Scott Walker's crusade continues

[Hauldren Collider]

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.

Half of all unionized workers are government workers. Would "scrip" in that case be US dollars?

Oh yes, and no minimum wage would also be wonderful. If only

And there are people who work 100+ hours a week. I don't see any reason to tell them they aren't allowed to.

[Hauldren Collider]

I am sure all the workers at Hostess are ever so grateful for their union which has brought them so much joy and happiness.

[kentonio]

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

I've been a long time opponent of most unions, but that's simply not true. The negatives that come from unions are nothing in comparison to the negatives caused by underregulated worker conditions imposed by employers. The silly thing is that the easiest way to destroy the unions is just to ensure a solid level of worker proction federally. The only way way you get support for curbing unions from low paid workers today is to play on a sense of jealousy, the whole 'I get next to nothing, why should THEY get so much?' attitude which is fundementally harmful to society.

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 only way you get rid of unions in the way you're talking about is to legislate them away. If you do that then they aren't coming back. You think the vast lobbying power of the corporations wouldn't be brought to bear in all its fury against such a move? Hell, they're doing a pretty impressive job right now of stripping away union power aren't they?

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.

When you have many millions of full time workers relying on government handouts in order to remain a lifestyle above the poverty line, then no your fundamental principle doesn't work. Their standard of living is surely far higher than the Philippines or whatever, but is that the ambition for America? Make sure the workers aren't starving and then everythings ok?

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.

Unions don't just advocate for pay, they cover worker rights, protections, workplace conditions and a whole lot else. Have you not noticed how heavily under attack worker regulations are recently? Who exactly should the workers turn to for help, their congressmen who rely on large corporate funding for their campaigns?

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?

Companies used to use violence, extortion and occasionally even murder to try and break up unions. They were still doing that as late as the seventies in a few cases. The creation of unions took generations of slow, painstaking progress which eventually gave them a legitimacy and some protection from big business. Now you want to tear all that up and hope that some later generation will just be able to flick a switch and turn the whole thing back on? Sorry, but that's completely unrealistic

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.

That's exactly the kind of thinking I mentioned before. Unions don't want their members to get better conditions than other workers, they want all workers to receive better conditions.

[Kuciwalker]

Bad mistake. The unions provide advocacy for workers.

exit >> voice

[Fake Boris]

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.

Yes. A statement that is also true of capitalism as a system, hence the need for balance checks.

[Fake Boris]

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.

Yes. A statement that is also true of capitalism as a system, hence the need for balance checks.

[Aeson]

I've been a long time opponent of most unions, but that's simply not true. The negatives that come from unions are nothing in comparison to the negatives caused by underregulated worker conditions imposed by employers.

Irrelevant to the point you are addressing. Unions are not the solution for the current economic downturn. Unions have contributed somewhat to the current economic downturn. Those two statements which your are claiming are not true, are actually true.

The silly thing is that the easiest way to destroy the unions is just to ensure a solid level of worker proction federally. The only way way you get support for curbing unions from low paid workers today is to play on a sense of jealousy, the whole 'I get next to nothing, why should THEY get so much?' attitude which is fundementally harmful to society.

You get support for curbing unions by understanding that they are having a detrimental effect on our economy.

There is a solid level of worker protection federally by any rational standard. There are safety standards for the workplace. There is unemployment insurance that can extend for 2 years or more? There are welfare programs. There is the minimum wage which rarely is even in effect because almost all jobs pay more than minimum wage.

The only way you get rid of unions in the way you're talking about is to legislate them away. If you do that then they aren't coming back. You think the vast lobbying power of the corporations wouldn't be brought to bear in all its fury against such a move? Hell, they're doing a pretty impressive job right now of stripping away union power aren't they?

Legislation can be repealed rather easily. Your argument here just doesn't hold any water.

The actors who would be supporting re-unionization in your hypothetical are much more affluent, much more well connected, have history to look to for conclusive proof of what can happen, control a much larger percentage of wealth as a group than the actors who initially formed unions, have far more protections as citizens, have a much stronger safety net to leverage off of, and have cell phones with video cameras to appeal to mass media about any injustices.

It all points to hypothetical re-unionization being rather easy if it ever were necessary.

When you have many millions of full time workers relying on government handouts in order to remain a lifestyle above the poverty line, then no your fundamental principle doesn't work. Their standard of living is surely far higher than the Philippines or whatever, but is that the ambition for America? Make sure the workers aren't starving and then everythings ok?

I've never been above the poverty line in my life, and I'm ok. I really don't see why we would want to hurt people on minimum wage to subsidize union workers if it ever came to that. (It isn't anywhere near that, and likely would never be sans some economic catastrophe that unions wouldn't be able to stop anyways.)

Unions don't just advocate for pay, they cover worker rights, protections, workplace conditions and a whole lot else. Have you not noticed how heavily under attack worker regulations are recently? Who exactly should the workers turn to for help, their congressmen who rely on large corporate funding for their campaigns?

Please go into more depth about the attack worker regulations are going under. AFAICT workplace safety standards and social safety nets are at the highest levels they've ever been.

Companies used to use violence, extortion and occasionally even murder to try and break up unions. They were still doing that as late as the seventies in a few cases. The creation of unions took generations of slow, painstaking progress which eventually gave them a legitimacy and some protection from big business. Now you want to tear all that up and hope that some later generation will just be able to flick a switch and turn the whole thing back on? Sorry, but that's completely unrealistic

Yes, it is completely unrealistic to think that not having unions would result in losing all gains from unions in the past.

There is no reason to think that non-unionized workers would face those things today. There is no reason to suspect a later generation would need to be able to re-unionize. There is no reason to suspect that re-unionizing would be anywhere near as difficult if it were. You're three levels away from the surface here.

That's exactly the kind of thinking I mentioned before. Unions don't want their members to get better conditions than other workers, they want all workers to receive better conditions.

I'm sure there are many in unions who want that. There are obvious some unions that are willing to hurt other workers for their own sake. What they want though, and what their actual effect is, is obviously not necessarily the same thing.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes. A statement that is also true of capitalism as a system, hence the need for balance checks.

That's an interesting (i.e. wrong) claim. We've seen firsthand the differential welfare effects of capitalism and communism, and the benefits actually are on the same order as those provided by technology over the same time periods.

[Kuciwalker]

FTR there is no need for "balance checks".

[kentonio]

Yes, it is completely unrealistic to think that not having unions would result in losing all gains from unions in the past.

Well done, nice strawman.

[The Mad Monk]

[Felch]

You just keep lying. Anyone who wants to opt out can, just because they decide not to do so and you disapprove doesn't prove anything.

What I said there was not a lie. Companies are forbidden from deducting from paychecks for political purposes. They can do automatic deductions for taxes and other things, but not political activities. Unions still can automatically deduct from payrolls. Prove me wrong, or recant your accusation.

[Aeson]

Well done, nice strawman.

"Now you want to tear all that up"

My position has been very clear that unions are somewhat detrimental in the current US economy and they are no longer necessary. You claim my position is to tear up all the gains unions made over decades. Pointing out that not having unions would not tear up all the gains unions fought for is not a strawman.

Your claim about my position is though. Now you may resume running away from the discussion ...

[MrFun]

Non-union workers who are forced to pay union dues at the same company, reap the benefits from union collective bargaining. I don't see what's wrong with that.

[MrFun]

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

This statement is so stupid. Unions were historically responsible for many of the gains workers have seen. And I say that even today, unions are important and relevant for the welfare of workers.