I'm for limited government, not anarchy. You have me mistaken for someone else. That's only part of the picture. You're not calculating what damage is done to the company. Unionized companies can't be as efficient, so they can't be as competitive. Who knows how many jobs were lost because companies wanted to minimize the number of jobs subject to unions. Not to mention the wages lost due to strikes. I can't imagine it would be much fun to dance with a gun to your head. Actually, it is investors that reward companies for running efficient operations and consumers who reward companies for offering good value. You can't stop progress. You have to adapt. Disintermediation of the value chain has been the defining issue of our time for corporations. Many have adapted. Others have died. Ask WalMart or Nucor or Honda or Toyota about their competitive stature in the face of unionization by their competitors. They have thrived in the US while their competitors have withered.
So you don't like Unions because they force you to clock in and out and take breaks? I thought those were state mandated things.
It's possible. You are changing the subject here. I was responding to your comment that the union workers pay large amounts of dues. Of course dues aren't the only aspect of unionism. But they were the only aspect that you mentioned in the comment I was responding to. You can't imagine it would be much fun to be out-negotiated, you mean? The companies were not without power, they just were too willing to believe in their own rosy predictions of growth and take the easy path. They screwed up. If you were selling me a commercial building worth $100 million, and you asked me for $300 million, and I agreed to that, whose fault would it be that I overpaid? Yours? Exactly. Americans caused the jobs to move overseas. If we are willing to buy products made in China for $1/hour, does it really matter what union wages in the US are? Correct. I thought you were complaining about the ones that had died. You said that union greed had killed the auto, steel, textile industries. But in truth, those industries didn't/couldn't adapt to low-wage foreign competition [except autos, which couldn't adapt to high-wage foreign competition]. It wasn't the unions primarily. The unions didn't help, but the train was leaving the station no matter what the unions did. Walmart is retail, you can't very well move retail jobs offshore. Honda and Toyota built better products for many years. Had nothing really to do with being unionized or not (hell, Japanese workers, while maybe not being literally union members, might as well be for all the protections they have). Nucor - pause here while I google Nucor - I don't know enough about Nucor to comment, and their website is too slow/cheesy to deal with. barfo
It does if you have to go on strike, your job gets moved or downsized to avoid the high costs of paying union employee costs or another non-union competitor takes your company's market share.
My company's management is afraid of strike. Last time we striked (prior to me working there) the management and non-union supervisors were forced to do the work, which took long hours. Strike didn't last long and the workers got what they wanted. They also lost tons of contracts they had with major companies. Its weird how it went from how we have to pay a "large portion" of our wages to union dues to talking about what we have to sacrifice if a strike is to happen. Strikes happen so rarely its a non-issue. When strikes do happen its a majority thing and for a good cause.
So how many of you non-union workers would be able to miss up to 8 months of work, get paid 60% of your wages, have that good of health care coverage and can walk right back to your job and pick up where you left off like you never missed a day? I would guess very few.
Like the air traffic controllers? I have no beef with the rank and file, I just think unions are more about their own survival than benefiting their members. They create perverse incentives for corporations that lower their productivity. Bottom line, they're an externality that hurts the company's competitive position.
Of course unions have to make a little cash. Who's going to pay for the company appointed lawyers, union representatives salaries and maintenance of the local union hall. I would hardly say that they are scheming to make absurd profits off the union worker. Take away Unions and people aren't as eager to work the blue collar jobs that need to be done. My dad's a retired union employee and it treated him very well. Profit sharing, 401K, a great pension plan. Retirement is great. Again, the only people that have a beef with unions are those who aren't a part of one.
Yeah, but who gives a fuck about you? The company would be slightly more profitable if it could just kick you to the curb, and corporate profits are our sole and only mission here in America. barfo
The company doesn't need to be slightly more profitable. And your right, they could give a fuck about me, I'm just a number. I like it that way. They had 45.3 billion in revenue last year. As long as I get my peice of the pie, I'm cool. Its also cool that my union allows me to get away with everything.
Profitable companies create jobs because they invest and expand. Besides, who owns most corporations? People who have 401k's. The Steelworkers of America and the UAW killed their golden geese. US auto companies can't compete when they're putting their companies $2,400-$2,600 in the hole before the the steel is stamped.
Who is more likely to have a 401(k)? A union member, or a non-union member? That's not the problem with the auto industry. The lack of imagination and adaptation in the 70s and 80s is what killed it. An extra $2500 could be absorbed if they actually had a better product to sell. Or even an equivalent product to sell. The problem is they didn't. They had shit. [Although they've been coming around the past few years]. barfo
Both have them in large numbers. The auto company's reaction after the oil shocks of the 70s is one factor. Poor quality is a direct result of union workers that don't care. Those extra costs from unionization are made up in quality of materials, which is why US cars feels so cheap. That extra money represents a 5%-10% hit to the total cost of the vehicle. When margins are only 7%-8%, that's a killer.
