U.S. Labor Unions

What do you gentlemen think of labor unions in the U.S.?
What, in your eyes, are the costs and/or benefits of having them?

The working class have rights and unions and such are established to protect them. I don't agree with how they've been going lately, and the methods. But in principle, they're needed.

>>2
Yeah they are great for forcing firms to only have a certain number of workers instead of having more due to minimum wage laws. There would be WAY less unemployment if unions didn't think they were better than some other workers. Dont like the pay or benefits? then fucking leave because you dont own MY BUISNESS. Seriously i dont get how these guys think they have a RIGHT to how someone else should spend their money.

>>3
We get it, you're a free market 'tard. Go back to bed.

>>4
Why so somebody could tax me for sleeping too? Because they own my bed?
Seriously State funded Unions take the WHOLE point out of people owning their own firms and make it hard for new firms to begin due to only being able to hire very few workers.
Now if workers want to get together to work something out with the owner then that's fine but to threaten legal force is saying "WE OWN YOUR COMPANY".

>>5
MUST you shit up every thread? Seriously. In a perfect world, workers and management would get along and hold hands and sing songs and go "la la la" till the cows came home. But, unfortunately (mostly in practice), it doesn't work that way. Do unions go too far? Sure, I'll say so, but so can management.

Now stop shitting up the thread, because we already know your position on the matter. Let others have their say.

State unions are retarded.

>>6
Ah so i guess taking the whole point of ownership away is the answer, *facepalm*.

>>6
Why cant owners spend their money how they want?

>>9
Who says they don't already?

>>10
minimum wage laws, workplace regulations, product regulations, license regulations, Property tax, importing regulations...etc

>>11
There are reasons why for those things you mentioned to exist. I don't know of a single sane nation that doesn't have them.

>>12
Yeah, but they are not optional.

>>13
Usually with good reason.

Unions were useful. Now they are little more than a protection scheme run by mafia thugs.

Unions are like Dams. They were constructed in order to hold back the tide of exploitation by employers who in the employment process hold all the bargaining chips, like a Damn is construced to hold back water.

And obviously it has worked, so now having accomplished it's goal, it is time to pull down the Dam, I'm sure the water will stay put.

>>14
But with no legitimacy and consent.

>>17
Let me guess, you want a true free market?

Unions are compatible with a free market, they provide the function of negotiating power for workers.

Some radicals say that if you click your heels and say "equality, capitalism is evil, abrakadabra" 3 times that you can wish away inequities and conflicts in society and create a utopia, so far this hasn't worked and it is obvious that you do need to embrace reality and play the game in order to achieve anything in this world. In order to improve actual equality workers need negotiating power which means they need to interact in a free market where their own individual freedoms are preserved allowing them to have a say in how things a run, if unions are collectivized and heavily controlled by the state then the average worker loses this freedom and unions are opened up to corruption. A good example are the higher rates of inequality between open shop and closed shop unions, it might be counter-intuitive to think that workers rights are impeded when the state uses it's clout to back a union but once you look into the technical details it becomes obvious that reducing the choice of the individual in the matter also reduces their voice with only a negligible difference in administrative effiency.

>>18
Yeah so they can be done by the people by choosing which buisnesses they think suit their values and interests the most and opting out of others that dont have the "regulation" of a 3rd party company. If the companies are shown to be unfaithful in some way they will be punished by losing buisness. Buisnesses can only succeed when the people decide for them to succeed in a free market. In todays corporatist system some buisnesses that would have fallen long ago due to would be competition are still standing due to their connections to the government.

For the USA it's perfect, they bring politicians to keep laws which subsidizes this market.
But that does not agree with international laws of free market.
Two african countries (i do not remeber which) went in international court with USA for them to prohibit those subsidies. And they won.
Because for foreign country which do not have those kind of laws it makes it hard to export stuffs.
But US prefers paying penalty to these country than abolish those laws, that way they keep beeing competitive.
So i will say yes those unions are great for the US but not for the rest of the world (Europe as same kind of unions and laws).

The reason why the state got involved in labor unions was to keep extremists out of them, who would use them for political gain over keeping workers' rights intact. You might think it was because of the second red scare and McCarthyism, but even anti-communist socialists were for regulation of labor unions to keep extremists out.

Nowadays, labor unions demand way too much from management (United Auto Workers is a good example), and they need to be curtailed back so as not to have things swing too far the other way. There needs to be a balance, obviously.

>>20
The problem with a "true free market" is that, by its nature, it won't stay such for long. Crushing competition and dominating the market will always be a logical course of action.

If the companies are shown to be unfaithful in some way they will be punished by losing buisness. Buisnesses can only succeed when the people decide for them to succeed in a free market.

