7 ms·

One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? Take the Au

One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? Take the Automotive unions as an example. Their demands contributed in many ways to the US auto companies nearly going bankrupt and requiring state bailouts. Moving manufacturing to cheaper places can have a bad local effect in pockets that depend on it, but there is a net gain for us as consumers in an economy to be able to acquire things cheaply. So our auto manufacturers complained they can't compete against the Japanese imports, we cranked up a bunch of tariffs to artificially increase the cost of foreign produced goods. For consumers that is a net loss as it drives up our prices. Now, foreign companies produce many of their cars in the united states with union free labor and american companies have started producing cars in mexico so they can pay the pensions for all the retired union employees. This is a simplification but that's how I understand it. I'm not arguing that unions are bad. only that they can be very bad. There are benefits when there is an /abusive/ monopoly supplying jobs. (think foxconn), but unions can be just as abusive as employers and literally kill their own employers in the process. The free market is the best solution to the problem which enables a company to hire non-union employees when the union's demands become too great. My philosophy is that if you can't compete on price you need to compete on quality and offer a superior product. (This is why people still buy German produced cars in other countries regardless of the increased cost in manufacturing). For clarification sake I'm saying that the mass of people at the bottom of an organization can have demands that conflict with the survival of the business. It's good that there are smart people who fought their way up the bureaucracy through a meritocracy. They generally won't make a decision that will obviously drive a company straight into the dirt while this is distinct risk in unions with entitlement issues.

