 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Unions serve an important purpose. The bad that comes with them is much smaller than the good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
yall are too busy pitting unions against managament and ignoring the political aspects of unions.
unions play a major part in the machine politics of urban cities. they add to the corruption of the city govts.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dauphin
And I think that executives get obscene amounts of self-awarded pay, but thats not going to be solved by unions. |
Unions do help keep excessive executive bonuses in check.
Where does the money come from to pay the executives? Obviously profits.
If a company is making huge profits, the union will say the employees helped create this profit, they deserve a slice of the pie. So the employees get a pay increase instead of the one person, the CEO, getting multi-million dollar bonuses.
Non-union employees also benefit. If the unionised employees get a 4% pay increase that will put upward pressure on other salaries.
So everyone benefits from a union.
For those of you who are against unions, do you not want to earn more money? Do you not want protection from unfair dismissals?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verres
I would seriously question the motives of any government that wants to get rid of Unions. |
Cutting costs? Governments are fast realising that voters want lower taxes and better services, above most else. The only way to do this is to become more efficient, which usually ends up meaning job cuts, which will be staunchly opposed by unions.
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
If Unions push for reasonable demands such as safe working conditions and reasonable pay raises then they are a good thing but if they fight all job cuts no matter how needed they are or if they demand pay raises which far out stripe inflation then they can be a very, very bad thing.
The problem is in a closed shop there is no competetion and this often leads union bosses to make unreasonable demands which the market place can't support. |
I admit the reasons for private sector unions, but I still think in the public sector they do a hell of a lot more harm than good. All unions seem to do in the public sector is strike for inflation busting wages and to stop job cuts. I agree on the first, public sector workers deserve to be paid more. However job cuts are necessary to modernise our horrendously outdated public services. Whether modernisation includes job cuts or not I don't really mind, but public services must become more efficient, and this is being bloked by unions like the FBU, the RMT, etc. who want to safeguard jobs at all cost. The trouble is that's cost to the taxpayer, in waste. There are far far better ways to reduce poverty than unions.
I agree with Laz that unions have got us much legislation, and that's a valuble job, and a big plus. I also think we have a bit further to go, but that's all legislation. We don't need unions for that, we need legislation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You think so?
How hard it is to fire a bunch of, say, bus drivers who have been around for years and hire new ones at a lower wage level? |
Would they be as good, without the experience? If so, why should they pay the other bus drivers more, when someone can do an equally good job for less money? Supply and demand, if there's someone that can do as good a job for less money, they'll get the job. However, wages do usually rise with experience, as more experience tends to make you better at your job.
If the new drivers aren't as good, then the company has a choice, of whether the current drivers are worth the extra. If the new drivers are as good, then why would they be paying more money for other drivers that don't give them any better results? The idea of supply and demand is that you get paid what you're worth to that company.
What's to stop a worker deciding he can get more money elsewhere and leaving to get a better job. I don't begrudge a worker who changes jobs because he's offered more money by a competator, the same way I don't begrudge a company changing workers because they can find as good or better workers cheaper. Supply and demand, the company pays what the worker is worth to them. If this is skewed, because there is only one company employing in that field, for example, then unions and collective bargaining is needed to correct that market failure.
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It depends on where the inefficiency is. |
Well no. In the long term, inefficiency, wherever it is, will reduce productivity, and thus average income. It may make it a more equitable distribution, but it will mean there is less to distribute.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
I also see in Ramo's first post "instead of fighting for higher wages... they fight for protectionism and anti-immigration" How exactly are they going to fight for that with the situations there are now? Boeing left washington state because of this crap(and because of some incentives for moving out of the US...), they will build most of the parts in their airplanes outside of the US,and the few parts that are built here will be built in Non-union states. |
Which is what happens when a country gets rich and it can't justify it's high wages. It's the world equalising itself, somewhat. The US gets rich, so it's workers demand more, so companies go overseas, so other countries grow faster and catch up. Capitalism isn't inherantly unequal, indeed, it usually works out the opposite. If you can get good workers for less money abroad than in America, it makes sense to do it. WHen it's equalised itself, enough companies going abroad and employing people over there, they'll be competition abroad, and so wages will rise there, until companies stop going. Then you have an equilibrium 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
The companies go overseas for production but still seek to charge US prices. If US wages aren't justifiable, US Prices aren't either. |
You're right. And when/if wages have fallen, due to outsourcing, prices will have to follow. But prices usually follow wages, because it takes a little while to hit.
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
You also assume that those countries will buy our products in return when they "get rich". Europe,SK,and Japan all dispell this myth, they all run large trade surpluses with us. |
Nope, I don't need to assume that. Whether or not that buy US products, they will get richer because US companies are employing them, and US companies will continue to employ them until their wage rate rises enough to make it more feasable to employ Americans. It's making them richer compared to the US, and will continue to do so, until they are closer to the UK in wage rate.
However these nations haven't got rich yet, not in the way of the US. I'm refering to outsourcing to countries with lower wages - India, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc.
The US is richer than those countries (bar Japan, but Japan is insular in products, because it's mostly ahead, and has very individual taste, as well as exporting a lot), and as such, is more likely to buy expensive foreign goods. That's why you have a trade deficit compared to Europe and Japan. When US prices are lower than ours, we'll buy them. Until then, we're not rich enough to afford them.
The richer a country is, usually the more it imports. But that's a side point. Outsourcing is about labour, and prices at home, not about imports. I don't need to assume those
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Which is what happens when a country gets rich and it can't justify it's high wages. It's the world equalising itself, somewhat. The US gets rich, so it's workers demand more, so companies go overseas, so other countries grow faster and catch up. Capitalism isn't inherantly unequal, indeed, it usually works out the opposite. If you can get good workers for less money abroad than in America, it makes sense to do it. WHen it's equalised itself, enough companies going abroad and employing people over there, they'll be competition abroad, and so wages will rise there, until companies stop going. Then you have an equilibrium |
Or, alternatively, while the sheep are outsourcing to Bangalore, the smart money are using their key staff here to switch to automated processes, work-streaming technology and the internet. Thereby obtaining even greater efficiencies without the expensive start-up costs of outsourcing, retaining the smart staff and avoiding the customer backlash that outsourcing causes.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-07-2004 21:22
.
), but a great number of them are horrid pieces of filth to the workers who pay the dues and expect to be protected. At least you figure the employer is trying to screw you, you aren't as prepared when your union does the same thing.
|