I think originally unions were established to do more than just steal from owners. If you really believe that this is the only purpose of unions or organized labor in general then you should visit a shop floor in Southeast Asia. The Wobblies and AFL-CIO are a bunch of thieves today, sure, but unions also exist to prevent some business owners from establishing 'company town' conditions that effectively turn worker into serf. I'm not saying all or even many would, but some did, and unions really strengthened because of the owners that treated their workers poorly.
If every union had a no strike clause and every union did not defend slovenly work by it's members, and every union only served as a collective, but non-binding, conract vehicle then unions would be OK.
So are you saying you'd mandate government intervention into the right of businesses to collectively negotiate with their workers? You'd mandate union laborers be forced to work regardless of their contract status? If that's what you're saying, you're not a conservative or even Republican, and you're on the wrong board. Those ideas are antithetical to the notions of capitalism, that each person controls his own property, including his own labor. That unions 'defend slovenly work' are the direct result of labor overreaching in a backlash due to employer overreaching in at-will firing.
And expect MORE backlash to come--companies don't owe their employees any severance today if they fire an employee, but employees must give a minimum two weeks notice if they quit (which, at many companies means they'll be fired on the spot anyway). Where's the fair dealing in that? When employers treat their employees fairly and act within the law, or better, treat their employees as trustworthy human beings and give them an opportunity to share in the business's rewards, they have been and will be paid back for it in spades. When employers treat their employees like resources, they inevitably get the production and anti-free-market-legislation they deserve.
All the talk about the UAW and other unions that have priced their laborers out of the market gloss over the reality that none of us really want the $#!# repetitive jobs that most of these window-polishers and handle. I couldn't do the jobs these poor bastards do even for the money they make for more than a year before I went nuts from boredom.
As it is they are all criminal enterprises...
Really? Every union in the world is a criminal enterprise? Wow, aren't we eager to judge! In your world, there must be an awful lot of criminals. We should lock up the schoolteachers first, I suppose.
and are anti-biblical.
If you want to read a part of the Bible that's important, read the part that Christ himself thought was most important--the Golden Rule. Do you REALLY think that spouting something like that, that unions are 'anti-biblical,' is doing unto others? What American union today speaks against the Bible? NONE, for good reason, that most union members consider themselves Christian and wouldn't stand for it!
That unions collectively bargain has nothing to do with the Bible, though you will undoubtedly attempt to bend some chapter and verse to 'prove' your silly claim. The Devil can quote scripture for his purpose.
But, PLEASE, don't try to make this claim again: Matthew 20:10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. 11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
That's not about labor unions, no matter what you're trying to twist it to say. It's about those coming late to the kingdom of God being shunned by those who have come early, not collective bargaining! Stop trying to blasphemously bend God's words to your earthly purposes!
Whenever people collude to deprive someone of their property (as unions always do)
If I agreed with you, your conditional would apply. But I don't. But let's assume they are colluding to deprive a company of money, i.e., wages, for your purposes. What happens, according to your conditional?
then they are committing organized theft no matter what you call it
That is organized THEFT, you say? So if everyone in town decided not to buy from a particular store collectively, that would be the same thing, in that they deprive a business of something they would otherwise have. Or if everyone in town decided not to buy a certain product that would otherwise be something they would normally use, it would be the same thing, theft. Or better yet, if I decide I'm not going to work for an employer any more because I don't think he's paying me or treating me well, I am personally stealing from him.
Right. And pigs fly.
Collective decisionmaking is no worse or better than individual--it is more dangerous, to be sure, because ten people who light a match in a room with a gas leak are more likely to blow up the building than one person with a match. But danger isn't a reason to impose the sort of anti-labor laws that your complaints seem to espouse. Unless you're eager to play soccer mom, which wouldn't at all surprise me. 'I don't like it, we should pass a law.'
Don't get me wrong, I would repeal most labor and wage and hour protections--but I won't interfere in the right to contract just because I don't like the results. All people should have the right to determine what they do with their property, including their labor, because be they workers, managers, owners, or slackers, the most efficient members of society will rise. Saying that we should prevent a worker from discovering the most effective way of securing their labor's just reward, be it collective negotiation or one-on-one negotiation or auctioning their services or temping, is essentially saying that for people to want to gain the maximum personal benefit for their labor is theft. I know you don't believe that. I HOPE you don't believe that.
