Discussion: All Things Union

[Violet Lantern]

Unions definitely need reform, I wasn't arguing otherwise.

ANY organization (business, union, church, etc.) is likely to get corrupt when money is involved.

As long as the right of workers to organize is preserved then we could certainly scale back union power in light of current federal laws. There is no reason for button pushers to make 40$ an hour and some of the waste and crap we see in unions now. To bad nobody can ever just use common sense and reason when money is involved.

The threat of unions suffice to keep business in line for the most part now. Don't kid yourself that big business wouldn't start undermining what we take for granted if given the opportunity. They would. Our right to organize needs to be preserved whatever would be done.

This is a very sensible post and I agree. Co-sign.

 

[WildcatNC]

It's called Free Market Capitalism. It happens all of the time. Just not as much as it used to. If a company does bad, consumers move elsewhere. If the company wants to do better, it produces better products and services. To produce better products and services, it hires better people and retains them. To retain better people, you offer better benefits. It's actually really, really easy to understand.

We don't need Government and Unions dictating to us what needs to be done. The Invisible Hand of the Economy will do that.

Government (or any other organization) doesn't need to be "dictating" anything. Minimal regulating and acting as watchdog is needed though.

The "Free Market" is not the cure for all the worlds ills and it has inherent flaws of its own. Asymmetry of information, rational choice (or lack thereof), framing, etc. The list is long.

Businessmen have no idealogical love for a "free market". They love money. When it benefits them they champion non-intervention and competition. When the market "rules" do not benefit them they circumvent them through collusion, price fixing, and even grease government palms so they can "intervene" in the market on their behalf and stack the deck. They do what benefits them at the time, nothing more or less.

Its hardly some bastion of purity and virtue where everything will work like a well oiled machine if left alone. It needs maintenance, checkups, and repair every now and then like anything.

The world is not as black and white as "go work somewhere else if you want", or "start your own company if you don't like it" either. Who the hell has the money to start their own company? What if you've lived there with your family your whole life, just move?

I like capitalism. Its a great, dynamic system. Its only as simple as you seem to think when your talking about hypothetical absolutes and economic modeling though.

In the real world things are far more complicated than that.

Behavioral economics > Classical economics.

The "pure math" route is fine in hypothetical. It gets skewed as soon as people get involved.

 

[WildcatNC]

This is a very sensible post and I agree. Co-sign.

I for one think as soon as something is an "organization" the time to trust it has ended. Business, union, whatever. Its probably up to no good.

I just don't understand all the one sided union outrage. They ARE an issue, but not the only (nor biggest). Its a classic boogie man the Right uses, much like the Left uses big business. The two are NOT equivalent in their corruption or leverage on government either, far from it. Its a false equivalency.

I question anyone that has one-sided outrage. Sounds like talking points.

 

[Violet Lantern]

I for one think as soon as something is an "organization" the time to trust it has ended. Business, union, whatever. Its probably up to no good.

I just don't understand all the one sided union outrage. They ARE an issue, but not the only (nor biggest). Its a classic boogie man the Right uses, much like the Left uses big business. The two are NOT equivalent in their corruption or leverage on government either, far from it. Its a false equivalency.

I question anyone that has one-sided outrage. Sounds like talking points.

Once again I find myself nodding in agreement.

 

[SuBe]

Government (or any other organization) doesn't need to be "dictating" anything. Minimal regulating and acting as watchdog is needed though.

The "Free Market" is not the cure for all the worlds ills and it has inherent flaws of its own. Asymmetry of information, rational choice (or lack thereof), framing, etc. The list is long.

Businessmen have no idealogical love for a "free market". They love money. When it benefits them they champion non-intervention and competition. When the market "rules" do not benefit them they circumvent them through collusion, price fixing, and even grease government palms so they can "intervene" in the market on their behalf and stack the deck. They do what benefits them at the time, nothing more or less.

Its hardly some bastion of purity and virtue where everything will work like a well oiled machine if left alone. It needs maintenance, checkups, and repair every now and then like anything.

The world is not as black and white as "go work somewhere else if you want", or "start your own company if you don't like it" either. Who the hell has the money to start their own company? What if you've lived there with your family your whole life, just move?

