Scott Walker's crusade continues

[MichaeltheGreat]

1

[MichaeltheGreat]

I dunno, maybe. Personally I'd like to see them die because I like it when people are wealthier rather than poorer.

Ah yea, the history of labor law in the US surely indicates that unions have been the bane of the working man, and that the working man should trust in the benevolence of his employer.

[Dinner]

I dunno, maybe. Personally I'd like to see them die because I like it when people are wealthier rather than poorer.

The states which protect union rights are wealthier than the mostly backwards dirt poor states which attack unions. FACT.

[Dinner]

If we're gonna play this game, Michigan has both the highest unionization rate and the highest unemployment rate in the region.

The low unemployment states like North Dakota and Iowas are mostly tiny population rural states living off of farm subsidies or subsidies for raw materials (in the case of North Dakota) what does that have to do with unions?

[Ben Kenobi]

Man, when did MtG turn Commie?

[DinoDoc]

The low unemployment states like North Dakota and Iowas are mostly tiny population rural states living off of farm subsidies or subsidies for raw materials (in the case of North Dakota) what does that have to do with unions?

None of those states are in the Great Lakes Region, Rust Belt, or any of the other meaningful ways MtG would care to define region. So perhaps you might start by telling me what they have to do with the post you quoted.

[DinoDoc]

The states which protect union rights are wealthier than the mostly backwards dirt poor states which attack unions. FACT.

Michigan vs Indiana?

[MichaeltheGreat]

None of those states are in the Great Lakes Region, Rust Belt, or any of the other meaningful ways MtG would care to define region. So perhaps you might start by telling me what they have to do with the post you quoted.

How about we take out regional differences and just stick to the US as a whole? And Michigan will not be a valid comparison to anything for decades, because it has been closer to a one-trick pony economy than any other state in the US. If you really wanted a valid comparison on union vs. RTW, you'd also have to go into each state's economic data and subtract out the federal government components, since virtually all federal labor contracts are prevailing wage, and DOL's local prevailing wage determinations are based on union contracts, plus federal civilian employees are union. and not subject to state law. If you want to be really rigorous, you should subtract out non-labor based factors such as minerals, oil and gas. States like Alaska and Wyoming derive a huge part of their economies from mineral, oil and gas sales, so that distorts their economic strength vis-a-vis states which don't sit on top of a pile of resource wealth.

[Kuciwalker]

Ah yea, the history of labor law in the US surely indicates that unions have been the bane of the working man, and that the working man should trust in the benevolence of his employer.

Yes.

[Kuciwalker]

Every single person citing econometric studies in this thread is playing the fool (regardless of what position they are trying to support).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes.

Yeah, let's go back to getting paid in company scrip only good at the company store, no minimum wage and 100+ hour work weeks in some professions. That'll raise the working man's standard of living.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, at one point monopsony employers actually existed. They don't anymore. And even if they did, the welfare losses from the resulting unemployment are small (in the long term) compared to the welfare losses from unions' systematic expropriation of capital.

The overwhelming majority of the historical welfare gains attributed to unions are actually attributable to technological progress.

[kentonio]

Sure, unions are now largely irrelevant in the US and other developed countries, and should be done away with, but they played an important role in getting us to that point. Denying that is even worse than denying their current uselessness.

Bad mistake. The unions provide advocacy for workers. We may be at a stage where that advocacy is not required (we're not, workers need advocacy now more than they have for many years), but destroying the processes through which that can occur is foolish in the extreme. Once you get rid of unions, bringing them back would be nigh on impossible. Consider for a second the enormous power that corporations hold in America today, do you really think they would willingly allow the reestablishment of one of the few checks on their power?

The only justification for getting rid of unions is if you legislate the protections that they provide, including independant bodies for wage/working condition negotiations. If you're not willing to provide state mandated protections, then unions need to exist.

[Aeson]

Bad mistake. The unions provide advocacy for workers. We may be at a stage where that advocacy is not required (we're not, workers need advocacy now more than they have for many years), but destroying the processes through which that can occur is foolish in the extreme.

Difficulties in the labor markets right now are not something unions could solve. They are somewhat culpable in fact.

Once you get rid of unions, bringing them back would be nigh on impossible.

No. It would be very easy to bring them back if it was deemed useful. It would happen very quickly if the reasoning you are using held up.

The fundamental principle is now the workforce in the US has enough economic clout to actually maintain it's (relatively speaking to the working class in most of history and much of the modern world, extremely high) standard of living. This is rather clear in that non-union workers can generally earn more than minimum wage in almost every (legal) job.

Unions were very important in getting us to that point. That shouldn't be pissed on. It doesn't mean we need unions now though. A minimum wage adjusted for inflation is a good back stop (that is and likely will continue to be largely irrellevent) to ensure that the need for unions couldn't ever really be needed again.

Consider for a second the enormous power that corporations hold in America today, do you really think they would willingly allow the reestablishment of one of the few checks on their power?

Relatively speaking the wealthy had far more power in America when unions were founded. They couldnt' stop it then whent he populace was much less connected than they are now. What hope could they have of standing up to legions of cellphones and laptops?

The only justification for getting rid of unions is if you legislate the protections that they provide, including independant bodies for wage/working condition negotiations. If you're not willing to provide state mandated protections, then unions need to exist.

I'm not terribly concerned with unions, but can see more reasons for getting rid of (at least some of) them. The teacher's union is a negative influence on our education system for instance. Any closed shop unions are bad.

The only real protection we need is a minimum wage as a back-stop. It's sufficient, and that's clear from it's irrelevance. If it ever did become imminently relevant, unions would simply be hurting those on minimum wage and/or unemployed, and I don't see a justifiable reason to favor union workers over those others.

[Hauldren Collider]

Ah yea, the history of labor law in the US surely indicates that unions have been the bane of the working man, and that the working man should trust in the benevolence of his employer.

Yep.

EDIT: Oh, shoulda scrolled down, goddammit kuci