CSM:
You are very misinformed. Each new model year an assembly line is revamped to maximize efficiency. If an investment is shown to be paid off over time then it will be made to allow for greater efficiency.
This doesn't discount what I say at all. The efficiency of a revamped line built on a 20th century factory floor is different from one built to fit.
Of course all of that is limited to what the UAW will allow!
THAT I agree with. I'm not saying unions cause no problems for productivity, just that measuring productivity on the basis you prescribe isn't entirely accurate.
If the efficiency is seen as detrimental to the union, then they will not allow it to take place. If the plant can become more efficient while avoiding layoffs the union will allow it to happen. That hinders productivity and it is no surprise to me that it takes Ford or GM twice as many "man hours" to produce a unit than the transplants.
Why would they let the company sacrifice their members for efficiency when their intention is to represent the workers? If the company thinks it can do better, it should. That's what the free market is about. To say unions are at fault for trying to maximize their income for their property (their labor) is to say only factory owners should get reward for their risk-taking. Working 8 hours a day is lost opportunity doing something else. It's a smaller risk than a factory owner's, to be sure, but the factory owner also knows his risks going in and acts to minimize them. If he doesn't, he's not much of a businessmen and the assets he holds would be used better elsewhere.
Whenever the UAW tries to infiltrate the transplants they have failed. Proof that unions are bad!
Not at all. That UAW can't 'infiltrate' new companies isn't necessarily because all unions are bad. UAW can't 'infiltrate' China, either, and there, unions would do much good to alleviate poor worker treatment. United Mine Workers could do even more there, and they can't 'infiltrate' China, either. Neither of those things speak to the evil of unions, but to the evil of Chinese totalitarianism in preventing workers from getting their just rewards (and preventing workers from even assuring their own continued ability to earn under safe conditions). I think that in the case of the UAW in the U.S., there is a better conclusion than the one you leap to: it's proof that auto companies having dealt with unions know that they must treat their workers better and give them a sense of ownership and benefit from the company's growth, to avoid the workers' ultimate approbation, that of forming a union.
Have you ever been in the parking lot of a UAW OEM Assembly Plant? Have you ever been in that same parking lot at lunch? Try it some time, you would be surprised. The amount of alcohol drank and MJ smoked would shock you. The number of people sitting around during a work day would shock you.
I don't think it would, because if I worked a line all day, I'd want to be narcotized, too. But I have no idea what your point is. That workers for the UAW are druggies, so they shouldn't be members of unions? More likely, they are so drugged-up-stupid they can't negotiate well for themselves, and thus would best be served by joining a union to have someone else negotiate for them. Is that wrong, that they seek what they believe is their best chance of maximizing their income? Or is your point they are bad workers? If that's it, that's again the fault of the management for allowing a contract that stifles their power too much.
Let me give you a concrete example: Suppose a line goes down on Monday and the number of units produced falls short of the required number of units. That production is made up on the next day. Now imagine that the same shift is able to make their Tuesday production goal 2 hours early on Tuesday. What would you imagine that they do? Wouldn't you think that they just work straight through to make up the loss of production on Monday? Nope, they shut down until their shift ends and work the extra production on OT. Another 2 hour loss of productivity.
Gee, that sounds like a really stupid auto company, agreeing to that contract. But they did. Seems as an stockholder in that company like I'd rather move production to China, or renegotiate the contract, before I'd sign that kind of agreement. Oops, maybe I was supposed to conclude that we should make those damned union slackers pay somehow? Maybe force them to work for the benefit of the owner without compensation? That would sure be a conservative thing to do, take from one person and give it to another in the interests of 'fairness.'
This is just one example, add lack of flexibility, job classification, paying for UAW reps that are not producing, etc. and it is clear that the transplants have a huge advantage over the US OEM's. That is a big reason why the big 3 market share is declining while the number of vehicles sold increases.
