07-07-2004 13:37									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Good is not a point, good is a range. Or rather, why pay for good when adequate cuts your costs?

Depends what you want. Is a good worker worth the extra money they cost? That's for the company to decide. If it wants top quality workers, it will pay more, like Ford in the early part of the 20th Century. They pay more wages and get better workers. Other companies won't be prepared to pay the extra, and so will make do with adequate workers. Exactly like when you buy, say, coffee. You can pay extra and buy better coffee, or you can stick with normal stuff.

Good staff, being more productive, make more money.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Because it is not a "free" (or openly competitive) market. There are only so many bus companies in a city, and moving to another city is generally not an option.

As I said, when there aren't enough employers in that market to make it free, legislation and/or unions are needed to bring about a better balance. That's unions in theory. In practice, unions asking for collective bargaining mean everyone is paid the same, regardless of quality of work.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Again, supply and demand does not work in most of the situations. Even when it does, the existence of a pool of unemployed workers means supply is always greater than demand.

Actually no. There is always a pool of available jobs too. It is usually that the job are in different areas to the unemployed workers, but that means in the markets with more unemployed workers than jobs, there needs to be help for the worker, and in markets where there are more extra jobs than unemployed workers to fill them, companies need help, to balance it out.

Supply and demand does work, but when there isn't enough companies, or enough workers, in a particular market, you need something to right that balance. Personally, since unions in practice seem to not right the balance well, but try to stop change or moving forward (which doesn't help unemployed, companies or productivity), I prefer legislation to do that job.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Not necessarily. Increasing wage does not automatically translate into lower productivity.

I never claimed it did. Increasing inefficiency always translates to lower productivity than it would be without that inefficiency. If a union could go for better wages, without bringing about inefficiency, I would be all for it. But in practice, they don't.

	07-07-2004 13:54									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Unions provide the driving force behind workplace legislation because unions are the only organised group dedicated to looking after our welfare. In the US, where unions are weak, politics is dominated by the super rich and corporations. They're the ones who make substantial donations to political parties. They have the money for lobbying. They can hire the experts who understand complex laws and how to shape these laws to their benefit. Unions provide a political voice for blue collar workers and the middle class. A union can speak for the thousands of voters it represents.

In the UK, this isn't the case. Money doesn't buy power in the same way here, and the sums of money used for campaigning in the US would be unheard of here. Politics here isn't dominated by large corporations. Indeed, in the UK, unions (at least until recently) actually have a direct say in the running of the Labour party, our ruling party.

I don't see why we can't have legislation in the UK without unions. Moreover, I don't think much more legislation is needed. Health and safety always needs to be looked at, but discrimination legislation, legislatons against cartels, etc. is all there. Why not have unions as a political lobby, a collection of workers giving themselves a political voice, without trying to block companies modernising.

Workers lobbying
Higher wages
Inability to reduce inefficiency

	07-07-2004 17:47									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: personally know aeroplane pilots who were forced to change fields because they couldn't find jobs and MBA's who became insureance salespersons. I know computer specialists who had to swallow 60% - 80% in pay cuts.

Not saying that there isn't some inbuilt unemployment, but how do these examples counter Adam's point? These people had to go where the demand was. So what if they took lesser paying jobs?

	07-07-2004 18:44									#94
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Yet the reality of such moves is vividly depicted in The Grapes of Wrath. You are talking about displaced workers who had no alternatives. They serve as testimonies of how a capitalistic system destroys the common man.

I agree. This has just confirmed my belief that contemporary economics has little to do with reality.

	07-07-2004 18:48									#95
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Considering the way Reagan reacted to the ATC's, that did not and does not appear to be the case.

Please, learn a bit about the case first. Maybe you'll learn that there is a federal law that bars strikes in critical sectors of the economy including airline travel. Instead they're supposed to abide by manditory federal mediation of all labor disputes; and yeah the Fed has the habit (at least up until the early 80's) of always siding with labor.

