8 ms·

I am strongly against unions, I understand organizing to achieve a cause. The issue I have with unions is it became a political game and lead to several major c

I am strongly against unions, I understand organizing to achieve a cause. The issue I have with unions is it became a political game and lead to several major companies running into major financial troubles because of it. Take for example GM or any other major car manufacturer in the U.S. 50 years ago the main reason Toyota was able to gobble up so much of the market was because the U.S. automakers HAD to give the unions what they wanted because the government stepped in when they would strike. Leading to outrageous pensions, 6 hour work days, etc. Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit out outrageous to me. If you're doing manual labor and replaceable it's mighty hard to unionize without the government support, I understand that. Unfortunately, because you are replaceable you don't have pull and SHOULD NOT have pull. If a companies working conditions are really that dangerous you can work in another factory or educate yourself and become skilled enough to be worth while to please. Not to mention, if it is that dangerous most people probably wont work in that line of work unless they have no choice, in which case they should be HAPPY to have that dangerous job because they can eat. Call me calloused, but I would personally rather work a dangerous job and get food, as opposed to robbing my employer. We both earn our keep (the employer and me) and the market sets the price for my work. I am nothing more than a cog in the machine that is the economy.

josh2600 13y ago
You're not calloused, you're just wrong, IMHO. Having to work a dangerous job is almost always a result of cutting corners in ways that are ultimately negatively impacting on the aggregate economy. What you're doing when you provide a dangerous work environment is saying that it's ok for employees to get injured. When they're injured they probably can't work for the company anymore, and so that company is socializing the cost of their healthcare. The public bears the risk of the enterprise, and the private organization enjoys only the upside; hardly an equitable social arrangement. In your example of GM, I would actually argue that the unions were not the ultimate cause of the failure of American automobiles, but rather a lack of vision, innovation and competitiveness against the Asian manufacturers. One could also say that dividending endlessly despite failing competitively was a lack of leadership, but the failure was one stemming from a lack of revenue, not an outlandish cost structure. It's true that the unions were getting too much, but that's hardly why GM had to get bailed out. You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world, IMHO. We don't need to work like that anymore; having dangerous jobs doesn't help advance the economy and in fact actually harms the aggregate economic output. To be clear, this is just my opinion, you might disagree, but I hope we can engage in civil discussion about this very interesting topic :).
- mpyne 13y ago
  > You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world. That's been my big complaint with what I understand to be libertarian ideology. It comes down, in the end, to "f--- you, I already got mine" and a pyramid of people stepping on the throats of those unlucky souls below them. It's like a guy hitting a home run off a tee and thinking he's Babe Ruth.
  - kbolino 13y ago
    There's always a pyramid, all that changes is who sits atop it and how everyone else is placed within the strata. All libertarianism says is that you can't initiate violence or take what's not yours to find your place in that pyramid.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Sure, but that's what I said. "Why should we help you up the pyramid, it's not my fault you're down there and I'm up here. It's not like I kicked you down there!" I'm certainly glad that I grew up in a world where my success and health growing up weren't completely dependent on how much my parents had, or what strata they happened to have found themselves on that pyramid. If that had been the case I may very well still be eating generic corn flakes with condensed milk today, instead of having been given the opportunity to demonstrate by merit my qualifications to do the work I do.
      - kbolino 13y ago
        You are saying that elitism is the product of a system that produces it. I am saying that elitism is inherent to the human condition. There are three ways to become elite: by force, by theft, or by merit. The only way to ensure it happens by the method of merit is to forbid theft and force.
        mpyne 13y ago
columbo 13y ago
> If a companies working conditions are really that dangerous you can work in another factory or educate yourself and become skilled enough to be worth while to please. > Call me calloused, Well, not so much calloused as much as completely, laughably, uneducated. The idea that someone in the 1920's-forward can just "get some skills or work someplace else" shows a complete lack of the most basic understanding of what life was like, and still is like today for the working class.
- ericd 13y ago
  The solution to this is govt. supported training programs with a stipend that make it possible for people with no savings to learn a different trade, not paying them unsustainable amounts to do unskilled things.
jamieb 13y ago
>but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers Sounds like you're against the US Government. >Unfortunately, because you are replaceable you don't have pull and SHOULD NOT have pull. A clever businessman would organize all these replaceable parts into a cohesive whole, and then having cornered the market, set his own price. That's capitalism in action. The very people who decry it are the same ones cornering their own markets. When its telecoms, cable TV, healthcare, widgets, corn, DNA, etc, its ok, but when its "units of labor", oh, well now its anti-capitalist and anti-american. So I'll go along with your idea that Unions are an illegal monopoly on labor after we've gotten rid of the government-created construct called the corporation.
- innguest 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure the OP also disagrees with the monopolies telecoms, cable TV, healthcare etc have, so that's in line with his thinking already.
mrt0mat0 13y ago
i agree and disagreee. i think unions were a good idea, but yes, were given too much power. I don't think anyone can doubt that. I actually also agree with you that they don't benefit anyone in a company anymore. we have more regulations and restrictions than we ever did in (someone said this decade) the 1920s and that pretty much makes the unions benefits moot. I've worked in union and non union shops for the auto industry (detroit) and I think that the non union shops ran better, and were better to their employees. I know this is just my experience but i talked to many people that i worked with and they agreed. When your boss has to confirm with the union rep before he can make a change, that's a problem. when you can't fire an incompetent employee because he's union, is wrong. HOWEVER... dangerous jobs should be avoided regardless. there are jobs out there that will be dangerous regardless of regulations, but can be minimized. I don't think it's callous. i think the concept of everyone getting their hands held through the job market is the problem. "you don't want to work hard, no problem, here's your union card." is a concept that i've witnessed and if that fails, there's always unemployment. i'd prefer people felt some sort of drive to improve their living or working conditions. too much coddling. now i'm just ranting. ;)