No argument. We agree that the greed of unions is a force in shutting down American manufacturing. But don't put it all on the unions--the UAW didn't just wave a magic wand, shout Kazaam, and it was done. Management agreed to this stupid horse$#!#, too. THEY are the ones that should be paying for this the most, with their heads, as most managers are NOT owners but hired guns, and what happens is...nothing. Yet I hear consistent cries about unions being evil here, when collective bargaining isn't the root of the problem, it's pisspoor supervision by stockholders and management agreement with union leaders' unreasonable demands. They are ALL at fault, yet no one here seems nearly as eager to string up the weasels at the top as they do the weasels at the bottom. Why is that, do you think, because they are certainly MORE culpable!?!?
Yes, this is not the only reason, it is just one of the top 3.
Gosh, what are all the rest? I can hardly wait.
I can't think of any instance where unions are a benefit to our economy.
One benefit unions are to our economy: they are a channeling of greed, one that makes employee avarice every bit as transparent as employer avarice. And plainspoken wants are important to the market. If there is a want, the market will provide it efficiently only if it isn't hidden. Laborers who don't speak up won't get their interests met, and companies have an interest in attracting good workers. Yes, GREED IS GOOD--it means the market will quickly provide a supply to profit from that greed, which is why laws against price-gouging are stupid, and subsidies ultimately inefficient.
Certainly, in an ideal workplace, we wouldn't need unions, there would be no cartels and collusion, and the marketplace would invisibly swat the unproductive. But greedy owners and lazy stockholders are as unproductive as unions. What benefit is added to the economy by stockholders who don't watch the bottom line? What benefit is added to the economy by managers who make money for themselves but not for their company?
Correct. At one time unions were necessary, when mobility was limited and workers didn't have any other choices, in order to keep management from getting heavy handed. Those days are long gone and now unions only exist to steal the owners property (more on this later). Workers can easily relocate and find other jobs. (or they would be able to if the unions had not have run lots of industry out of the country)
So are you saying you'd mandate government intervention into the right of businesses to collectively negotiate with their workers? You'd mandate union laborers be forced to work regardless of their contract status?
I never said that. I said no strike clause in the contract. If the worker doesn't show up for work without a valid excuse then he gets fired and the owner can hire someone else with out the rest of the workers getting their undies in a knot. Now however, the whole workforce can walk off and prevent the owner from hiring replacement workers to run his operation. By striking they are interfering with his right to use his property as he wills. They are stealing from him.
Workers cannot be forced to work. Owners should not be forced to retain people who walk out on them.
(BTW what we really need is for gov to stop intervening in the worker-employer relationship. Now the gov forces the owner to deal with unions)
Those ideas are antithetical to the notions of capitalism, that each person controls his own property, including his own labor.
And workers striking (thus stealing time and moiney from the employer) are interfering with the owners control of his own property. if they want to leave work, great. Walk out and don't come back. But don't try to blackmail the owner into giving increased wages etc by trying to destroy his business.
That unions 'defend slovenly work' are the direct result of labor overreaching in a backlash due to employer overreaching in at-will firing.
If I own the company I have the only say in who works there. If I treat my employees well I'll have great employees (because the good ones will stay and the bad ones will get fired). If I treat my employees poorly I'll have poor employees (because the good ones will leave and I'll get stuck with the bad ones or none at all). No union or gov intervention is required. Poor management brings its own punishment and that punishment should not be having a group of people trying to destroy your business
companies don't owe their employees any severance today if they fire an employee, but employees must give a minimum two weeks notice if they quit (which, at many companies means they'll be fired on the spot anyway).
Say What? Severence pay is totally bogus as is a two week notice. Severence pay in almost all cases is a result of union or gov blackmail. Two weeks notice has no contractual or legal basis. If I choose to leave, I just leave, How can anyone force me to work?
When employers treat their employees fairly and act within the law, or better, treat their employees as trustworthy human beings and give them an opportunity to share in the business's rewards, they have been and will be paid back for it in spades. When employers treat their employees like resources, they inevitably get the production and anti-free-market-legislation they deserve.
