Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Peregrine wrote: Wait, I thought conservatives were in favor of the free market? What possible objection could you make to a private business choosing to re-hire employees, or for employees to negotiate contracts with their employers? Shouldn't you be holding this up as a shining example of how the free market works?
Read the article, the guys were drinking and possibly doing weed during work hours. These guys don't give a crap about the quality they're putting out and we're going to end up facing having to bail that company out again because these are the type of workers the union defends.
Nobody working at Chrysler gives a crap about the quality they're putting out. It's been this way since the early 70s. In an actual Free Market, Chrysler would have died in the mid 80s.
Oh, and The National Institude for Labour Relations (NILRR) is an anti-union Republican think-tank. You can tell this is the case for three reasons:
1. Their own description, found on their own site, describes themselves as an "Anti-union organization which does research and provides analysis to "expose the inequities of compulsory unionism'."
2. They use obfuscating, spin-doctored language like "labour freedom".
d-usa wrote: Its a conservative funded group that actively fights unions, so of course their research isn't going to be surprising.
Are they really a "conservatve funded group" though? Sure, Right-to-Work is generally a Conservative plank, but I know plenty of lefty liberals who dislikes union.
It is definately anti-union though....
Here's a bit about their objective:
NILRR’s primary function is to act as a research facility for the general public, scholars and students. It provides the supplementary analysis and research necessary to expose the inequities of compulsory unionism.
It publishes research papers designed to stimulate research and discussion with easy-to-read summaries of current events. NILRR also conducts nonpartisan analysis and study for the benefit of the general public.
It will render aid gratuitously to individuals suffering from government over-regulation of labor relations and will provide educational assistance to those individuals who have proved themselves worthy thereof.
So, yes, there may be some bias... that's way I'm interested in looking at the raw data...
Oh, and The National Institude for Labour Relations (NILRR) is an anti-union Republican think-tank. You can tell this is the case for three reasons:
1. Their own description, found on their own site, describes themselves as an "Anti-union organization which does research and provides analysis to "expose the inequities of compulsory unionism'."
2. They use obfuscating, spin-doctored language like "labour freedom".
3. whembly posted their link.
Damn... I feel... AWESOME!
Would this make me... INFAMOUS!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/10 21:24:52
Easy E wrote: If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?
Time to bring out the Pinkertons to shoot us some union strikers.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Easy E wrote: If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?
Time to bring out the Pinkertons to shoot us some union strikers.
Not rent a cops. The Pinkertons weren't rent a cops. They were rent a killers.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Easy E wrote: If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?
Time to bring out the Pinkertons to shoot us some union strikers.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
feeder wrote: I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.
...errr what?
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
feeder wrote: I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.
feeder wrote: I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.
feeder wrote: I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.
...errr what?
I'll second that.
Thirded...
I mean just logically it makes all the pay raises I ever got (none of which were won for me by a union but given freely by corporate policy) very odd indeed. Or massive hallucinations.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
feeder wrote: I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.
...errr what?
I'll second that.
Thirded...
I mean just logically it makes all the pay raises I ever got (none of which were won for me by a union but given freely by corporate policy) very odd indeed. Or massive hallucinations.
Easy E wrote: If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?
Time to bring out the Pinkertons to shoot us some union strikers.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Which would be the execution as it concerns us Sebs. The execution then was what was needed. The execution from then now is a clusterfeth.
Yeah, definitely. I was just adding to your comment, pointing out that it isn't the execution that's the problem per se, but the execution of unions right now that's the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: With ~50% of recent college graduates un/underemployed, I'm not surprised.
College graduates shouldn't really have anything to do with unions. The idea of college is to get skills that have enough market power that you don't need collective bargaining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: NO. The problem IS with the potential for violence.
You've missed the point.
Ratbarf said people ought to be able to freely negotiate contracts. I pointed out that violence or no, there isn't really free negotiation of contracts. Violence is obviously bad, and I think everybody has taken the time to point out how feeler was wrong, but it isn't the only issue.
feeder wrote: I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.
...errr what?
I'll second that.
Thirded...
I mean just logically it makes all the pay raises I ever got (none of which were won for me by a union but given freely by corporate policy) very odd indeed. Or massive hallucinations.
I can bet dollars to donuts he's running off one of Marx's poorer ideas combined with a misunderstanding of corporations law.
The first is the idea put forward by Marx that the nature of business is to seek ever growing profits, and this means extorting more profits from the working class by paying them less for their labour. So the prediction was that companies would steadily cut wages more and more over time. It would have seemed reasonable and made intuitive sense in the world of sweatshops inhabited by Marx, but the rise of the middle class and steady growth of mean and median incomes means Marx' theory obviously didn't work, even without having to go into the various graphs needed to explain its failings. I'm not sure why so many kids today fall for it.
The second idea is that corporations are required to maximise profits. This is kind of true - when trying to protect minority interests in a company, if the charter doesn't say otherwise then the courts will assume the proper purpose of the company is the generation and distribution of profits to shareholders. But that's only in the event that the a minority shareholder takes the company to court, and if it does courts are very wary about interfering to the extent that they challenge business decisions - they tend to limit themselves to instances of overt abuse by majority shareholders. They certainly wouldn't question the business sense in whether the costs of cutting pay by a $1 (reduced staff retention, no longer and employer of choice etc) are greater than the savings. So basically there's exactly zero legal force making companies strive for every dollar and cut wages wherever.
Add those two things together, ignore that they're not true, and you get feeder's idea.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/12/11 04:16:05
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: [...corporations law.
corporations are required to maximise profits. This is kind of true - when trying to protect minority interests in a company, if the charter doesn't say otherwise then the courts will assume the proper purpose of the company is the generation and distribution of profits to shareholders. But that's only in the event that the a minority shareholder takes the company to court, and if it does courts are very wary about interfering to the extent that they challenge business decisions - they tend to limit themselves to instances of overt abuse by majority shareholders. They certainly wouldn't question the business sense in whether the costs of cutting pay by a $1 (reduced staff retention, no longer and employer of choice etc) are greater than the savings. So basically there's exactly zero legal force making companies strive for every dollar and cut wages wherever.
... you get feeder's idea.
You kind of get my point. The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law? Where I live the provincial (ie state) government is actively engaged in union busting. Multi national franchises flout labour law with relative impunity. The federal government is trying to change labour laws to bring in workers to do the mining and oilfield jobs my friends and brothers do for fractions of the wage.
We still need Unions, fact.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
sebster wrote:The first is the idea put forward by Marx that the nature of business is to seek ever growing profits, and this means extorting more profits from the working class by paying them less for their labour. So the prediction was that companies would steadily cut wages more and more over time. It would have seemed reasonable and made intuitive sense in the world of sweatshops inhabited by Marx, but the rise of the middle class and steady growth of mean and median incomes means Marx' theory obviously didn't work, even without having to go into the various graphs needed to explain its failings. I'm not sure why so many kids today fall for it.
No, that's exactly how things work; and it is only competition of wages and/or government-regulated minimum wage that prevents it. However, the most recent recession has given most companies an excuse to universally cut back on wages (not quite like price fixing, but close).
Also, you'll see this theory of Marx's (one of his stronger ones, actually) come into play even more in the USA as their middle class is further eroded.
Easy E wrote:So, how does Fiduciary Responsibility play into all of this?
It is the basis for the schism between the owners and the employees: the owners or directors are responsible to themselves or the shareholders to turn the greatest profit possible. Often, this means trying to underpay the employees. If the director instead has the best interests of the employees in mind, then it likely creates a conflict of interest.
Easy E wrote:So, how does Fiduciary Responsibility play into all of this?
It is the basis for the schism between the owners and the employees: the owners or directors are responsible to themselves or the shareholders to turn the greatest profit possible. Often, this means trying to underpay the employees. If the director instead has the best interests of the employees in mind, then it likely creates a conflict of interest.
Not really, it's proven if you don't treat your employees like gak you get a better over all product and more efficient work environment thus increasing productivity.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Easy E wrote:So, how does Fiduciary Responsibility play into all of this?
It is the basis for the schism between the owners and the employees: the owners or directors are responsible to themselves or the shareholders to turn the greatest profit possible. Often, this means trying to underpay the employees. If the director instead has the best interests of the employees in mind, then it likely creates a conflict of interest.
Not really, it's proven if you don't treat your employees like gak you get a better over all product and more efficient work environment thus increasing productivity.
That's not universally true: it doesn't apply at all to a lot of jobs; and many jobs will only see a marginal increase in productivity such that it's more economically sound to run at 90% whilst paying employees 70%, than it would be to pay the employees 90% and receive a 100% effort. For example: production lines do not really function based on employee satisfaction; their output levels are generally determined by timed mechanisms. Further, Wal-Mart employees are not going to increase their productivity in any way that it is economically worthwhile to justify a base pay increase.
Cost Co, a national Walmart competitor here in the states pays and generally takes care of it's employees better (source, friends who have worked for both companies) it's stock is presently trading just shy of 25 points higher then Wally World's.
Now you'd have to dig into corporate reports and financials for a more detailed overview, but going with stock as a base line indicator of corporate health...
(correlation is not causation I know... but it's still interesting)
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Cost Co, a national Walmart competitor here in the states pays and generally takes care of it's employees better (source, friends who have worked for both companies) it's stock is presently trading just shy of 25 points higher then Wally World's.
Now you'd have to dig into corporate reports and financials for a more detailed overview, but going with stock as a base line indicator of corporate health...
(correlation is not causation I know... but it's still interesting)
They're competitors in the sense that they both sell merchandise, yes. That's generally where the similarities end. Costco charges an annual membership fee, only sells in bulk, and has enough of a market share that they can bully suppliers into far better deals than would otherwise be seen (no complaints, mind you). Wal-mart, on the other hand, tries to find the cheapest gak possible from all over the world and sell it to the consumer for low prices. Other than both selling toilet paper, they really have little in common. Costco's revenue is a little less than 90 billion. Wal-mart's revenue is a little less than 450 billion.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Cost Co, a national Walmart competitor here in the states pays and generally takes care of it's employees better (source, friends who have worked for both companies) it's stock is presently trading just shy of 25 points higher then Wally World's.
Now you'd have to dig into corporate reports and financials for a more detailed overview, but going with stock as a base line indicator of corporate health...
(correlation is not causation I know... but it's still interesting)
They're competitors in the sense that they both sell merchandise, yes. That's generally where the similarities end. Costco charges an annual membership fee, only sells in bulk, and has enough of a market share that they can bully suppliers into far better deals than would otherwise be seen (no complaints, mind you). Wal-mart, on the other hand, tries to find the cheapest gak possible from all over the world and sell it to the consumer for low prices. Other than both selling toilet paper, they really have little in common. Costco's revenue is a little less than 90 billion. Wal-mart's revenue is a little less than 450 billion.
I think he meant Cosco vs Sam's <--- a Walmart Co.
feeder wrote: The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law? Where I live the provincial (ie state) government is actively engaged in union busting. Multi national franchises flout labour law with relative impunity. The federal government is trying to change labour laws to bring in workers to do the mining and oilfield jobs my friends and brothers do for fractions of the wage.
We still need Unions, fact.
What province do you live in? I don't know of any multi national that openly flouts labour laws in Canada on a company scale. Sure there are bad managers here and there but not usually company wide. As for the importing of workers, well there is a labour shortage yes? I mean now that Newfoundland's got it's own oil there is little reason for them to go elsewhere looking for work.
feeder wrote: The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law? Where I live the provincial (ie state) government is actively engaged in union busting. Multi national franchises flout labour law with relative impunity. The federal government is trying to change labour laws to bring in workers to do the mining and oilfield jobs my friends and brothers do for fractions of the wage.
We still need Unions, fact.
What province do you live in? I don't know of any multi national that openly flouts labour laws in Canada on a company scale. Sure there are bad managers here and there but not usually company wide. As for the importing of workers, well there is a labour shortage yes? I mean now that Newfoundland's got it's own oil there is little reason for them to go elsewhere looking for work.
