4 ms·

That is an interesting argument. Now what public policies would you advocate for based on your previous thesis ?

by jason13 19y ago

gibsonf1 19y ago
I would advocate removing all legal advantages unions have to level the market. If they want to exist, let it be a fair voluntary agreement between employees and management without the legal jeopardy that still exists for management during labor disputes.
- Goladus 19y ago
  I think that's a bad idea. I'm sure there are laws that need reconsideration, there always are. But fundamentally, collective bargaining is an important right because individual workers are worth so little all by themselves. In order for the dynamic you mention in your post to work employees have to be able to organize. They cannot do this if all the legal aspects (aka threats of force) favor the employers. Employers will use Divide and Conquer to win every time.
  - gibsonf1 19y ago
    I guess I don't quite see your point. What stops employees from organizing themselves (say using the web etc), electing someone to represent the group, and negotiating with the company. Lets say the group demands more pay, and the company says no. The employees go on strike, and the company is able to hire all new people. This means that the pay demand was beyond market levels and not an appropriate request. The flip side is the company is unable to find replacements, which would mean that the staff is underpaid, so they grant the raise. Going on strike at a company is an extremely damaging method of contract negotiation putting into jeopardy both the company and the jobs they provide. It is very risky and should only be done as a last resort. Either way, why would you need laws for this (other than current contract law, etc.) Can you give an example of where the free market and current laws prevent voluntary group negotiation?
    - jason13 19y ago
      The simplest answer is that many people believe the "free market wage" is not always the apropriate wage. Anyhow your defining the free market wage, as the wage the get paid if the have no legal help in there negotations. And then your defining the appropriate wage as the free market wage. So you are basically stating that by definition the appropriate wage for people to be paid is the wage they could negotiate if they have no laws to help them negotitate. Basically your conclusion is the axiom you start with.
      - Goladus 19y ago
        As PG said in "How to Create Wealth" the contributions of individual workers can not be measured individually. They have to be measured as a whole. That's why the negotiations often need to be done at the organizational level, rather than on an individual basis. The problem there, of course, is that it becomes harder to hire and fire, thus it becomes harder to maximize the skill of your workforce. Which is why employers really need to think about the consequences of being evil.
      - gibsonf1 19y ago
        The free market wage is the amount that an employer is voluntarily willing to pay, and an employee is voluntarily willing to be paid. To say that this is "inappropriate" is to argue for the introduction of force into one or the other side of this equation which would definitely be inappropriate.
        jason13 19y ago
        I disagree, I have different set of axioms than you. My axioms are based on morality and well-being. What are you axioms based on ?
        gibsonf1 19y ago
        Mine are based on Morality (which are based on Philosophy), one key principle of which is individual responsibility.
- BrandonM 19y ago
  This agreement could never be fair. Management has hordes of resources at its disposal that can be used to fight workers against improving their conditions. Workers cannot afford the type of representation a company has. Moreover, in an economy with a poor job market, you are bound to find someone to work a given job no matter how bad it is. This does not mean that the given wage is fair, you are simply taking advantage of a deficiency in the system. You are also neglecting the fact that many of these manufacturing jobs pay a wage that is typically barely enough to support a family. What's to stop management from suddenly cutting workers' pay? Even in the presence of unions, many workers are forced to "grin and bear it" when certain changes are enacted, because they cannot afford to stop working there (their family would go without). In a market with no union protections, management would be free to jerk workers around at will... when the market goes a little sour, they could just lower pay, some workers would quit, others would stay and pick up the extra available hours so that they could still get by, and the company would do fine. When the market improves, management could advertise positions and temporarily raise pays in order to get more people working there. This may seem fair from a supply-demand economics perspective, but when you're talking about the lives of the workers who are not far from poverty, a slight change in pay leads to a dramatically different quality of life. Unions help to deaden this "yo-yo effect" and make the condition of the worker a little more livable and realistic.