Exactly correct. And the reason that unions are not needed in this day and age. (BTW anti-free-market legislarion should never happen under any circumstances. The market itself will weed out the poor managers)
Every union in the world is a criminal enterprise?
Every union that strikes or requires all employees to join, yes.
Wow, aren't we eager to judge!
Calling an apple an apple is not judging
We should lock up the schoolteachers first, I suppose.
Actually, for those who are die hard NEA members, I'd vote for execution. They are destroying our country and killing our children by indoctrinating them with liberal ideas such as homosexuality and abortion rights. Any member of the NEA who pays dues without protest should be permanently barred from any contact with children. Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse
If you want to read a part of the Bible that's important, read the part that Christ himself thought was most important--the Golden Rule.
Christ thought the entire bible was important, after all He wrote the whole thing (By inspiring men to write down what he revealed to them).
But lets look at the "golden rule". I'm assuming you are referring to Mark 12:30-31:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Love thy neighbor as thyself. Note that it doesn't say "gang up on your neighbor with a bunch of other thugs and deprive him of the ability to make a living with his own property". Nor does it say "threaten to destroy your neighbor unless he pays you better".
What American union today speaks against the Bible? NONE, for good reason, that most union members consider themselves Christian and wouldn't stand for it!
The NEA speaks agains the bible. Most unions preach forced socialism or forced communism which are both anti-biblical concepts. But this is beside the point.
The point I am making is that the very existence of a labor union is anti-biblical. There is no support for forced collective bargaining in the bible and where labor is mentioned it is always a contract between the owner and the worker.
That unions collectively bargain has nothing to do with the Bible,
Exactly, as collective bargaining has no standing in scripture.
But, PLEASE, don't try to make this claim again: Matthew 20:10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. 11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
That's not about labor unions, no matter what you're trying to twist it to say. It's about those coming late to the kingdom of God being shunned by those who have come early, not collective bargaining! Stop trying to blasphemously bend God's words to your earthly purposes!
It's about both. If you would read the whole bible you'll find that extorting someone out of their property is not allowed
So if everyone in town decided not to buy from a particular store collectively, that would be the same thing, in that they deprive a business of something they would otherwise have.
No. But if they blocked his doors and didn't let anyone else buy from there it would be theft. You are not forced to shop anywhere just like you are not forced to work anywhere. But you never have the right to stop someone else from shopping or working anywhere. Unions stop people from working unless they join the union. They stop people from working during strikes. They block the owners property and prevent him from doing business. All of these actions are different from just deciding not to shop somewhere
Or better yet, if I decide I'm not going to work for an employer any more because I don't think he's paying me or treating me well, I am personally stealing from him.
If you just leave and leave him alone it is not theft. If you stick around and try to block his business or stop others from working for him it is theft
But danger isn't a reason to impose the sort of anti-labor laws that your complaints seem to espouse. Unless you're eager to play soccer mom, which wouldn't at all surprise me. 'I don't like it, we should pass a law.'
I never said anything about imposing a law. In fact I am for repealing all labor laws now on the books, federal, state and local. Gov has no business whatsoever in the employer/employee relationship. However, laws against criminal activity (such as blocking the entrance to a factory, or hiring thugs to beat the workers) must be rigorously enforced. Almost all these labor laws are anti-business and pro-union.
All people should have the right to determine what they do with their property, including their labor, because be they workers, managers, owners, or slackers, the most efficient members of society will rise.
exactly correct
Saying that we should prevent a worker from discovering the most effective way of securing their labor's just reward, be it collective negotiation or one-on-one negotiation or auctioning their services or temping, is essentially saying that for people to want to gain the maximum personal benefit for their labor is theft.
Each person has the right to maximize the returns on their property. No person has the right to deny another person that right. Unions (as they exist today) seek to deny the owner the right to earn as much as he can. If he chooses to hire well and treat his employees well, he will prosper. If he chooses not to then the good workers will go elsewhere. It is not a unions business to run or ruin his business. If he chooses to bargain collectively with his employees for his own benefit (convenience mostly) he can. If he chooses not to bargain collectively he should be able to. Why should he be forced to do something with his property that he doesn't want to do?