Community Messageboard: Re: collusion by Burr

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Re: collusion Burr Send a noteboard - 18/10/2012 04:43:08 PM

Serious question, how is this good for society in any way? FDR was strongly opposed to public sector unions because of this dynamic.

It isn't. Unions themselves are a borderline criminal practice, that we tolerate because collective bargaining is sometimes the only way to redress serious issues in the short term. There is no "company town" scenario for government employees, and they cannot suffer under the same working conditions of the meat packers and coal miners and other such people whose trevails made unionization acceptable.

First off, thank you for the moderate argument.

Basically, a union is the exact same practice that would be called "collusion" if the people who did it owned or rented buildings. A worker is a merchant who sells (his) labor. When he goes on strike, he is stating that he requires a certain degree of remuneration for his labor, and will not sell it for less. When he gets together in a union to strike, he & his fellow merchants are agreeing not to sell their labor below a certain price. The purpose of a picket line is to threaten and harass those who are willing to sell at lower prices.

Now try to imagine everything I said, applying to local grocery and convenience stores selling milk. What if all the store owners in a community got together and agreed on a price of $5 a gallon and not only refused to sell milk for less, but would harass the stores that sold for $4, threw things at them and waved signs and sticks at anyone who tried to deliver their goods? That would be scandalously illegal and the outrage would be on the front page of every paper. Yet, this is the very same principle which is ignored in the case of striking workers, because when a the perpetrator has less money than the victim, that is somehow acceptable. This is why, at best, labor unions and their tactics should be reserved for only the most serious cases and life or death issues. In no case are things like "closed shop" laws acceptable.

I'm of mixed feelings when it comes to union practices. Opposition to honestly drafted "right to work" laws still pisses me off when it comes to mind. I'll damn well make my own choice about whether to join a union, no matter what industry I'm in. I expect they see it as a "union man vs. scab" thing, but the worst scabs were reprehensible not for failing to join a union, but for choosing to exploit short-term opportunities over the long-term welfare of their communities. A person choosing merely whether to join a union is not being an opportunist, but simply choosing a strategy for the community's welfare that the union doesn't agree with. Tough. You don't get to force people to agree with you, assholes.

Union collusion (and I agree, we can call it what it is and go from there) is not necessarily so monopolizing and tyrannical, though. A company can train a new employee far more easily than a single individual can build an apartment or start a dairy farm. So while union collusion may be the same thing in essence, it still doesn't have the same effects as collusion in production or collusion in retail. And really, the whole point of modern unions shouldn't be merely to stop the -worst- offenses, but rather even in moderate cases to provide a balance between the power of the company and the power of its labor.

These two issues are related, of course. Without right-to-work laws, union collusion really does become just as powerful a force on the market as collusion by businesses. Sometimes this provide a relative balance anyway, such as if the businesses involved are colluding right back, or if it is a monopoly or oligarchy of big businesses involved. But in such a case it would still be better to crack down on both sides than on neither. And in cases where there are right-to-work laws (as there should be), unions are almost certainly not colluding to the point that we should point the finger at them instead of the business when things go wrong. If such a business knows it is making decisions that will piss off its union workers, then it should have long since started hiring non-union workers.

||||||||||*MySmiley*
Only so evil.

Reply to message

For those that support public sector unions, please take a look at this..... Anonymous2000 - 17/10/2012 09:43:57 PM 659 Views

So Unions (working people) donating money is bad, but BIG CORPORATIONS donating money is good? imlad - 17/10/2012 11:11:39 PM 282 Views

Unions taking tax money and using it to buy government influence to get more tax money. Anonymous2000 - 18/10/2012 12:38:15 AM 251 Views

something wrong in your assumptions there imlad - 18/10/2012 06:54:31 PM 277 Views

There are key differences between PUBLIC employee unions and other unions. Joel - 18/10/2012 01:59:13 AM 374 Views

The difference is that public unions try to control the other side of the barginning table..... Anonymous2000 - 18/10/2012 04:04:30 AM 276 Views

I think it was more because HE was the boss, and was as hostile to his employees as anyone *NM* Cannoli - 18/10/2012 11:47:52 AM 113 Views

Both are collectives of people, who possess 1st amendment rights. The government has no such rights Cannoli - 18/10/2012 12:00:38 PM 268 Views

abuse of power happens in all systems random thoughts - 18/10/2012 05:40:17 PM 241 Views

Hi! Welcome to RAFO.com. We went through all this last year. Unless...are you traszka? Cannoli - 18/10/2012 11:46:13 AM 283 Views

Re: collusion Burr - 18/10/2012 04:43:08 PM 384 Views

I was a teacher. I didn't belong to the union. But I will still support if they rally. Burr - 18/10/2012 05:05:04 PM 261 Views

This argument makes as much sense as arguing Enron proves capatilism is bad for society snoopcester - 18/10/2012 10:50:22 PM 237 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="264416">
<quote id="264400"><quote id="264305">Serious question, how is this good for society in any way?  FDR was strongly opposed to public sector unions because of this dynamic.</quote></quote>
<quote id="264400">It isn't. Unions themselves are a borderline criminal practice, that we tolerate because collective bargaining is sometimes the only way to redress serious issues in the short term.  There is no "company town" scenario for government employees, and they cannot suffer under the same working conditions of the meat packers and coal miners and other such people whose trevails made unionization acceptable. </quote>

First off, thank you for the moderate argument.

<quote id="264400">Basically, a union is the exact same practice that would be called "collusion" if the people who did it owned or rented buildings.  A worker is a merchant who sells (his) labor.  When he goes on strike, he is stating that he requires a certain degree of remuneration for his labor, and will not sell it for less.  When he gets together in a union to strike, he & his fellow merchants are agreeing not to sell their labor below a certain price.  The purpose of a picket line is to threaten and harass those who are willing to sell at lower prices. </quote>
<quote id="264400">Now try to imagine everything I said, applying to local grocery and convenience stores selling milk.  What if all the store owners in a community got together and agreed on a price of $5 a gallon and not only refused to sell milk for less, but would harass the stores that sold for $4, threw things at them and waved signs and sticks at anyone who tried to deliver their goods?  That would be scandalously illegal and the outrage would be on the front page of every paper.  Yet, this is the very same principle which is ignored in the case of striking workers, because when a the perpetrator has less money than the victim, that is somehow acceptable.  This is why, at best, labor unions and their tactics should be reserved for only the most serious cases and life or death issues.  In no case are things like "closed shop" laws acceptable.</quote>

Union collusion (and I agree, we can call it what it is and go from there) is not necessarily so monopolizing and tyrannical, though.  A company can train a new employee far more easily than a single individual can build an apartment or start a dairy farm.  So while union collusion may be the same thing in essence, it still doesn't have the same effects as collusion in production or collusion in retail.  And really, the whole point of modern unions shouldn't be merely to stop the -worst- offenses, but rather even in moderate cases to provide a balance between the power of the company and the power of its labor.

These two issues are related, of course.  Without right-to-work laws, union collusion really does become just as powerful a force on the market as collusion by businesses.  Sometimes this provide a relative balance anyway, such as if the businesses involved are colluding right back, or if it is a monopoly or oligarchy of big businesses involved.  But in such a case it would still be better to crack down on both sides than on neither.  And in cases where there are right-to-work laws (as there should be), unions are almost certainly not colluding to the point that we should point the finger at them instead of the business when things go wrong.  If such a business knows it is making decisions that will piss off its union workers, then it should have long since started hiring non-union workers.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password