I'm still not getting it. How does having a contract socialize profits? The contract is (usually, I assume) for a fixed wage. If the company makes a lot of profit, or a little profit, or makes a huge loss, the wages are unchanged. So how are the profits being socialized? barfo
You just showed how the profits are socialized. If the company lost money and the union members were docked to cover the loss, the losses would be socialized, too.
No. I showed how they aren't socialized. If GM makes a contract with a parts supplier for steering columns, is that also "socializing profits"? If not, why is a contract for labor "socializing"? You haven't explained why you think a union contract socializes profits. Maybe we need to define "socialize"? It seems to me you are using to to mean "something I don't approve of". barfo
You really aren't making sense. I agree the union members aren't docked for losses, and therefore losses aren't socialized. However, the flip side is, they don't get more money if profits are higher, so the profits aren't socialized either. barfo
You're clearly confused. What is the compensation in union contracts based upon? Profits. The unions demand X% of the profits. And they do demand more money if the profits are higher, and frequently demand profit sharing clauses in the contracts.
I see. So you are assuming that union contracts are basically profit-sharing plans. I do not believe that is correct, although I am no expert. I think some - definitely not all, probably not most - union contracts include a profit-sharing component, but I believe in most cases this is a very small amount compared to the fixed hourly wages. If you have evidence to the contrary, though, I'd be delighted to see it. barfo
Again, you aren't making sense. What are the fixed hourly wages for a non-union employee based on? The answer in both cases is, the going rate, and what the individual/union was able to negotiate, and what the company thinks it can afford. barfo
Nonsense. If that were true, people would have to work for free at unprofitable companies, and would be massively compensated at highly profitable companies. That doesn't happen, except marginally. barfo
I'm actually a liberal, believe it or not. Love the idea on unions, but hate dealing with the negatives of them day in and day out.
Or there'd be fewer auto workers working a lot of overtime for less pay so the company's profits would be much higher. Seems like union members ARE massively compensated at high revenue companies. Unprofitable companies are doomed to fail, unless they're some sort of startup. In the latter case, they're not likely union shops and people tend to work for equity.
Uh, no. No healthcare insurance plan can guarantee your employer will hold your job for you for 8 months. Or even 1 day.
I won't tell him how you mock him and ridicule his job either. A loose nut can destroy an engine or kill a couple families. I don't want an illegal alien checking mine, and I doubt Ford Motors wants to take that risk either. To me, he's worth more per hour than a doctor or a lawyer or a policeman or a teacher or an oil baron or a Navy Admiral... My guess is he does a lot more for his employer and their customers than you have ever done for yours.
Often there are. At 2 of my hirings I negotiated guaranteed yearly raises based solely on my future tenure. One was a small business, the other a National chain.
Some unions do that, as do some non-union employees. Many unions work for non-profit entities where this would of course not be the case. I have actually had a profit-sharing plan only at my non-union jobs, 4 of them to be exact. At neither of the 2 unions I worked in did we ever have a profit-sharing plan.
You are obviously wrong, and Barfo is pummeling you with basic economic facts known to anyone who took Bus-101.
