friends"? The six actors on that show collectively held out for $1 million per episode from the producers until they got it.

That contrasts sharply from how much the cast of MASH were paid when they got a new contract. Alan Alda was paid twice as much per episode as everyone else, and it was still less than $50K per episode.

And just so you'll know, the states are involvent now because of the continuing economic downturn which was precipitated by the worst financial crisis since the great depression.

Collective bargaining of a group has the threat of a "srtrike" in its corner.
Such can close down a business, a city or a state.
One person having an agent negotiate only has the loss of one player or one actor to lose...and whereas it may result in a loss of quality, it does not shut down the operation.

 

[shintao]

Nobody said they didn't have the right to freely assemble, nor to work in unison as long as their employer freely agrees to such an arrangement. In the real world, working in unison generally results in very low productivity as work is reduced to the lowest common denominator of performance. Most employers, with the exception of career politician-public union ones, try to avoid such low productivity schemes.

Hmm, I guess Henry Ford was a fraud with his assembly line BS, and went the way of the Titanic huh? Probably happened to Bill Gates as well. You are talking nonsense, and I am calling you on your statement.

And no doubt, most employers prefer exploiting workers, as evidenced by workers low wages and benefits, compared to Union member employees. But to suggest it results in low productivity is nonsense.

 

[boedicca]

Nobody said they didn't have the right to freely assemble, nor to work in unison as long as their employer freely agrees to such an arrangement. In the real world, working in unison generally results in very low productivity as work is reduced to the lowest common denominator of performance. Most employers, with the exception of career politician-public union ones, try to avoid such low productivity schemes.

Did the founders create this government for productivity or for individual rights?

Nobody has a right to a job, especially one with subpar productivity in relation to its pay.

 

[Mustang]

Quoting Samuel Gompers:

We do want more, and when it becomes more, we shall still want more. And we shall never cease to demand more until we have received the results of our labor.

This exemplifies what is wrong with the labor movement. It's not about what is reasonably earned based upon value creation and markets. Public Employee Unions are the bastard offspring of Greed and Desire (for MORE!), and have overreached to the point where our local, state, and federal governments are defacto insolvent.

Apparently, you're not aware that greed is the cornerstone of the capitalist system. Pro athletes, movie stars, CEOs, and even talk radio hosts try to get as much money as they can. Personally, I don't see much of a difference between a group benefiting from collective bargaining and an individual having an agent working to get him the best deal possible.

Remember the show, "Friends"? The six actors on that show collectively held out for $1 million per episode from the producers until they got it.

That contrasts sharply from how much the cast of MASH were paid when they got a new contract. Alan Alda was paid twice as much per episode as everyone else, and it was still less than $50K per episode.

And just so you'll know, the states are involvent now because of the continuing economic downturn which was precipitated by the worst financial crisis since the great depression.

Collective bargaining of a group has the threat of a "srtrike" in its corner.
Such can close down a business, a city or a state.
One person having an agent negotiate only has the loss of one player or one actor to lose...and whereas it may result in a loss of quality, it does not shut down the operation.

You're breaking my heart. When and where was the last strike by public employees in this country that you can recall off the top of your head? Or when was the last strike by any union group? The truth is they don't happen very often.

As far as the "Friends" stars are concerned, they could have halted production (and essentially threatened to do so) if the producers of the show didn't give in to their demands. Those six highly paid actors could have adversely effected the lives of thousands of others who depended on the show being in production in order to pay their bills

 

[boedicca]

Nobody said they didn't have the right to freely assemble, nor to work in unison as long as their employer freely agrees to such an arrangement. In the real world, working in unison generally results in very low productivity as work is reduced to the lowest common denominator of performance. Most employers, with the exception of career politician-public union ones, try to avoid such low productivity schemes.

Hmm, I guess Henry Ford was a fraud with his assembly line BS, and went the way of the Titanic huh? Probably happened to Bill Gates as well. You are talking nonsense, and I am calling you on your statement.

And no doubt, most employers prefer exploiting workers, as evidenced by workers low wages and benefits, compared to Union member employees. But to suggest it results in low productivity is nonsense.

Henry Ford paid above market wages to get the best talent, and they were required to perform their tasks according to the processes he and his trusted staff designed.

That is hardly analogous to government bureaucrats colluding with other government employees (politicians) to rig the payscale in their favor at the expense of the public.

Try again.

(And Ford refused to allow collective bargaining until 1941, btw.)

 

[Jarhead]

Apparently, you're not aware that greed is the cornerstone of the capitalist system. Pro athletes, movie stars, CEOs, and even talk radio hosts try to get as much money as they can. Personally, I don't see much of a difference between a group benefiting from collective bargaining and an individual having an agent working to get him the best deal possible.

Remember the show, "Friends"? The six actors on that show collectively held out for $1 million per episode from the producers until they got it.

That contrasts sharply from how much the cast of MASH were paid when they got a new contract. Alan Alda was paid twice as much per episode as everyone else, and it was still less than $50K per episode.

And just so you'll know, the states are involvent now because of the continuing economic downturn which was precipitated by the worst financial crisis since the great depression.

Collective bargaining of a group has the threat of a "srtrike" in its corner.
Such can close down a business, a city or a state.
One person having an agent negotiate only has the loss of one player or one actor to lose...and whereas it may result in a loss of quality, it does not shut down the operation.

You're breaking my heart. When and where was the last strike by public employees in this country that you can recall off the top of your head? Or when was the last strike by any union group? The truth is they don't happen very often.

As far as the "Friends" stars are concerned, they could have halted production (and essentially threatened to do so) if the producers of the show didn't give in to their demands. Those six highly paid actors could have adversely effected the lives of thousands of others who depended on the show being in production in order to pay their bills

Long Island Rail Road strike of about 15 years ago.
Yonkers Chool system strike of several years ago.
Air traffic controllers of 25 years ago

Just to name a few...and they were devastating to business and people.

As for friends....that was exactly like a collective bargaioning situation......see how mass bullying can affect thousands?
You actually supported my point!

 

[shintao]

Detroit ring any bells? UAW? Do you believe these are shining examples of union success?

Just curious, lol....

Crappy products, out-of-touch marketing, piss-poor management, and foreign competition is what did in Detroit.

Not the workers.

Sure, the cost for the union members had no effect at all (you're an idiot).....

Well smart ass, if it had a negative affect, prove it.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

It is a two sided coin

The employer "gives" nothing. He receives labor for which he makes a profit. Risk is spread around. If management takes a risk and fails....it is the employee who is first in line to pay the price

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.

 

[Jarhead]

Crappy products, out-of-touch marketing, piss-poor management, and foreign competition is what did in Detroit.

Not the workers.

Sure, the cost for the union members had no effect at all (you're an idiot).....

Well smart ass, if it had a negative affect, prove it.

It would be hard to prove.
But it does not take much logic to realize that when you have a siutuation where you can not fire an employee who is mediocre at what he does; where the cost of an emplyee far exceeds the output of the employee....your prodcut and/or service will suffer.

Now, sure...you can punch holes in what I just said if you want...

But....

Something tells me that the well educated engineering professionals and well educated business managers did not "all of a sudden" go stupid.