I like capitalism. Its a great, dynamic system. Its only as simple as you seem to think when your talking about hypothetical absolutes and economic modeling though.

In the real world things are far more complicated than that.

Behavioral economics > Classical economics.

The "pure math" route is fine in hypothetical. It gets skewed as soon as people get involved.

Of all of these points you made, they are and can be illegal without intervening into the Free Market, or they are not free market principles at all. There is nothing wrong with Money. The Profit Motive is the only honest motive. Everything else is dishonest. Self Preservation is Virtue.

Bribery is illegal. Price Fixing is Illegal. It's only when Government gets in the way of Honest Transactions do Tremblings in the Market occur. It's not the Governments role to stick it's nose in Business unless it has defrauded some one, or cause someone harm through force or neglect. Only then should Government step in to put order unto the situation. And it does so with the Court system. Not legislation.

Fascistic Economic Models do not work, have never worked, and should be abolished so Freedom my reign.

 

[dnno1]

You're right, but private companies make their anti union stance known to potential employees. My job, for instance, I had to sign an acknowldgement that I understood my companies policy on that matter.

This must be a regional thing. I don't know anyone who is in a union or has a union job.

But in truth, they can't stop you form joining a union. Furthermore you should have every right to go to the barganing table (either by yourself or represented by your union) to negotiate your salary either before once your contract is ended. Sure they made you aware of your intentions but the can't terminate you if you joined a union.

 

[BlackLantern]

my job is also ' at will ' employment...basically I can be fired at any time for any reason.....most jobs, at least up here, are like that

 

[SuBe]

Individuals may have the right to "Unionize". Employers and Business Owners have the right not to recognize it and fire them for disrupting normal business practices.

 

[Arc-Light]

I like how you say I watch too many movies that demonize unions and then you turn around and talk about evil CEOs.

This isn't the All Thing CEO thread. If you want to discuss the evil things CEOs do, go make a thread.

I also love the recent string of ________ helped out my family so it's good.

Call up these fifteen and tell them how much unions helped out your father. I am sure they will love your story.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/...nville-firefighters-reject-citys-pay-cut-plan

Your post is a contradiction ill let you figure out why, also i posted a story to counter yours...yes it envoled CEO's etc...i know not all CEO's and EXE's are evil so don't try to drama this up now. About the link firefirhgtrers voted on it...when it comes to lay-offs its the younger ones that go 1st it sucks, but it happens. Of course that link had nothing in common to what happened with my father...

 

[chaseter]

Please explain what is contradictory. I cannot figure it out by myself.

Did you call up those people yet? You used a personal example of a good thing a union did so it therefore must relate to all unions. You may want to explain it to those people and not me. I didn't get fired because my union was greedy.

 

[Arc-Light]

Please explain what is contradictory. I cannot figure it out by myself.

Did you call up those people yet? You used a personal example of a good thing a union did so it therefore must relate to all unions. You may want to explain it to those people and not me. I didn't get fired because my union was greedy.

Are you sure it was greed...like i said firefighters their peers voted on it, call up those firefighters who voted...and nowhere in my post did i say all unions were good..i was being devil-advocate to your posts...

 

[StorminNorman]

Government (or any other organization) doesn't need to be "dictating" anything. Minimal regulating and acting as watchdog is needed though.

The "Free Market" is not the cure for all the worlds ills and it has inherent flaws of its own. Asymmetry of information, rational choice (or lack thereof), framing, etc. The list is long.

Businessmen have no idealogical love for a "free market". They love money. When it benefits them they champion non-intervention and competition. When the market "rules" do not benefit them they circumvent them through collusion, price fixing, and even grease government palms so they can "intervene" in the market on their behalf and stack the deck. They do what benefits them at the time, nothing more or less.

Its hardly some bastion of purity and virtue where everything will work like a well oiled machine if left alone. It needs maintenance, checkups, and repair every now and then like anything.

The world is not as black and white as "go work somewhere else if you want", or "start your own company if you don't like it" either. Who the hell has the money to start their own company? What if you've lived there with your family your whole life, just move?

I like capitalism. Its a great, dynamic system. Its only as simple as you seem to think when your talking about hypothetical absolutes and economic modeling though.