Thus when the ATC union struck it not only broke their barginning pact with Management but it also broke Federal law. The bastards were warned they'd be fired if they ignored Federal law but the arrogant union bosses figured they'd just try to crash the national economy by bringing all air traffic to a grinding halt. They figured they could blame Reagon and then have their political friends bail them out. They were wrong.

Firing those self centered little ****** was one of the best things Reagon ever did.

	07-07-2004 18:55									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I agree. This has just confirmed my belief that contemporary economics has little to do with reality.

How so? Contemporary economics is bounded in reality, it is about how things happen, and how changing one thing affects another, and is becoming increasingly less theoretical and increasingly more applied, IMHO. I accept that refering to labour as human capital, and talking of wages as a commodity doesn't sit well with some people, and I can understand how someone could think that what is efficient, what economists usually argue for, isn't good, and that their sitting in their ivory towers without knowledge of what life's like. However whether or not something is a good idea is not the job of an economist. The job of an economist is to tell you what the effects will likely be, and how the actions you take will affect that. It's the job of people to decide what should or shouldn't happen, based on that.

	07-07-2004 19:00									#97
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The problem with unions is structural, NOT systemic. Unions become stratefied and interested solely on the jobs of the current members as opposed for the opportunities of future members-which is why they become so conservative and protective.

I think the fact that worker protection is now codified in law has lessened the importance of unions- but oevr time there will be backsliding.

	07-07-2004 19:00									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oerdin, you made one over-generalizaton The Fed hardly "always" sided with labor, look at the strikesin WW1, the coal strikes between the wars, the attempted strikes in certain areas of WW2 when the companies in question were raking in money but the workers were seeing little of it. It was only during a golden period, post WW2 thru the 70's that unions did well with the executive. and even then not always.

Note some of the presidents involved were democrats! By the way, federal mediation is OPTIONAL, and is solely up to executive discretion. Also note that out of a century the Fed has sided with labor for maybe 30 years, if you really want to push it, 40 years. That is less than half the century. It goes in cycles, and we've had a quarter century plus cycle favoring large corporations. If as a historian I am correct, we will go back to the pro-union side. If the globalization opponents are right, the cycles have ended and Gibson (of cyberpunk fame) is the prophet. We'll see.

	07-07-2004 19:01									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap The problem with unions is structural, NOT systemic. Unions become stratefied and interested solely on the jobs of the current members as opposed for the opportunities of future members-which is why they become so conservative and protective.

	07-07-2004 19:06									#100
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Drogue How so? Contemporary economics is bounded in reality, it is about how things happen, and how changing one thing affects another, and is becoming increasingly less theoretical and increasingly more applied, IMHO. I accept that refering to labour as human capital, and talking of wages as a commodity doesn't sit well with some people.

Exactly. The core of almost every widely accepted system of ethics is that you should treat people as ends in themselves, rather than as means.

It's OK if someone says that a market system is useful in promoting the former, but there are too many economists who want the latter to be our sole concern and that is immoral.

Markets have their uses, but they also have significant and obvious flaws. The Grapes of Wrath is one of the greatest artistic expositions of some of the flaws. Too many economists are market fundamentalists and thus only care about someone insofar as they are a commodity.

quote: and I can understand how someone could think that what is efficient, what economists usually argue for, isn't good, and that their sitting in their ivory towers without knowledge of what life's like.

But market fundamentalists are quite happy to overlook the inefficiencies produced by markets as well as the efficiencies produced by government and its agencies.

quote: However whether or not something is a good idea is not the job of an economist. The job of an economist is to tell you what the effects will likely be, and how the actions you take will affect that. It's the job of people to decide what should or shouldn't happen, based on that.

Too many of them are crude, right-wing hacks, and what's the point in making a decision when most of them come up with same tired old garbage?

	07-07-2004 19:11									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: This is disingenuous. Taft-Hartley did make closed shops (US usage = must join a union in order to be hired) illegal, union shops (US usage = must join a union shortly after being hired) are still legal, except in right-to-work states. If you don’t want to join a union, its a bit like saying the Vikings didn’t burn down your house …. the Saxons did.