People can already decide whether or not a company succeeds. Refusing to buy a product or from a company is already a possibility that many people ignore. The average consumer will continue to purchase even from "unfaithful" companies because they want the product they're producing. You vastly underestimate the apathy and ignorance of the majority of consumers. They simply don't care. None of this will change in a "true free market" system and may actually get worse because when you combine the apathy and ignorance with the inevitable business goal of market domination, you get a bunch of people that want something with only one place to get it and who are too short-sighted to pay more in the short run so that a competitor can arise. This gives the dominating company many options for exploiting the consumer.

Oh yeah, and there won't be any competitors unless already-rich dudes decide to expand into another market (assuming they're even willing to pour in the vast amounts of money required to compete with an already-established giant). In which case, it's, at best, a situation where the rich are trading power between themselves with no chance for a small business (barring anything short of a miracle) to compete on any kind of scale.

>In todays corporatist system some buisnesses that would have fallen long ago due to would be competition are still standing due to their connections to the government.

And why do you suppose it would be any different in your scenario? Nothing would stop them from throwing money around until whatever they want has been gotten. Yeah, it would go against the spirit of the true free market, so what? Things like that happen already and hardly anyone is lifting a finger to stop it.

>>23
The problem with a "true free market" is that, by its nature, it won't stay such for long. Crushing competition and dominating the market will always be a logical course of action.

Just because there are good firms doesn't make the market any less "free". Todays system makes is HARDER for new firms to compete because they are forced to have a great sum of money to pay off to even get that firm off the ground( more-so than in a true free market).

People can already decide whether or not a company succeeds. Refusing to buy a product or from a company is already a possibility that many people ignore. The average consumer will continue to purchase even from "unfaithful" companies because they want the product they're producing. You vastly underestimate the apathy and ignorance of the majority of consumers. They simply don't care. None of this will change in a "true free market" system and may actually get worse because when you combine the apathy and ignorance with the inevitable business goal of market domination, you get a bunch of people that want something with only one place to get it and who are too short-sighted to pay more in the short run so that a competitor can arise. This gives the dominating company many options for exploiting the consumer.
Basing your conclusions on an assertion that people will be ignorant is ignorant in itself. How much you want to bet that McDonald's lost A TON of business after that whole "health" fiasco? I know in truth the whole thing was mostly a smear campaign but still the rep lost from MCds cost them dearly, if they weren't as big as they were and wouldn't have had ties to the government then they would have probably gone under...

I think you severely underestimate the consumer and think each one is a dumb idiot who cant make their own fucking choice in life and that you should be there to tell him otherwise.
The money from today would not be regarded as valuable in theory for the free market so the "already rich" firms would have to build their wealth again.

And why do you suppose it would be any different in your scenario? Nothing would stop them from throwing money around until whatever they want has been gotten. Yeah, it would go against the spirit of the true free market, so what? Things like that happen already and hardly anyone is lifting a finger to stop it.
It probably wont be but at least it doesn't swell their power and make it harder for others to compete with them.

This thread is about labor unions. If you want to argue about free market bullshit, start your own thread. Thanks to AntiStatist for derailing yet another thread you incorrigible piece of shit.

>>25

░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
░░░░░█░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀▄
░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒░█
░░░█░░░░░░▄██▀▄▄░░░░░▄▄▄░░░█
░▄▀▒▄▄▄▒░█▀▀▀▀▄▄█░░░██▄▄█░░░█
...█░▒█▒▄░▀▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒█
█░▒█░█▀▄▄░░░░░█▀░░░░▀▄░░▄▀▀▄▒█
░█░▀▄░█▄░█▀▄▄░▀░▀▀░▄▄▀░░░░░█
░░█░░░░██░░▀█▄▄▄█▄▄█▄████░█
░░░█░░░░▀▀▄░█░░░█░█▀██████░█
░░░░▀▄░░░░░▀▀▄▄▄█▄█▄█▄█▄▀░░█
░░░░░░▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░█
░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀

>>25
And that would be great, except that has nothing to do with anything. And you're a nigger.

>>24
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=big+box+mart

>>28
So the logic is:
People buy crap=Everyone buys crap
The guy who made the vid obviously thinks Americans are better than the Chinese.

QQ IM AN AMERICAN AND I DESERVE TO BE PAID MORE THAN SOMEONE WHO WILL DO MY JOB FOR HALF MY MONEY.

Yeah because when someone comes along to try to undercut a business the business being undercut should just start crying about how its not fair and ask for people to be forced to buy his product instead of lowering his price or looking for different customers. Also tell me this....why arent Union supporters advocating for the Chinese workers "rights" and work conditions? Do they think they are better than them just because they are American?

