Reply With QuoteGuess what happens when you get rid of the unions and start voting in a political party who is increasingly calling for the removal of all those worker protections?Originally Posted by Kuciwalker
Not at all.
Guess what happens when you get rid of the unions and start voting in a political party who is increasingly calling for the removal of all those worker protections?
I have made no such accusations
Presumably because if they chose not to pay dues, they would be freeloaders who benefit from the union's collective bargaining without paying for the union's operating costs.
Everyone starts losing their hands again?
Workplace safety is just a form of non-wage compensation - and it's cheap at the price, for the employer. The overwhelming determinant of labor compensation is labor productivity. Thus even if removing the political force of unions somehow resulted in lower labor compensation [for non-union workers], it would manifest as a moderate decrease in wages rather than a sudden reversion to a 19th century social darwinist dystopia.
You're seriously arguing that if you removed the requirement for business to protect workers rights, that they would choose to continue those rights? Seriously?Everyone starts losing their hands again?
Workplace safety is just a form of non-wage compensation - and it's cheap at the price, for the employer. The overwhelming determinant of labor compensation is labor productivity. Thus even if removing the political force of unions somehow resulted in lower labor compensation [for non-union workers], it would manifest as a moderate decrease in wages rather than a sudden reversion to a 19th century social darwinist dystopia.
As for 'moderate decrease in wages', what do you think happens when a local firm who are the majority employer for an area suddenly have the freedom to cut wages and increase working hours, and reduce employee protections and benefits? What recourse exactly do those employees have other than to suck it up?
This isn't theoretical, you can look back over the last couple of centuries and see exactly what happens when workers do not have their rights protected. The only reason it seems like a reasonable thing to do to destroy the unions is because you've never lived through a time when those protections weren't in place.
Yes. You are holding a near conspiracy level theory about unions, that they have been founded with a specific intent in mind. The situation is much more complex and encompasses the social evolution of society.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
You know, capital nowadays is flexible enough that you can easily say: "if you don't like the union, move production somewhere else". Granted there are often restrictions on shutting down business on the basis of union activity, but "intent" in this case is near-impossible to prove.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Unions are redundant thats what ambulence chasers are for.
"Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Yes. The rights you've been talking about (stuff like disability benefits, not having the factory be a deathtrap) are much cheaper for the company to provide than the wages they'd need to pay to make up for their lack.
Get new jobs.As for 'moderate decrease in wages', what do you think happens when a local firm who are the majority employer for an area suddenly have the freedom to cut wages and increase working hours, and reduce employee protections and benefits? What recourse exactly do those employees have other than to suck it up?
I have no "rights" protected at my job at all, and somehow it is stable, pays well, has good benefits, etc.This isn't theoretical, you can look back over the last couple of centuries and see exactly what happens when workers do not have their rights protected.
Hardly. Those restrictions have far more teeth than you imagine. And even so capital OBSERVABLY avoids areas with tight labor regulations and/or strong unions in favor of regions with lax regulations and weak or nonexistent unions. This is a great argument for getting rid of unions!
workers start losing their rights, such as the right to collective bargaining.Everyone starts losing their hands again?
"The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
Brilliant! You've demonstrated that if we get rid of collective bargaining, workers won't be able to collectively bargain!
yes, capital prefers places where workers have few protections against exploitation. how surprising...
"The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
Why is it cheaper than firing anyone who complains and just hiring another person desperate for a job?
How do you get a new job when a) there are no other local jobs and you can't afford to move and b) other employers are doing the same?
I can't comment on your job without knowing anything about it, but it seems unlikely that it has no protections at all in this day and age.
It also tends to look for places that turn tax dollars into corporate handouts.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Collective bargaining for corporations = suppressing strikes in blood
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Do you imagine that companies would be able to get away with paying arbitrarily small wages? We have direct evidence even in this economy that people aren't willing to work for wages much lower than what are already prevailing, and would prefer to be unemployed. As an example, Alabama recently had a harsh crackdown on illegal immigrants. Since then, many farmers have been letting their fields lay fallow because they simply cannot hire American laborers at the wages that would make it profitable. Even with high unemployment, the employers don't have an unlimited ability to dictate wages and working conditions.
You are suggesting that ALL the employers would somehow form a cartel and refuse to bid up wages for workers they needed?How do you get a new job when a) there are no other local jobs and you can't afford to move and b) other employers are doing the same?
There are lots of jobs that don't face any protections at all, and somehow those jobs pay pretty good wages and offer pretty good benefits for OK working hours and conditions. How does your theory of the world, where employers will mercilessly bid down wages to zero if we let them, account for this fact?
I am, thank god, a salaried employee with effectively no labor protections whatsoever. I can be fired at-will. I can be asked to work whatever hours the firm needs - and I have been. And I would be really, really angry if the government tried to interfere with any of that.I can't comment on your job without knowing anything about it, but it seems unlikely that it has no protections at all in this day and age.
We all understand this Kuci.
Still, your earlier statement about union - what you called their "sole reason of existence" was just completely off-base and paranoid.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
No. That is what unions do. They restrict supply in order to increase prices. It's only possible to increase prices by restricting supply.
This is what they do, but they also do other things.
Imagine that I told you: "Neoliberalism exists to destroy the environment".
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Also what do you mean by "they restrict supply"? Wouldn't the correct thing to say be that they increase prices, thus reducing demand?
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
It does. The environment is there to be exploited and consumed.This is what they do, but they also do other things.
Imagine that I told you: "Neoliberalism exists to destroy the environment".
Demand is unaffected by prices; demand is a curve. Quantity demanded adjusts to match the price, which reduces quantity supplied. But unions actually achieve this by restricting the supply curve by prohibiting competition from non-union laborers. There are unemployed workers who would be willing to do the jobs for a lower price, but are not permitted to by the union's rules and thus cannot get a job.
That's interesting. Do you really think this, or is it your last stand at consistency?
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
This isn't a "conspiracy", in the sense of some sort of secret dealings. The union contracts explicitly forbid this!
Free trade agreements have done a pretty good job of passing as "protectionism" all sorts of measures, including environmental ones. So it's a conspiracy?
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Sorry, I totally misread post #115 and thought you were quoting #110.
OM NOM NOM
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks