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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You can, assuming the Union doesn't strong arm people into not freelancing.

Well yes, if the union attempts to use illegal methods (threatening to kill any non-union employees, etc) that's not acceptable. But that rarely, if ever, happens. And negotiating exclusive contracts with buyers of labor that prevent hiring anyone outside of the union is a valid free-market strategy.

But even if the Union controls all the labor, they're not creating a new market. They're exercising a monopoly.

Monopolies are part of unrestricted capitalism and the free market.

 Peregrine wrote:
And negotiating exclusive contracts with buyers of labor that prevent hiring anyone outside of the union is a valid free-market strategy.

In the theatre here in Britain, you usually have to be a card carrying Union member to get hired, or the hirer has to pay some sort of fee. I believe it's the same in Hollywood.

I worked at a theater in the area as a projectionist and found out later all the other ones were part of a projectionist union of some sort. I would not have been able to do that job elsewhere.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


Unions can be bad if they go overboard, but are good when they focus on getting their members proper work conditions and help on negotiating contracts and alike.

Because so many college educated people are just completely unable to negotiate on their own, right?

This isn't 1900s Chicago.

That's funny, I didn't see where he made that claim.

Projecting much?

Nope.

 cincydooley wrote:
Nope.

So getting defensive over imagined slights or just building straw men?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Nope.

So getting defensive over imagined slights or just building straw men?

Scoffing at the notion that educated people need unions to help them negotiate for their pay.

Teacher's unions aren't beneficial to good teachers.

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Nope.

So getting defensive over imagined slights or just building straw men?

Scoffing at the notion that educated people need unions to help them negotiate for their pay.

Teacher's unions aren't beneficial to good teachers.

Except he didn't claim that, you did.

And don't make ridiculous blanket claims like that; my wife is a damn good teacher and a member of Loudoun Education Association (even though we live in a right-to-work state).

This is what I was referring to when I said mentioning unions could derail the thread.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


And don't make ridiculous blanket claims like that; my wife is a damn good teacher and a member of Loudoun Education Association (even though we live in a right-to-work state).

That's fine.

My is also, and isn't a union member. Most of the teachers Under 30ish in her district aren't, in fact. Because they all WANT merit based pay. They all want to not be concerned they're going to lose their jobs due to seniority and not due to ability if a levy fails.

My wife was 1 above the cutoff last year when their levy passed by 12%. She was also a teacher of the year in Cincinnati last year. But had there been a few hundred votes in another direction, or had it simply failed like it did the previous May, she'd have lost her job.

When I taught, we were more or less bullied/misled into joining our teachers union. The two teachers in my building that were not level members were basically blacklisted and were left out of lots of activities.

Needless to say, I've no love for unions as a whole, but certainly none for teacher's unions.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

And don't make ridiculous blanket claims like that; my wife is a damn good teacher and a member of Loudoun Education Association (even though we live in a right-to-work state).

So getting defensive over imagined slights or just building straw men?

The case of your wife is anecdotal, and you haven't demonstrated how LEA membership is beneficial to her; something you need to do in order to prove your point.

As with companies and governments - there are good unions, bad unions and unions that just tick along in the middle. I woild suggest that the majority of all three groups are in the third group.

As mentioned, unions are essentially companies selling workers - this makes sense in a capitalist society; they in turn try to get the best return for the people they represent.

Sometimes this puts them at odds with companies or governments (especially when governments are controlled by companies ). This can negatively impact everyone involved.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nope. A union works against the market value of labor, its goal is to inflate the price of its members labor above and beyond what the market is.

And this is exactly my point: the union is part of the free market. If a group of sellers of labor decide that the best strategy is to form an organization and negotiate collectively with buyers of labor then that is a valid free-market strategy. And, like all participants in a free market, their goal is to maximize their own profits, not to settle for lower prices that help someone else's profits. Therefore the market price is what the sellers of labor and buyers of labor agree to, not your hypothetical price that you think the labor is worth.

Therefore, its by definition NOT what the fair price of labor is.

Only if you define "fair" as "the price that would exist in a restricted market where sellers of labor are banned from negotiating collectively" and assume that the fair price in a free market is the same as the price in a market which includes regulations that favor some individuals/businesses over others.

Actually, there is a big problem to calling labor a market. There is no real alternative to working other than homelessness, trust fund kid or the often fabled welfare queen. Most markets are ideally free entry and free exit and labor is neither. Minimum wage, unions and government independent regulatory bodies are to fight back against what has traditionally been an oppressive capitalist market. 100 years ago was horrific in terms of pay, benefits and safety for a large part of the population. Free markets drift towards such practices as it causes the greatest profits and the lowest costs. It baffles me that people shout at unions and minimum wage without considering the past. Humans haven't changed in the last 100 years, we just put on better looking suits.

Crime is another alternative to starvation by lack of a job.

 Surtur wrote:
Actually, there is a big problem to calling labor a market.

Fortunately I'm not in favor of having an unrestricted labor market. I'm just pointing out the double standard often endorsed by advocates of the free market where anything wealthy business owners do is automatically justified as long as it makes money, but unions (and anything else that might give other people an advantage) need to be banned so that they don't interfere with wealthy business owners making as much money as possible. Usually this is accompanied by lots of complaining about how a certain job is "worth" a specific amount of money and trying to get more is "unfair", as if such a concept could even exist in a truly free market. So what "free market" really tends to mean is "I should be able to make as much money as I can by whatever methods I want, but the government should intervene to ensure that I make lots of money and prevent anyone from doing anything that might reduce my profits".

Collective bargaining is actually a valuable time and money saving tool in many industries. If we look at teaching and academia, for example, there are many hundreds of thousands of people involved. It would take a huge amount of management time for them to negotiate their pay rises individually.

 dogma wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

And don't make ridiculous blanket claims like that; my wife is a damn good teacher and a member of Loudoun Education Association (even though we live in a right-to-work state).

So getting defensive over imagined slights or just building straw men?

The case of your wife is anecdotal, and you haven't demonstrated how LEA membership is beneficial to her; something you need to do in order to prove your point.

Except I didn't build a straw man. Here is a summary of Cincy's posts:

Co'tor: "Unions can be bad if they go overboard, but are good when they focus on getting their members proper work conditions and help on negotiating contracts and alike."
Cincy: "Because so many college educated people are just completely unable to negotiate on their own, right? This isn't 1900s Chicago."
Me: "I didn't see where he made that claim."
Cincy: "I'm scoffing at the notion that educated people need unions to help them negotiate for their pay."

That's a pretty good example of a straw man: exaggerating, misrepresenting, or completely fabricating someone's argument as a way to discredit it.

If you want to know what the benefits of belonging to the LEA (which isn't a true union in reality, nor is it's parent organization, the Virginia Education Association) are, use your browser search bar to look up their website and take a few minutes to read it; I won't do it for you because it isn't that difficult. Also, my anecdotal case is no different than Cincy's anecdotal case and holds more weight than his extraordinarily broad claim that a union has no benefit to a "good teacher."

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

That's a pretty good example of a straw man: exaggerating, misrepresenting, or completely fabricating someone's argument as a way to discredit it.

No it isn't, though you're blatant misrepresentation of several posts is.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

If you want to know what the benefits of belonging to the LEA (which isn't a true union in reality, nor is it's parent organization, the Virginia Education Association) are, use your browser search bar to look up their website and take a few minutes to read it; I won't do it for you because it isn't that difficult. Also, my anecdotal case is no different than Cincy's anecdotal case and holds more weight than his extraordinarily broad claim that a union has no benefit to a "good teacher."

If LEA is not a union your anecdote is irrelevant.

 dogma wrote:
No it isn't, though you're blatant misrepresentation of several posts is.

Ah, I see we can add logical fallacies to your already extensive areas of expertise now?

And which posts were that, exactly? Please, I'm eager to see where I used a straw man argument, blatantly no less, because I think your definition of it is a little off.

If LEA is not a union your anecdote is irrelevant.

I knew you semantics argument was coming!

The LEA, and by extension the VEA, are not "unions" in the way that they not members the AFL-CIO, but they effectively fulfill the same role as a union would and operate in the same manner (which, as I've previously stated, you can read all about on their websites).


I feel that is enough OT discussion for now though. If you would like to continue the conversation, hit the little "PM" button to do so.

 cincydooley wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Good lord...how do you have time to write all that?

I want to read it..because I'm sure there's lots of interesting discourse there....but man...I'm here for the pithy one liners and being told I berate particular fields of study.

I'm here for the booze and chicks myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Stormwall wrote:
The only problem I have with this is that the average Mcdonalds worker now makes most than more Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, etc.

It's bad enough a Mcdonalds manager already made a close figure to a Sergeant... now the wages have been uped.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens in San fran.

$15 an hour would put them higher than lots of non-service professions, as well.

Many union and government contracts are tied to the minimum wage as well, which will force those salaries to rise. Other salaries will have to rise as well to keep up.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Actually, there is a big problem to calling labor a market.

Fortunately I'm not in favor of having an unrestricted labor market. I'm just pointing out the double standard often endorsed by advocates of the free market where anything wealthy business owners do is automatically justified as long as it makes money, but unions (and anything else that might give other people an advantage) need to be banned so that they don't interfere with wealthy business owners making as much money as possible. Usually this is accompanied by lots of complaining about how a certain job is "worth" a specific amount of money and trying to get more is "unfair", as if such a concept could even exist in a truly free market. So what "free market" really tends to mean is "I should be able to make as much money as I can by whatever methods I want, but the government should intervene to ensure that I make lots of money and prevent anyone from doing anything that might reduce my profits".

I agree. I was just quoting you to bounce my opinion off this little sub discussion. There are several problems with free markets that their advocates do to want to discuss like boom and bust cycles, monopolies and trusts, and problems like the one Americans have here with our healthcare costs. I'll let vlog bros handle that discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M Then you factor in pollution and inhumane acts and the argument that a free market is good starts wearing thin. Regulation is often the best way to prevent repeated abuse of a free market, but conservative interests have done all they can to interfere with that being effective.

 Frazzled wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Good lord...how do you have time to write all that?

I want to read it..because I'm sure there's lots of interesting discourse there....but man...I'm here for the pithy one liners and being told I berate particular fields of study.

I'm here for the booze and chicks myself.

Aha! I'm onto your tricks now. A higher minimum wage = money for nothing, you admit you want chicks for free, clearly your end game is getting us move appliances for you.

Argh my secret plan is reviled!

 Frazzled wrote:
Argh my secret plan is reviled!

Reviled?

I thought secret plans were supposed to be decadently divine???

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Argh my secret plan is reviled!

Reviled?

I thought secret plans were supposed to be decadently divine???

Foolish mortal. All your plans are belong to us! The Truth shall be reviled!

(if you recognize this on Dakka you are old)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Collective bargaining is actually a valuable time and money saving tool in many industries. If we look at teaching and academia, for example, there are many hundreds of thousands of people involved. It would take a huge amount of management time for them to negotiate their pay rises individually.

How is it more effective to have hundreds of thousands of people employed in different states and school districts, working under different conditions, in areas with different costs of living, different student body demographics and different levels of seniority and accredititation lump themselves together as one aggregate to negotiate labor contracts? The concerns of teachers in Buffalo aren't going to be the same as the concerns of teachers in the Bronx. The same as true for teachers in Manhattan Kansas and Manhattan NY. The greater the scope of the membership the harder it is to represent all of them equally and competently.

There's a reason private sector union membership has consistently decreased over time to an insignificant portion of the workforce, the big labor battles have already been fought and won. Congress isn't about to roll back EoE, OSHAA, child labor laws, FMLA, etc. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have dues deducted out of your paycheck to pay a union when all of the egregious abuses from the industrial revolution have already been made illegal.

The public sector has a much higher rate of unionization. Of course, public sector unions are able to spend a large chunk of the dues they collect on contributions to the campaigns of the same politicians that sit on the opposite side of the table during neogtiations.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The public sector has a much higher rate of unionization. Of course, public sector unions are able to spend a large chunk of the dues they collect on contributions to the campaigns of the same politicians that sit on the opposite side of the table during neogtiations.

Are you telling me the National Educators Association and the Ohio Educators Association dedicate entire issue of their publications to telling their members whom to vote for?

Say it ain't so!

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Collective bargaining is actually a valuable time and money saving tool in many industries. If we look at teaching and academia, for example, there are many hundreds of thousands of people involved. It would take a huge amount of management time for them to negotiate their pay rises individually.

How is it more effective to have hundreds of thousands of people employed in different states and school districts, working under different conditions, in areas with different costs of living, different student body demographics and different levels of seniority and accredititation lump themselves together as one aggregate to negotiate labor contracts? The concerns of teachers in Buffalo aren't going to be the same as the concerns of teachers in the Bronx. The same as true for teachers in Manhattan Kansas and Manhattan NY. The greater the scope of the membership the harder it is to represent all of them equally and competently.

There's a reason private sector union membership has consistently decreased over time to an insignificant portion of the workforce, the big labor battles have already been fought and won. Congress isn't about to roll back EoE, OSHAA, child labor laws, FMLA, etc. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have dues deducted out of your paycheck to pay a union when all of the egregious abuses from the industrial revolution have already been made illegal.

The public sector has a much higher rate of unionization. Of course, public sector unions are able to spend a large chunk of the dues they collect on contributions to the campaigns of the same politicians that sit on the opposite side of the table during neogtiations.

I don't think Kilkrazy is saying that all teachers would together form one giant union to collectively bargain. I think he's saying, that as a whole there are hundreds of thousands of teachers/professors in the country, and if none of them had a local union it would take a long time to negotiate with each of them (as well as be a waster of resources) across the board.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I don't think Kilkrazy is saying that all teachers would together form one giant union to collectively bargain. I think he's saying, that as a whole there are hundreds of thousands of teachers/professors in the country, and if none of them had a local union it would take a long time to negotiate with each of them (as well as be a waster of resources) across the board.

Doesn't mean this is the "right" way to do it.

Hell, that's basically the justification for utilizing standardized test scores to determine such a large portion of a teacher's effectiveness, even though the right way to do it would be to have administrators meet with them consistently, observe them consistently in the classroom, work on development plans, get feedback from their customers, do peer reviews, etc.

Instead, because Standardized Testing is "easy," they use that as the primary metric in evaluating teachers in many areas.

Then there's the mysterious "value added" scores, which make about as much sense as Common Core math.

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I don't think Kilkrazy is saying that all teachers would together form one giant union to collectively bargain. I think he's saying, that as a whole there are hundreds of thousands of teachers/professors in the country, and if none of them had a local union it would take a long time to negotiate with each of them (as well as be a waster of resources) across the board.

Doesn't mean this is the "right" way to do it.

Hell, that's basically the justification for utilizing standardized test scores to determine such a large portion of a teacher's effectiveness, even though the right way to do it would be to have administrators meet with them consistently, observe them consistently in the classroom, work on development plans, get feedback from their customers, do peer reviews, etc.

Instead, because Standardized Testing is "easy," they use that as the primary metric in evaluating teachers in many areas.

Then there's the mysterious "value added" scores, which make about as much sense as Common Core math.

I'm not arguing on whether or not it is right or wrong, I'm trying to clarify what Kilkrazy was saying.

Prestor seems to think that Kilkrazy is saying that every teaching professional (or any category of worker) would collectively bargain together, regardless of where they worked, which I don't believe that is what Kilkrazy was saying at all. I think what he was saying that if every single person in anyone one category of workers negotiated independently instead of in local associations/unions, it would be waste of resources (and he just used teachers as an example due to their numbers).