In the real world things are far more complicated than that.

Behavioral economics > Classical economics.

The "pure math" route is fine in hypothetical. It gets skewed as soon as people get involved.

Are you familiar with the work of von Mises? It's the only complete economic school I think of that takes into account praxeology (the study of human action).

 

[chaseter]

Are you sure it was greed...like i said firefighters their peers voted on it, call up those firefighters who voted...and nowhere in my post did i say all unions were good..i was being devil-advocate to your posts...

Keep the same wages and let people go or get a decrease in pay and allow people to keep their jobs.

Survey says: Greed

To play Devil's Advocate usually includes the precursor about the following scenario being purposely conflicting to illicit debate.

 

[WildcatNC]

Of all of these points you made, they are and can be illegal without intervening into the Free Market, or they are not free market principles at all. There is nothing wrong with Money. The Profit Motive is the only honest motive. Everything else is dishonest. Self Preservation is Virtue.

Bribery is illegal. Price Fixing is Illegal. It's only when Government gets in the way of Honest Transactions do Tremblings in the Market occur. It's not the Governments role to stick it's nose in Business unless it has defrauded some one, or cause someone harm through force or neglect. Only then should Government step in to put order unto the situation. And it does so with the Court system. Not legislation.

Fascistic Economic Models do not work, have never worked, and should be abolished so Freedom my reign.

Government staying completely out of the market will lead directly to corporatism and soft fascism. The corporations will simply buy out the government (like they haven't already I suppose) and use its power on their behalf to increase their profits and influence. See the military industrial complex as a prime example.

It doesn't matter if its illegal if the ones that are supposed to be enforcing the laws are in bed with the criminals. Illegal or not they are done everyday and are market distortions. They are not principles of the "ideal" free market but they are principles of the "real" one. The corporations will pay 10x what any judicial job would make and they do so under the table and behind closed doors. What does the "profit motive" tell us in that case? They can do what they want with no penalty as long as they keep paying. Again, you seem to be thinking in theoretical and optimal models. BUSINESS gets in the way of honest transactions far more than the government does.

I am in agreement that MINIMAL interference should be practiced. I am saying that the government can NEVER stay completely out of the market because its ALWAYS more profitable to cheat. Is it more profitable to pay a politician to award you a no bid contract and let you charge what you want or bid above board with negotiated prices? Do you start a price war with your competitors and drive your profits down or do you work out a deal where you both charge the same and rotate your sales? (Coke/Pepsi)

What your talking about is no more real than the "progressive utopia" concept. In the real world its not as simple as you state. People with their irrational motives and behavior always complicate the pure calculations.

Honestly if your such a firm believer in the "Purity of the Profit Motive" then collusion, price fixing, bribery, etc should be perfectly acceptable as long as they are more profitable practices. The market would regulate itself, right? Profit above all else. If consumers disagree with bribery then they will not support that company, hence leading to its bankruptcy, right? SOMEONE would break up the price fixing eventually, right?

Why interfere at all under ANY circumstances?

 

[WildcatNC]

Are you familiar with the work of von Mises? It's the only complete economic school I think of that takes into account praxeology (the study of human action).

I certainly am. He was more forward thinking than many of his contemporaries.

I am always baffled when someone tries to remove the Human Element from endeavors that include humans, not to mentions entirely perceived and given definition by them.

 

[Arc-Light]

Keep the same wages and let people go or get a decrease in pay and allow people to keep their jobs.

Survey says: Greed

To play Devil's Advocate usually includes the precursor about the following scenario being purposely conflicting to illicit debate.

Not necessarily it could be a simple fact that they just cant afford it.......so if we aren't debating then what are we doing...

 

[StorminNorman]

I certainly am. He was more forward thinking than many of his contemporaries.

I am always baffled when someone tries to remove the Human Element from endeavors that include humans, not to mentions entirely perceived and given definition by them.

That aspect alone is what demonstrates to me the necessity of capitalism - true lassiez faire capitalism.