josh2600 13y ago

You're not calloused, you're just wrong, IMHO. Having to work a dangerous job is almost always a result of cutting corners in ways that are ultimately negatively impacting on the aggregate economy. What you're doing when you provide a dangerous work environment is saying that it's ok for employees to get injured. When they're injured they probably can't work for the company anymore, and so that company is socializing the cost of their healthcare. The public bears the risk of the enterprise, and the private organization enjoys only the upside; hardly an equitable social arrangement. In your example of GM, I would actually argue that the unions were not the ultimate cause of the failure of American automobiles, but rather a lack of vision, innovation and competitiveness against the Asian manufacturers. One could also say that dividending endlessly despite failing competitively was a lack of leadership, but the failure was one stemming from a lack of revenue, not an outlandish cost structure. It's true that the unions were getting too much, but that's hardly why GM had to get bailed out. You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world, IMHO. We don't need to work like that anymore; having dangerous jobs doesn't help advance the economy and in fact actually harms the aggregate economic output. To be clear, this is just my opinion, you might disagree, but I hope we can engage in civil discussion about this very interesting topic :).

mpyne 13y ago
> You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world. That's been my big complaint with what I understand to be libertarian ideology. It comes down, in the end, to "f--- you, I already got mine" and a pyramid of people stepping on the throats of those unlucky souls below them. It's like a guy hitting a home run off a tee and thinking he's Babe Ruth.
- kbolino 13y ago
  There's always a pyramid, all that changes is who sits atop it and how everyone else is placed within the strata. All libertarianism says is that you can't initiate violence or take what's not yours to find your place in that pyramid.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Sure, but that's what I said. "Why should we help you up the pyramid, it's not my fault you're down there and I'm up here. It's not like I kicked you down there!" I'm certainly glad that I grew up in a world where my success and health growing up weren't completely dependent on how much my parents had, or what strata they happened to have found themselves on that pyramid. If that had been the case I may very well still be eating generic corn flakes with condensed milk today, instead of having been given the opportunity to demonstrate by merit my qualifications to do the work I do.
    - kbolino 13y ago
      You are saying that elitism is the product of a system that produces it. I am saying that elitism is inherent to the human condition. There are three ways to become elite: by force, by theft, or by merit. The only way to ensure it happens by the method of merit is to forbid theft and force.
      - mpyne 13y ago

columbo 13y ago

> If a companies working conditions are really that dangerous you can work in another factory or educate yourself and become skilled enough to be worth while to please. > Call me calloused, Well, not so much calloused as much as completely, laughably, uneducated. The idea that someone in the 1920's-forward can just "get some skills or work someplace else" shows a complete lack of the most basic understanding of what life was like, and still is like today for the working class.

ericd 13y ago
The solution to this is govt. supported training programs with a stipend that make it possible for people with no savings to learn a different trade, not paying them unsustainable amounts to do unskilled things.

jamieb 13y ago

>but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers Sounds like you're against the US Government. >Unfortunately, because you are replaceable you don't have pull and SHOULD NOT have pull. A clever businessman would organize all these replaceable parts into a cohesive whole, and then having cornered the market, set his own price. That's capitalism in action. The very people who decry it are the same ones cornering their own markets. When its telecoms, cable TV, healthcare, widgets, corn, DNA, etc, its ok, but when its "units of labor", oh, well now its anti-capitalist and anti-american. So I'll go along with your idea that Unions are an illegal monopoly on labor after we've gotten rid of the government-created construct called the corporation.

innguest 13y ago
I'm pretty sure the OP also disagrees with the monopolies telecoms, cable TV, healthcare etc have, so that's in line with his thinking already.

mrt0mat0 13y ago

i agree and disagreee. i think unions were a good idea, but yes, were given too much power. I don't think anyone can doubt that. I actually also agree with you that they don't benefit anyone in a company anymore. we have more regulations and restrictions than we ever did in (someone said this decade) the 1920s and that pretty much makes the unions benefits moot. I've worked in union and non union shops for the auto industry (detroit) and I think that the non union shops ran better, and were better to their employees. I know this is just my experience but i talked to many people that i worked with and they agreed. When your boss has to confirm with the union rep before he can make a change, that's a problem. when you can't fire an incompetent employee because he's union, is wrong. HOWEVER... dangerous jobs should be avoided regardless. there are jobs out there that will be dangerous regardless of regulations, but can be minimized. I don't think it's callous. i think the concept of everyone getting their hands held through the job market is the problem. "you don't want to work hard, no problem, here's your union card." is a concept that i've witnessed and if that fails, there's always unemployment. i'd prefer people felt some sort of drive to improve their living or working conditions. too much coddling. now i'm just ranting. ;)