That is an interesting argument. Now what public policies would you advocate for based on your previous thesis ?

by jason13 19y ago

That is an interesting argument. Now what public policies would you advocate for based on your previous thesis ?

I would advocate removing all legal advantages unions have to level the market. If they want to exist, let it be a fair voluntary agreement between employees and management without the legal jeopardy that still exists for management during labor disputes.

Goladus 19y ago
I think that's a bad idea. I'm sure there are laws that need reconsideration, there always are. But fundamentally, collective bargaining is an important right because individual workers are worth so little all by themselves. In order for the dynamic you mention in your post to work employees have to be able to organize. They cannot do this if all the legal aspects (aka threats of force) favor the employers. Employers will use Divide and Conquer to win every time.
- gibsonf1 19y ago
  I guess I don't quite see your point. What stops employees from organizing themselves (say using the web etc), electing someone to represent the group, and negotiating with the company. Lets say the group demands more pay, and the company says no. The employees go on strike, and the company is able to hire all new people. This means that the pay demand was beyond market levels and not an appropriate request. The flip side is the company is unable to find replacements, which would mean that the staff is underpaid, so they grant the raise. Going on strike at a company is an extremely damaging method of contract negotiation putting into jeopardy both the company and the jobs they provide. It is very risky and should only be done as a last resort. Either way, why would you need laws for this (other than current contract law, etc.) Can you give an example of where the free market and current laws prevent voluntary group negotiation?
  - jason13 19y ago
    The simplest answer is that many people believe the "free market wage" is not always the apropriate wage. Anyhow your defining the free market wage, as the wage the get paid if the have no legal help in there negotations. And then your defining the appropriate wage as the free market wage. So you are basically stating that by definition the appropriate wage for people to be paid is the wage they could negotiate if they have no laws to help them negotitate. Basically your conclusion is the axiom you start with.
    - Goladus 19y ago
      As PG said in "How to Create Wealth" the contributions of individual workers can not be measured individually. They have to be measured as a whole. That's why the negotiations often need to be done at the organizational level, rather than on an individual basis. The problem there, of course, is that it becomes harder to hire and fire, thus it becomes harder to maximize the skill of your workforce. Which is why employers really need to think about the consequences of being evil.
    - gibsonf1 19y ago
      The free market wage is the amount that an employer is voluntarily willing to pay, and an employee is voluntarily willing to be paid. To say that this is "inappropriate" is to argue for the introduction of force into one or the other side of this equation which would definitely be inappropriate.
      - jason13 19y ago
        I disagree, I have different set of axioms than you. My axioms are based on morality and well-being. What are you axioms based on ?
        gibsonf1 19y ago
        Mine are based on Morality (which are based on Philosophy), one key principle of which is individual responsibility.
BrandonM 19y ago
This agreement could never be fair. Management has hordes of resources at its disposal that can be used to fight workers against improving their conditions. Workers cannot afford the type of representation a company has. Moreover, in an economy with a poor job market, you are bound to find someone to work a given job no matter how bad it is. This does not mean that the given wage is fair, you are simply taking advantage of a deficiency in the system. You are also neglecting the fact that many of these manufacturing jobs pay a wage that is typically barely enough to support a family. What's to stop management from suddenly cutting workers' pay? Even in the presence of unions, many workers are forced to "grin and bear it" when certain changes are enacted, because they cannot afford to stop working there (their family would go without). In a market with no union protections, management would be free to jerk workers around at will... when the market goes a little sour, they could just lower pay, some workers would quit, others would stay and pick up the extra available hours so that they could still get by, and the company would do fine. When the market improves, management could advertise positions and temporarily raise pays in order to get more people working there. This may seem fair from a supply-demand economics perspective, but when you're talking about the lives of the workers who are not far from poverty, a slight change in pay leads to a dramatically different quality of life. Unions help to deaden this "yo-yo effect" and make the condition of the worker a little more livable and realistic.