I Love Unions!

The problem, Maris, is that some people are just better at doing something than others. Like the realtor who kicks your ass and outsells you, or the one you outsell. They have the same profit/pay motives.

 

Sorry if I offended. But you are just typing random shit rather than trying to make a coherent argument.

barfo

 

I typed nothing random.

The points you haven't come close to refuting:

1) Unions socialize companies' profits
2) Unions don't socialize failure

And you really should read the link, like I read the ones you post.

 

You have yet to make those points, you have merely asserted such. Besides, I agree with #2 so there is no reason to debate that.

I think I can state without any chance of being wrong that the number of links you post that I read is far more than the total number of links I post.

barfo

 

I've made the 1st point repeatedly. Two union workers make the same money but don't have the same work performance.

 

And I've repeatedly pointed out that that happens all the time in non-union shops.
And that isn't socialism anyway.

barfo

 

It is socialism when the UNION owns a share of the profit/take and divides it up among its members as it sees fit.

It's completely different from a non-union shop, because there is no collective bargaining. As I've repeatedly pointed out, employees of a non-union shop who are deemed not competent enough are trivially fired.

 

Which doesn't happen, since every union contract is a contract signed by both company and union. You act like unions have unilateral powers. They don't. You act like compensation is tightly tied to profit. It isn't, except in very rare cases.

barfo

 

Unions have quite a bit of power that non-union workers do not have. Like the ability to strike and collective bargain.

Compensation is tightly tied to profit which I demonstrated with the math and you haven't at all come close to showing that it's otherwise.

You can't make it out so the basic rule (profit/loss = income - expenses) isn't applied.

If you'd have read the link I posted, you'd maybe understand why union salary raises can't be fully passed on to the consumer, so some portion of those raises must be coming from profits. Even if they could be fully passed on, it'd still be reducing or taking from the company's profits. If the raises do, then so dos the entire sum of the salaries paid out.

And surely if a company far exceeds profit expectations, the union is going to demand a huge salary increase or other compensation (like pension fund contributions or other benefits). Why? Because they want their "fair share" of the profits.

It has to be a deal between the union and the company that's at least somewhat reasonable or you end up with GM going broke. Profit is not the same thing as cash flow - the company has to be able to pay out dividends as promised to shareholders (oops, GM shows unions take those shareholders to the cleaners, too). Expenses like buying new machines for the factory are capital expenses and are paid for from the profits as well.

It's not like the unions want to strangle the golden goose, but they absolutely have their hands wrapped around its neck really tight.

All this is coming from a guy who likes unions (me).

 

The relevant information about extra protections and powers that unions have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action

United States labor law also draws a distinction, in the case of private sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act, between "economic" and "unfair labor practice" strikes. An employer may not fire, but may permanently replace, workers who engage in a strike over economic issues. On the other hand, employers who commit unfair labor practices (ULPs) may not replace employees who strike over ULPs, and must fire any strikebreakers they have hired as replacements in order to reinstate the striking workers.