guelo 13y ago
It's funny you mention Germany there at the end since it undermines your whole argument. German auto workers are all unionized and they earn double what American auto workers do.
- gnarbarian 13y ago
  It doesn't undermine my argument. I said they compete on quality. Unions can be just as tyrannical as a monopoly. If German companies didn't produce better cars than cheaper countries there would be no reason to buy them and very few people would. Added to my above comment: "For clarification sake I'm saying that the mass of people at the bottom of an organization can have demands that conflict with the survival of the business. It's good that there are smart people who fought their way up the bureaucracy through a meritocracy. They generally won't make a decision that will obviously drive a company straight into the dirt while this is distinct risk in unions with entitlement issues."
  - k__ 13y ago
    The problem with this is, that the demands, that can destroy a company, still can be real demands. The company says, it has to pay you $5 per hour or they couldn't employ you and it isn't even lying. You say, you can't work for a wage below $10 per hour and your reasons for this are valid, too. If the company wins, the workers can't live from their wage. If the workers win, the company can't employ enough of them to conduct business.
    - gnarbarian 13y ago
      I fail to see a problem with this at all. 1: The company goes out of business (due to inefficiency and an inability to compete) in which case it was a shitty business and shouldn't exist in the first place. 2: The company hires someone who can do the work for $5 per hour, in which case the worker who needs $10 to live is simply not living within their means. I equate this to someone earning minimum wage complaining that they can't support their numerous kids. NO SHIT. you are not entitled to a wage capable of supporting other people.
      - k__ 13y ago
        This is what seems logical, but most of the time the second thing will happen, because there are many people who think every job is better than no job. There are lesser jobs than people, so the companies have the bigger lever.
ljf 13y ago
I think the point on outsourcing is hinted at I the other story trending highly today about the man living without money. If you had to look a 9 year old child labourer in the eye each time you were buying your cheaply made T-shirt, or a worker how has just completed a 14hour day making component for your phone, would you still feel as happy with your purchase. Yes not all outsourcing is negative and not all worker abused, but when you remove visibility of production from people you limit their ability to choose based not only on the quality of the product but also the morals of the producing company.
- gnarbarian 13y ago
  Perhaps the 9 year old child laborer would otherwise starve. I'll gladly buy the T-shirt every time. Or think of it like this. If all T-Shirts were required to be made in the US by union laborers working 30 hours per week and each one cost $50, I'd probably buy a heck of a lot less T shirts.
  - ljf 13y ago
    True, but maybe we don't need what we are currently buying, but are because the costs are hidden. How much of the stuff we own do we really need?
    - gnarbarian 13y ago
      I don't understand why necessity even comes into this. We don't need a lot of things. We don't need freedom of speech. We don't need more than 2 pairs of underwear or a car either. I don't need more than 2500 calories but I like being able to go eat a big juicy $50 steak sometimes. In the US it's actually illegal to go faster than 65 mph (75 in some awesome places) so why should we make cars that go faster than that if you obviously don't need it. If you don't need the stuff you are currently buying there's nothing stopping you from living in a 4ft high hole in the dirt and eating cereal with water instead of milk and only buying locally produced goods. Forcing someone else to live up to your definition of necessity is a pretty shitty thing to do though IMO.
lmm 13y ago
>Now, foreign companies produce many of their cars in the united states with union free labor and american companies have started producing cars in mexico so they can pay the pensions for all the retired union employees. Toyota's plants are UAW who makes the same demands as they do to GM. It's management that failed the US car industry, not the unions.
- gnarbarian 13y ago
  ehh, I can't find anything about this other than the following article from last year: "While the UAW continues to represent Detroit’s Big Three manufacturers, it has all but completely failed to gain representation rights for the so-called transplant lines now run by virtually all the major foreign-owned automakers, from BMW to Toyota to Volkswagen. " http://www.nbcnews.com/business/foreign-automakers-stubbornly-keep-uaw-line-827673 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/foreign-automakers-stubbornl...
  - VLM 13y ago
    He's probably thinking of the JAW Japanese auto workers union or the internal-ish toyota union TMWUI or whatever its called in English. Lets think about it, the Japanese unions bargain with a healthier company therefore get a better deal than the UAW gets from the failing companies in Detroit, and Japanese management as a class is superior to American management as a class (just look at the financials?), therefore they keep the unions out in their transplant plants by offering a deal roughly as good as the union deals in Japan. The transplant workers know they'll get a better deal by piggy backing on the JAW workers offer and the transplant management knows keeping the workers slightly better off than they could possibly get under the UAW will keep a lot of hassle out of the plant. So pretty much everyone wins except the JAW and Toyota MotorWorkers Union (or whatever they're called) because everyone in the USA is piggy backing on their bargaining skills. So there's two forbidden topics that can't be discussed in contemporary American culture which make it really weird when Americans try to talk about the topic, one that management is simply superior at Toyota (It is a much more successful company... wonder why? Hint its not the nuclear radiation, and management holds final responsibility always) and secondly the UAW is failing their members because the JAW can get a better deal (admittedly its easier to get a better deal when the company is successful, not failing). If you censor the forbidden topics from the discussion in the mass media, you get really weird, illogical stories and discussion. One really weird thing you see is intentionally mixing apples and oranges to get a political outcome. So the UAW has bargained away salaries such that starting is now like $14/hr at a UAW plant, you can do better at a Toyota transplant which averages in the upper 20s. However if you carefully compare faked up total compensation of $73/hr counting all benefits and retiree amortized expenses and taxes and everything, then it looks like Toyota employees are only getting about 1/3 the pay of a UAW employee. Of course the takehome pay on a paycheck for a new Toyota employee is WAY higher than the takehome pay of a new UAW employee and will remain at that ratio, more or less, for the rest of that noobs career (or until GM finally goes out of business or gets bought out)
vidarh 13y ago
> One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? What stops them from doing that today?
- gnarbarian 13y ago
  The fact the company can hire someone else.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    That won't help the company if the law has been changed to set a 30 hour maximum, which is my point: Why are you generally not seeing electoral support for 30 hour maximum work weeks?
    - yaddayadda 13y ago
      From my current boss, and sadly repeated by a significant number of coworkers, "Because our competition is working more than we are. If we don't work these crazy hours they win." To add insult to injury, this particular employer is the least efficient place I've ever worked. I'd estimate the average employee works 70-80 hours a week, but 1/2 to 2/3 of that is simply working around poor management or fixing mistakes that could have been avoided. So, when I seek to get my fellow employees to consider the possibility of working toward a 30 hour workweek, I get the "our competition" argument. When I try to introduce efficiencies, I get the "we don't have time to learn/employment/etc." arguments. Sadly, because of the economy and commitments I have, I haven't been able to find another job that I think is enough of a good bet. As soon as I do, I'm outa here!
nfoz 13y ago
> One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? Seems reasonable to me. How much work (both input and output) is required of humans in a society is that society's choice. Many people think that, e.g., American society has a cultural expectation of working longer and harder than is necessary or appropriate. Especially when you could possibly have rebalancing schemes to employ more people for fewer hours each. shrug

guelo 13y ago

It's funny you mention Germany there at the end since it undermines your whole argument. German auto workers are all unionized and they earn double what American auto workers do.

gnarbarian 13y ago
It doesn't undermine my argument. I said they compete on quality. Unions can be just as tyrannical as a monopoly. If German companies didn't produce better cars than cheaper countries there would be no reason to buy them and very few people would. Added to my above comment: "For clarification sake I'm saying that the mass of people at the bottom of an organization can have demands that conflict with the survival of the business. It's good that there are smart people who fought their way up the bureaucracy through a meritocracy. They generally won't make a decision that will obviously drive a company straight into the dirt while this is distinct risk in unions with entitlement issues."
- k__ 13y ago
  The problem with this is, that the demands, that can destroy a company, still can be real demands. The company says, it has to pay you $5 per hour or they couldn't employ you and it isn't even lying. You say, you can't work for a wage below $10 per hour and your reasons for this are valid, too. If the company wins, the workers can't live from their wage. If the workers win, the company can't employ enough of them to conduct business.
  - gnarbarian 13y ago
    I fail to see a problem with this at all. 1: The company goes out of business (due to inefficiency and an inability to compete) in which case it was a shitty business and shouldn't exist in the first place. 2: The company hires someone who can do the work for $5 per hour, in which case the worker who needs $10 to live is simply not living within their means. I equate this to someone earning minimum wage complaining that they can't support their numerous kids. NO SHIT. you are not entitled to a wage capable of supporting other people.
    - k__ 13y ago
      This is what seems logical, but most of the time the second thing will happen, because there are many people who think every job is better than no job. There are lesser jobs than people, so the companies have the bigger lever.

ljf 13y ago

I think the point on outsourcing is hinted at I the other story trending highly today about the man living without money. If you had to look a 9 year old child labourer in the eye each time you were buying your cheaply made T-shirt, or a worker how has just completed a 14hour day making component for your phone, would you still feel as happy with your purchase. Yes not all outsourcing is negative and not all worker abused, but when you remove visibility of production from people you limit their ability to choose based not only on the quality of the product but also the morals of the producing company.

gnarbarian 13y ago
Perhaps the 9 year old child laborer would otherwise starve. I'll gladly buy the T-shirt every time. Or think of it like this. If all T-Shirts were required to be made in the US by union laborers working 30 hours per week and each one cost $50, I'd probably buy a heck of a lot less T shirts.
- ljf 13y ago
  True, but maybe we don't need what we are currently buying, but are because the costs are hidden. How much of the stuff we own do we really need?
  - gnarbarian 13y ago
    I don't understand why necessity even comes into this. We don't need a lot of things. We don't need freedom of speech. We don't need more than 2 pairs of underwear or a car either. I don't need more than 2500 calories but I like being able to go eat a big juicy $50 steak sometimes. In the US it's actually illegal to go faster than 65 mph (75 in some awesome places) so why should we make cars that go faster than that if you obviously don't need it. If you don't need the stuff you are currently buying there's nothing stopping you from living in a 4ft high hole in the dirt and eating cereal with water instead of milk and only buying locally produced goods. Forcing someone else to live up to your definition of necessity is a pretty shitty thing to do though IMO.