 

[dnno1]

my job is also ' at will ' employment...basically I can be fired at any time for any reason.....most jobs, at least up here, are like that

That is not necessarily the case. Most state and ferderal employees are not "at will" and if you are a member of a labor union under a contract, you can only be fired for just cause (in other words, there must be a good reason for firing an employee). Even with that, there are still public policy exceptions for "at will" states. An employee in an "at will" state can not be terminated for wilstle blowing or testifying against his own company for example. In another case, an employee can not be fired for refusing to do something that would break the law. Such exceptions have basically weakend the efficacy of "at will" and one can no longer trully say that an "at will" employee can always be terminated on those grounds.

 

[StorminNorman]

Government staying completely out of the market will lead directly to corporatism and soft fascism. The corporations will simply buy out the government (like they haven't already I suppose) and use its power on their behalf to increase their profits and influence. See the military industrial complex as a prime example.

If there is no government intervention into the economy of any kind, how can corporations have any effect buying politicians?

 

[WildcatNC]

If there is no government intervention into the economy of any kind, how can corporations have any effect buying politicians?

*I just reread my post and i'm tired and cant tell if it seems incoherent. If it is then I apologize*


Because if you have removed the government entirely as a regulator or watchdog then what is the next step?

Use the government to "assist" your profitability of course. Paying politicians to let you raid the vast tax coffers is incredibly profitable and negotiated by someone on your payroll with someone else's money.

Big business has no loyalty to free market principles. They use them or cheat them, whatever benefits them. It wouldn't be long before government was taking actions to distort the market IN FAVOR of the business's that invested enough in the politicians.

Whats to stop the military industrial complex from exerting influence to bring us into military conflicts to boost their profits?, much of which get passed back to the eager politicians who enabled the whole thing. I would argue this is a major reason we went into Iraq. $$$$$$

History should show you that these kinds of endeavors are the norm for the financial elite, always have been, always will be. There is still a ruling class and the ruled class.

Once we have removed the regulatory mechanisms then there would be no going back. Russia (as it is now) has some lessons for us in that regard. Not the same situation obviously but serves as a warning nonetheless.

I think my fundamental difference with many is that I don't think a "pure profit motive" has the inherent checks and balances in it like some seem to think. It only has those in ideal circumstances. How easy would it be for Microsoft to have completed its near monopoly during its rise if allowed? You think you would stand a chance starting a business and competing with them? Do you think most companies have a loyalty to the "competition" principle? What about "equity of information"? You think they use framing to circumvent demand side principles?

It supports all that only when it benefits them. When they are big enough that it doesn't anymore they find ways around them.

The entire abstract goal of all business is to maximize profit. The most efficient means to do so is from the position of a monopoly. If given the chance ALL business's aspire to achieve a monopoly.


I'm a fan of capitalism and think its the best system we've come up with but its still a work in progress. Its not a true science like most seem to think. We shouldn't act like we've got it all figured out.

 

[chaseter]

Look at all of these unions opting out of Obamacare:
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

Now why are they doing that?

 

[chaseter]

Not necessarily it could be a simple fact that they just cant afford it.......so if we aren't debating then what are we doing...

Making sweet passionate secks in the dumpster out behind Wendy's?

If you get that reference I will give you a dollar.

 

[StorminNorman]

*I just reread my post and i'm tired and cant tell if it seems incoherent. If it is then I apologize*


Because if you have removed the government entirely as a regulator or watchdog then what is the next step?

Use the government to "assist" your profitability of course. Paying politicians to let you raid the vast tax coffers is incredibly profitable and negotiated by someone on your payroll with someone else's money.

Big business has no loyalty to free market principles. They use them or cheat them, whatever benefits them. It wouldn't be long before government was taking actions to distort the market IN FAVOR of the business's that invested enough in the politicians.

Whats to stop the military industrial complex from exerting influence to bring us into military conflicts to boost their profits?, much of which get passed back to the eager politicians who enabled the whole thing. I would argue this is a major reason we went into Iraq. $$$$$$

History should show you that these kinds of endeavors are the norm for the financial elite, always have been, always will be. There is still a ruling class and the ruled class.

Once we have removed the regulatory mechanisms then there would be no going back. Russia (as it is now) has some lessons for us in that regard. Not the same situation obviously but serves as a warning nonetheless.