I can't speak for Ratbarf's reference, but the current BC provincial government has a hard-on for union busting.
Also, it's very, very commonplace for companies (franchises and relailers are particularly bad) to commit minor infractions on a large-scale. Issues surrounding unpaid work breaks and shift durations is the first thing that comes to mind.
feeder wrote: You kind of get my point. The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law?
Who speaks for me in the absence of real labour law? No-one. No-one has to. I've got a specialised skill set that the market competes for by offering pay and working conditions. That's what created the middle class.
Unions were essential in ensuring decent wages and working conditions for unskilled and semi-skilled labour, no doubt about it. And all kinds of good, positive reform were responsible for the children of the unionised working class moving into the middle class (universal education being a major one).
But ultimately, what delivered pay and working conditions to the middle class was evil, evil capitalism.
We still need Unions, fact.
Unions can be valuable. Unions caught up in the rhetoric of a class war that's a century out of date, on the other hand, are worse than useless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: No, that's exactly how things work; and it is only competition of wages and/or government-regulated minimum wage that prevents it.
Actually, the primary preventative measure is the competition for labour as a means of production, combined with growth in productivity making that labour more valuable (and therefore worth more to each firm).
However, the most recent recession has given most companies an excuse to universally cut back on wages (not quite like price fixing, but close).
The feth? Seriously, the fething feth?
You can't just ignore the basic economics of cyclical economies, and replace it with some grand conspiracy theory.
Also, you'll see this theory of Marx's (one of his stronger ones, actually) come into play even more in the USA as their middle class is further eroded.
Nah, the idea is terrible. Absolute economic gobbledigook. Gibberish. Nonsense. A thing that makes no sense.
"Just you wait, it's totally just about to happen... okay it didn't just happen, but now it's totally just about to happen" is the mating call of the junk theory. Whether it's doomsday prophecies or the Labour Theory of Value.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/12 02:08:18
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: [...corporations law.
corporations are required to maximise profits. This is kind of true - when trying to protect minority interests in a company, if the charter doesn't say otherwise then the courts will assume the proper purpose of the company is the generation and distribution of profits to shareholders. But that's only in the event that the a minority shareholder takes the company to court, and if it does courts are very wary about interfering to the extent that they challenge business decisions - they tend to limit themselves to instances of overt abuse by majority shareholders. They certainly wouldn't question the business sense in whether the costs of cutting pay by a $1 (reduced staff retention, no longer and employer of choice etc) are greater than the savings. So basically there's exactly zero legal force making companies strive for every dollar and cut wages wherever.
... you get feeder's idea.
You kind of get my point. The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law? Where I live the provincial (ie state) government is actively engaged in union busting. Multi national franchises flout labour law with relative impunity. The federal government is trying to change labour laws to bring in workers to do the mining and oilfield jobs my friends and brothers do for fractions of the wage.
We still need Unions, fact.
So do you support what the Unions did to this guy? He was just asking question...
sebster wrote: [...corporations law.
corporations are required to maximise profits. This is kind of true - when trying to protect minority interests in a company, if the charter doesn't say otherwise then the courts will assume the proper purpose of the company is the generation and distribution of profits to shareholders. But that's only in the event that the a minority shareholder takes the company to court, and if it does courts are very wary about interfering to the extent that they challenge business decisions - they tend to limit themselves to instances of overt abuse by majority shareholders. They certainly wouldn't question the business sense in whether the costs of cutting pay by a $1 (reduced staff retention, no longer and employer of choice etc) are greater than the savings. So basically there's exactly zero legal force making companies strive for every dollar and cut wages wherever.
... you get feeder's idea.
You kind of get my point. The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law? Where I live the provincial (ie state) government is actively engaged in union busting. Multi national franchises flout labour law with relative impunity. The federal government is trying to change labour laws to bring in workers to do the mining and oilfield jobs my friends and brothers do for fractions of the wage.
We still need Unions, fact.
So do you support what the Unions did to this guy? He was just asking question...
*Tries to protect people in the line of Union violence and ask reasonable questions: Gets yelled and and sweared at, then physically assaulted twice and threatened with death*
Unions: Good for the People?
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long