lmm 13y ago

>Now, foreign companies produce many of their cars in the united states with union free labor and american companies have started producing cars in mexico so they can pay the pensions for all the retired union employees. Toyota's plants are UAW who makes the same demands as they do to GM. It's management that failed the US car industry, not the unions.

gnarbarian 13y ago
ehh, I can't find anything about this other than the following article from last year: "While the UAW continues to represent Detroit’s Big Three manufacturers, it has all but completely failed to gain representation rights for the so-called transplant lines now run by virtually all the major foreign-owned automakers, from BMW to Toyota to Volkswagen. " http://www.nbcnews.com/business/foreign-automakers-stubbornly-keep-uaw-line-827673 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/foreign-automakers-stubbornl...
- VLM 13y ago
  He's probably thinking of the JAW Japanese auto workers union or the internal-ish toyota union TMWUI or whatever its called in English. Lets think about it, the Japanese unions bargain with a healthier company therefore get a better deal than the UAW gets from the failing companies in Detroit, and Japanese management as a class is superior to American management as a class (just look at the financials?), therefore they keep the unions out in their transplant plants by offering a deal roughly as good as the union deals in Japan. The transplant workers know they'll get a better deal by piggy backing on the JAW workers offer and the transplant management knows keeping the workers slightly better off than they could possibly get under the UAW will keep a lot of hassle out of the plant. So pretty much everyone wins except the JAW and Toyota MotorWorkers Union (or whatever they're called) because everyone in the USA is piggy backing on their bargaining skills. So there's two forbidden topics that can't be discussed in contemporary American culture which make it really weird when Americans try to talk about the topic, one that management is simply superior at Toyota (It is a much more successful company... wonder why? Hint its not the nuclear radiation, and management holds final responsibility always) and secondly the UAW is failing their members because the JAW can get a better deal (admittedly its easier to get a better deal when the company is successful, not failing). If you censor the forbidden topics from the discussion in the mass media, you get really weird, illogical stories and discussion. One really weird thing you see is intentionally mixing apples and oranges to get a political outcome. So the UAW has bargained away salaries such that starting is now like $14/hr at a UAW plant, you can do better at a Toyota transplant which averages in the upper 20s. However if you carefully compare faked up total compensation of $73/hr counting all benefits and retiree amortized expenses and taxes and everything, then it looks like Toyota employees are only getting about 1/3 the pay of a UAW employee. Of course the takehome pay on a paycheck for a new Toyota employee is WAY higher than the takehome pay of a new UAW employee and will remain at that ratio, more or less, for the rest of that noobs career (or until GM finally goes out of business or gets bought out)

vidarh 13y ago

> One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? What stops them from doing that today?

gnarbarian 13y ago
The fact the company can hire someone else.
- vidarh 13y ago
  That won't help the company if the law has been changed to set a 30 hour maximum, which is my point: Why are you generally not seeing electoral support for 30 hour maximum work weeks?
  - yaddayadda 13y ago
    From my current boss, and sadly repeated by a significant number of coworkers, "Because our competition is working more than we are. If we don't work these crazy hours they win." To add insult to injury, this particular employer is the least efficient place I've ever worked. I'd estimate the average employee works 70-80 hours a week, but 1/2 to 2/3 of that is simply working around poor management or fixing mistakes that could have been avoided. So, when I seek to get my fellow employees to consider the possibility of working toward a 30 hour workweek, I get the "our competition" argument. When I try to introduce efficiencies, I get the "we don't have time to learn/employment/etc." arguments. Sadly, because of the economy and commitments I have, I haven't been able to find another job that I think is enough of a good bet. As soon as I do, I'm outa here!

nfoz 13y ago

> One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? Seems reasonable to me. How much work (both input and output) is required of humans in a society is that society's choice. Many people think that, e.g., American society has a cultural expectation of working longer and harder than is necessary or appropriate. Especially when you could possibly have rebalancing schemes to employ more people for fewer hours each. shrug