I think my fundamental difference with many is that I don't think a "pure profit motive" has the inherent checks and balances in it like some seem to think. It only has those in ideal circumstances. How easy would it be for Microsoft to have completed its near monopoly during its rise if allowed? You think you would stand a chance starting a business and competing with them? Do you think most companies have a loyalty to the "competition" principle? What about "equity of information"? You think they use framing to circumvent demand side principles?

It supports all that only when it benefits them. When they are big enough that it doesn't anymore they find ways around them.

The entire abstract goal of all business is to maximize profit. The most efficient means to do so is from the position of a monopoly. If given the chance ALL business's aspire to achieve a monopoly.


I'm a fan of capitalism and think its the best system we've come up with but its still a work in progress. Its not a true science like most seem to think. We shouldn't act like we've got it all figured out.

I would contend that a capitalist economy is apathetic to the desires of corporations and simply no longer exists when government decides to cater to those desires. It is, I contend, ONLY government that can allow corporations to achieve unnatural economic occurrences like monopoly.

I would also contend that there is a natural morality to the markets that makes profit-maximization dependent upon corporate responsibility. The best example is BP - if BP doesn't fill the gulf with oil, their profits for their year increase 20 billion dollars (the government imposed escrow fund only serves to make it simple to place a figure on the cost clean up, not a demonstration of the necessity of government intervention. Without government enforcement BP would still be legally liable and their world-standing would depend on their reaction to oil clean up) + the potential profits they would have earned if their image was not tarnished with the spill + the destruction of value in the billions BP has spent on PR campaigns over the past years (no American consumer connects BP with their pre-spill commercials, rendering the investment void).

Therefore if a corporation wishes to maximize profits, they won't spill oil in the gulf.

Now it is only through government intervention that they can avoid these costs. With the government's endorsement of BP's response, consumers are less likely to make their own judgments. With the lobbyist forged tax code, BP was able to apply for billions in corporate-friendly tax credits. With government imposed liability caps, BP had the possibility of avoiding the costs of their actions. Many in and out of government expressed concerned for innocent BP shareholders and the need to protect their investment when it seems to me that forcing BP shareholders to bare the consequences of BP's actions would serve to encourage the shareholders of other companies to be more curious in the practices of their invested companies, understanding that their investment is not invulnerable and dependent upon competent management.

Only governments can enable corporations to revoke free markets, that is why government must stay completely out of the economy.

 

[SuBe]

I would contend that a capitalist economy is apathetic to the desires of corporations and simply no longer exists when government decides to cater to those desires. It is, I contend, ONLY government that can allow corporations to achieve unnatural economic occurrences like monopoly.

I would also contend that there is a natural morality to the markets that makes profit-maximization dependent upon corporate responsibility. The best example is BP - if BP doesn't fill the gulf with oil, their profits for their year increase 20 billion dollars (the government imposed escrow fund only serves to make it simple to place a figure on the cost clean up, not a demonstration of the necessity of government intervention. Without government enforcement BP would still be legally liable and their world-standing would depend on their reaction to oil clean up) + the potential profits they would have earned if their image was not tarnished with the spill + the destruction of value in the billions BP has spent on PR campaigns over the past years (no American consumer connects BP with their pre-spill commercials, rendering the investment void).

Therefore if a corporation wishes to maximize profits, they won't spill oil in the gulf.

Now it is only through government intervention that they can avoid these costs. With the government's endorsement of BP's response, consumers are less likely to make their own judgments. With the lobbyist forged tax code, BP was able to apply for billions in corporate-friendly tax credits. With government imposed liability caps, BP had the possibility of avoiding the costs of their actions. Many in and out of government expressed concerned for innocent BP shareholders and the need to protect their investment when it seems to me that forcing BP shareholders to bare the consequences of BP's actions would serve to encourage the shareholders of other companies to be more curious in the practices of their invested companies, understanding that their investment is not invulnerable and dependent upon competent management.

Only governments can enable corporations to revoke free markets, that is why government must stay completely out of the economy.

I second and support every word of this post.

 

[BlackLantern]

but what about massive abuse of conditions?? (ie Lehman Bros., Bear Sterns)

the SEC has proven somewhat ineffective in seeing these things coming or seeing them and just not acting on it