How is it disingenuous? Union shops and closed shops are fundamentally different institutions. If new employees in a union shop are able to convince the majority of employees to not require union membership (and they're legally required to have at least a month), they don't need one.

quote: the union has to stand by its agreement, or else its name is mud. If employees don’t have to honor the contract, why would an employer sign it?

And my point, as I said in the post, was that regardless of whether or not you agreed with the laws, their enshrining of the concentration of power in the hands of the union leadership is the main reason why we see corruption. Personally, I think the state should pretty much butt out altogether in labor relations.

	07-07-2004 19:42									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Although I find most of the guys I work with tend to be conservative.

Over 40% of union members vote Republican. The unions shouldn't be such a tool of the Democrats. Their members' interests would be better served.

	07-07-2004 19:48									#103
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: The core of almost every widely accepted system of ethics is that you should treat people as ends in themselves, rather than as means.

So what you are saying is that almost every widley accepted system of ethics is not grounded in reality .

	07-07-2004 19:59									#104
	Tired of ads?

Depends on the Union, I guess. My general impression is they're generally a good thing, but that in many cases they fail to serve the interests of their members, and occasionally go on incredible power trips (rare, but memorable - like the ATC strike).

-Arrian

	07-07-2004 20:08									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: So what you are saying is that almost every widley accepted system of ethics is not grounded in reality

Our lords and masters would prefer it that way. You have to keep the rabble down...

	07-07-2004 20:42									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Union shops and closed shops are fundamentally different institutions. If new employees in a union shop are able to convince the majority of employees to not require union membership (and they're legally required to have at least a month), they don't need one.

*gasp* Heaven forbid if the majority of the employees decide not to be forced into a union which may not serve their interests!

And I'd say they're basically the same. Either way, you gotta be part of the union to work (if the new employees convince a majority to not make union membership mandatory then it ain't a union shop anymore).

	07-07-2004 20:47									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I agree with Imran on the "closed shop"/"union shop" thing. I don't see much of a difference there. Slight difference, but very slight.

-Arrian

	08-07-2004 05:07									#108
	Support Apolyton

quote: *gasp* Heaven forbid if the majority of the employees decide not to be forced into a union which may not serve their interests!

Eh? If the majority of employees don't want to be forced into a union, then there wouldn't be a union shop.

quote: And I'd say they're basically the same. Either way, you gotta be part of the union to work

No you don't. A non-union member can work in a union shop for at least a month.

quote: (if the new employees convince a majority to not make union membership mandatory then it ain't a union shop anymore).

No ****. The point, again, is that union shop allows free discourse, giving people who prefer to join another union or not join a union a chance to make their case.

That's not to say that I prefer union shop over an open shop, but equating it to a closed shop is nonsense. And it certainly is not intellectual dishonesty to object to that equation.

	08-07-2004 05:36									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Personally, I think anti-trust law should apply to unions. The rationale works equally well against them as against corporations.

quote: The point, again, is that union shop allows free discourse, giving people who prefer to join another union or not join a union a chance to make their case.

How does a company not being a union shop prevent that free discourse?

	08-07-2004 05:44									#110
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Personally, I think anti-trust law should apply to unions. The rationale works equally well against them as against corporations.

Personally, I think ownership should apply to humans. The rationale works equally well against them as against other property.

quote: How does a company not being a union shop prevent that free discourse?

Do you even know what I was arguing?

	08-07-2004 05:49									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: Personally, I think anti-trust law should apply to unions. The rationale works equally well against them as against corporations. Personally, I think ownership should apply to humans. The rationale works equally well against them as against other property.

Not at all.

quote: quote: How does a company not being a union shop prevent that free discourse? Do you even know what I was arguing?

That union shops allow for a free discourse on whether or not it should be a union shop?

	08-07-2004 05:55									#112
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Not at all.