I think we should replace free trade with fair trade and cap our trade deficit with China.

>>24
>Todays system makes is HARDER for new firms to compete because they are forced to have a great sum of money to pay off to even get that firm off the ground( more-so than in a true free market).
One would have to compete directly against the giant from the get-go. That requires a great deal of money in itself. You might not technically require as much to start off in a "true free market", but you WOULD require a great deal more to have any chance at surviving.

>Basing your conclusions on an assertion that people will be ignorant is ignorant in itself.
While it's not true of all people, how many people do you think really know anything about any particular company other than what products they sell or what they themselves claim in their advertisements? It's also quite apparent that there is a large, relatively ignorant population. Products of a failed educational system, anti-intellectualists, or simply people that can't or won't sort out the information at their disposal for one reason or another.

>How much you want to bet that McDonald's lost A TON of business after that whole "health" fiasco?
I can tell you that every McDonalds I pass still has tons of patrons and that you're the only person so far who has mentioned such a fiasco.

>if they weren't as big as they were and wouldn't have had ties to the government then they would have probably gone under...
The first part of that statement is pointless. They are as big as they are. You could also say the same of a smaller company when a few people decide to stop giving them business. "If they weren't so big they would go under." Secondly, the problem of "having ties to the government" is not one which a "true free market" would necessarily correct in any meaningful way. Nor is the current system necessarily beholden to continue providing for such unsavory ties. Our time would be much better spent correcting what we have in place than replacing it with something that would not only exacerbate the problem but create a whole slew of more destructive ones.

>I think you severely underestimate the consumer and think each one is a dumb idiot who cant make their own fucking choice in life and that you should be there to tell him otherwise.
I think you severely overestimate the AVERAGE consumer. It would be nice to think that everyone is as intelligent or wise or critical as any of us might claim to be, but the truth is that there are a lot of dumb or simply UNINFORMED people out there. No, I have no desire to dictate what people do and do not buy, I only desire that more people have the capacity for critical analysis and long-term thought.

>It probably wont be but at least it doesn't swell their power and make it harder for others to compete with them.
If it's no better then why do it? Is it really so important that it be changed to your preferred brand of shit that you would forgo searching for an actual solution?

>>29
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say it's because we have pressing domestic problems that need sorting before we can even hope to help others with theirs.

>>31
>If it's no better then why do it? Is it really so important that it be changed to your preferred brand of shit that you would forgo searching for an actual solution?
We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

>>32
Then they cant truly say the care about the workers then, you cant pick and choose who you decide to support either you support workers as a whole or you dont.
This isn't a false dichotomy unless you think that Americans are in some way "better".

>>33
>We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Wrong. We can still lose so much more. If we were more like Africa then we would have nothing to lose.

>>34
you cant pick and choose who you decide to support either you support workers as a whole or you dont.
They might support them in spirit, and I assure you that there are a fair number that care, but to actually support them in any meaningful and tangible way would require the expenditure of resources that are currently (or should be, anyway) being used to solve the problems we have here and now. You can't save a sick man if you're drowning, after all.

[to no one in particular] I do have to say that I find the idea of Labor Unions to be an essential one. We have a government system that is built upon checks and balances in the face of competing interests, so why should economic matters be any different? Workers need the means and support to declare and bargain for their interests, as well as a means of keeping employers in check by making sure that they're keeping up their end of things (including due process and such).
That having been said, I believe that, like any good idea, it has been tarnished in some noticeable places. No doubt people are seeing the effects of this and, not without some justification, applying it to labor unions as a whole. As with the problem of corrupt government officials, I don't believe the solution is to discard the entire thing (in terms of government, I liken this to replacing our democratic republic). Refinement is what I believe will produce the best results. The major hurdle just always seems to be "how" and "who will get this started?"

>>34
>>35

but to actually support them in any meaningful and tangible way would require the expenditure of resources...
Actually forcing people to buy American could indirectly support workers' rights abroad. It's sort of like boycotting goods that are produced by shitty conditions. Don't get me wrong though, I doubt that US labor unions have that as their main motivation.

>>36
Yeah so the people overseas dont get overpaid and die because they dont have a "welfare" system to fall back on great idea.

>>37
*paid*

Or you know we could go back to a time before this modern socialist hellhole where 80%+ of people were self-employed.

And you can take your communist rhetoric and shove it up your ass, fucking faggots.

>>39
Or you know we could go back to a time
A time with child labor, no safety regulations, run on the banks every five years, barely functioning economic stability, panics, a more deeply religious nation, huge income inequalities (even more so in proportion to today), etc. No thanks. I see that you didn't get the memo a century ago that we're no longer primarily an agrarian nation.