If that counts as a valid argument, change my answer to "not at all."

quote: That union shops allow for a free discourse on whether or not it should be a union shop?

I mean, the full argument. The reason why I was arguing that point. Anyways, that was a rhetorical question as it's clear that you don't.

	08-07-2004 10:55									#113
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I got some good insight.

Hawaii is a very union-intensive state. One of the most influential unions we have here is the Stevedores. They are the ones that move goods into the state, as we only have the docks to ship in goods for us.

They get paid around $120,000 a year for their job, whereas the governor only gets around 50, 000. They went on strike a year ago to get another pay raise and shut down EVERYTHING coming into the state of Hawaii. Personally, I think unions do have a place, but over here they have outlived their usefulness.

We've been having union strikes here a lot recently. The cement union went on strike because they wanted 100% medical coverage (or something close to that) without co-payment. Most of their wives don't work cause they make so much. WTF is that? Right now as I type this our tugboat unions to the outer islands are on union because they want double hours for their paid vacations.

They accumulate so many hours on the open ocean, and they can "refund" these hours to a paid vacation every year, but they want 1 hour to equal 2....most of them don't do squa-doo out there....I work on a boat.

Personally, unions were a good idea, and in some way they still are. But they've been getting really greedy as of late.

	08-07-2004 12:57									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan They get paid around $120,000 a year for their job, whereas the governor only gets around 50, 000.

Yeah, but the governor don't have to pay for anything.

	08-07-2004 13:16									#115
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan They get paid around $120,000 a year for their job, whereas the governor only gets around 50, 000.

Why does this bug you?

Isn't this is a good reason to join a union.

Which would you prefer: a non-union job that pays peanuts or a union job that pays good money?

	08-07-2004 18:17									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: No you don't. A non-union member can work in a union shop for at least a month.

Oooh... whoop-te-doo! Since a non-union member can work in a union shop for a WHOLE MONTH, that means it is much different than a close shop! Because, as we all know, people really only work at a new job around a month or so anyway.

What bollocks!

quote: The point, again, is that union shop allows free discourse, giving people who prefer to join another union or not join a union a chance to make their case.

And? You still got to be a part of the union to work there. There is very little difference at all (ie, both suck).

quote: Personally, I think unions do have a place, but over here they have outlived their usefulness.

Wow... this coming from a communist as well . I wouldn't say they outlived their usefulness, just some have. But dock workers and longshoremen have VERY powerful unions anywhere you go in the US. It is difficult to replace them if they go on strike and they know that, so they get paid very, very, very well.

	08-07-2004 18:35									#117
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin They figured they could blame Reagon and then have their political friends bail them out. They were wrong.

IIRC, Reagan was a union man from his days in SAG and they thought he wouldn't dare destroy a union.

	08-07-2004 18:38									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc As a union member in an open-shop, I have always found non-union members leaching off the benefits irritating. Here is a free market solution. Require non-union members to work under whatever management made as an initial offer to the workers. Union members get the final offer. That way if the union really doesn't get anything, then people won't join because it's not cost efficient, not because they can get the benefits without paying. People who are leaching off union-derived benefits will suddenly have to pay to play, one might say.

That's a good idea. It'd be easy for the employer to break the union though in that scenario. Just voluntarily pay the non-union employees more until all the union members abandon the union.

	08-07-2004 18:56									#119
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Require non-union members to work under whatever management made as an initial offer to the workers.

So non-union members can't bargain for their own wages? What if a non-union guy is super qualified? He can't say to the boss, tell you what, I'll work for you if my salary is 10% more?

How is that free market at all?!

	08-07-2004 18:59									#120
	Get a bigger avatar today!

unions are good because owners only care about profits, the worker might as well die. not their business.

unions are necessairy, one worker cant do it by himself.

that leaves the question wether unions are really on the side of the worker or if they are used as an additional means of control by the owners.

but healthy unions are absolutely necessairy.

hijacked unions by the owners must be taken apart and remade to their original goal.