[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I agree that unions are a huge problem.
But contrast steel to cars - car makers have gotten around union problems, to an extent, by locating new factories in the South or in the West. So there are many new factories producing cars in the U.S. - they just aren’t in the states with ridiculous pro union laws. I’m unaware of the same thing happening with steel plants though.
However, on you union point, unions may well force American car companies to get out of car production all together. Just look at what’s going on with Chrysler and Nissan…[/quote]
I would say that is closer to what should have been in the steel industry
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
However, on you union point, unions may well force American car companies to get out of car production all together. Just look at what’s going on with Chrysler and Nissan…
Yep.
The only interests served by unions are union bosses and lawyers.
$35/hour with awesome health benefits are great for the individual but at a cost of marginal employment on the American auto industry as a whole.[/quote]
That is true , but the way some of these industries are treating their employees , they are only asking for a union to come in. I personally think if there is no mafia in the union ,it would be pretty ineffective.
There’s a nursing shortage. It would take 2 years for them to get an associates degree/certification as an RN. After which they’d earn a pretty decent living. Maybe they could go to their local community college?
Or, maybe sign up for an apprenticeship in a trade, where they’ll actually get paid while learning? Lineman are paid pretty damn well. Same with elevator repairmen. You could do any of this with just a GED.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Without educating you on the benefits of free trade it won’t be possible - you got the basics of it above. The two main benefits:
(1) Consumers got lower prices - consumers of cars, homes, buildings, and anything else made with steel.
(2) Improving efficiency in U.S. resource allocation. If the steel industry wasn’t competitive, better to put resources into other industries that were. Maximizes long-term growth.
[/quote]
Or another example. As a country we can either buy american steel for $100. Or we can by foreign steel for $50 and have $50 left over for some copper. Now we have steel and copper instead of just steel.
We are richer as a nation. And that $50 we sent over seas, it has to eventually come back to us as investment or to purchase american goods or services. There is absolutly no mathmatical justification for protectionism.
The country as a whole is better off if consumers retain their contitutional right to purchase goods or services from anyone they wish to. Industries have always and will always disappear. None are special or worth saving in times of peace. The bugy analogy was a good one.
I think we got a little off track on the imigrant worker argument. The gov’t should ensure that everone plays on an even field. Because they have created an over regulated, and over taxed ecomonomy, the black market for labor is very dangerous.
Those that play by the rules are at a severe disadvantage. Minimum wage, saftey regulations, industry certifications, medical benefits, labor laws, taxes, etc. if they are applied to one, they need to apply to all.
On of the problems with the unions is their mentality. They do not understand that the company has to make money to stay in business so they can have a job.
Typical union thinking is the company has money and plenty of it all the time. They have been told they are entitled to it.
When they see their boss / company owner driving a new car - let’s say a 100k mercedes even. Their first thought is - “that rich smuck can afford to give me another buck or more per hr.” They don’t realize that the company may have 100 or more employess and turn in excess of 250,000 man hrs per yr.
Even at this size of small business just one dollar per hr more means around another 300k to 350k direct cost to the company at those levels. That is far more than the 30k or so per yr cost to drive that car.
Instead of thinking that things must be good and my boss has enough confidence in the future to buy that car, that must mean that the company is sound and my job is secure - therefore I can have confidence in my future. Also, good for him since he is the one risking everything he has everyday.
No - it is just the opposite. The unions have basically brainwashed their members.
Fortunately, most people have figured out that unions are not a good thing anymore - which is why they are down to 8% and falling.
Although most people have caught on to the unions - we are basically an economically illiterate country on average.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
On of the problems with the unions is their mentality. They do not understand that the company has to make money to stay in business so they can have a job.
Typical union thinking is the company has money and plenty of it all the time. They have been told they are entitled to it.
When they see their boss / company owner driving a new car - let’s say a 100k mercedes even. Their first thought is - “that rich smuck can afford to give me another buck or more per hr.” They don’t realize that the company may have 100 or more employess and turn in excess of 250,000 man hrs per yr.
Even at this size of small business just one dollar per hr more means around another 300k to 350k direct cost to the company at those levels. That is far more than the 30k or so per yr cost to drive that car.
Instead of thinking that things must be good and my boss has enough confidence in the future to buy that car, that must mean that the company is sound and my job is secure - therefore I can have confidence in my future. Also, good for him since he is the one risking everything he has everyday.
No - it is just the opposite. The unions have basically brainwashed their members.
Fortunately, most people have figured out that unions are not a good thing anymore - which is why they are down to 8% and falling.
Although most people have caught on to the unions - we are basically an economically illiterate country on average.
[/quote]
It is considerably more complicated than your post; it is the nature of business to beat wages into submission. There are times when business can and should give raises, there are times when they can not and should not.
But business as a whole sees it as cost containment. There are industries that should simply charge more money, so they can run a legal business, meaning pay taxes and pay their labor a fair wage. Cost containment should not be on the backs of labor only
It really is not much more complicated than that. However, I am simply pointing out a common union mentality that does nothing so help their cause. Plus the fact that not everyone is worth the same. That is just common sense.
You can’t have two guys with the same job and pay but one produces better, has a better attitude, better show up, better people skills, etc. and not have this eventually take its toll on the production, performance and attitude of the better worker.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
There are times when business can and should give raises, there are times when they can not and should not.
Actually they should be able to whenever the hell the owner feels like it.
I totally agree, also the labor market has the right to organize and screw the owner
[/quote]
Wow, this is a very different stance then the one you had a few pages ago, about fired employees being able to sue for an apology and back wages.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
There are times when business can and should give raises, there are times when they can not and should not.
Actually they should be able to whenever the hell the owner feels like it.
I totally agree, also the labor market has the right to organize and screw the owner
Wow, this is a very different stance then the one you had a few pages ago, about fired employees being able to sue for an apology and back wages.[/quote]
My stance has always been the same, Fair Trade, Fair labor practices. If companies are fair with labor, there would be no reason labor would want to organize against its own interest
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
There are times when business can and should give raises, there are times when they can not and should not.
Actually they should be able to whenever the hell the owner feels like it.
I totally agree, also the labor market has the right to organize and screw the owner
Wow, this is a very different stance then the one you had a few pages ago, about fired employees being able to sue for an apology and back wages.
My stance has always been the same, Fair Trade, Fair labor practices. If companies are fair with labor, there would be no reason labor would want to organize against its own interest
[/quote]
How do you define fair and how would you enforce it?
I say “fair” is whatever a company can get away with before the employees go somewhere else and whatever employees can get away with before the company hires someone else.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
There are times when business can and should give raises, there are times when they can not and should not.
Actually they should be able to whenever the hell the owner feels like it.
I totally agree, also the labor market has the right to organize and screw the owner
[/quote]
And screw themselves out of a job and then blame the federal gov because they have no job. What owner wants to risk everything and put up with cry baby union bs.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
There are times when business can and should give raises, there are times when they can not and should not.
Actually they should be able to whenever the hell the owner feels like it.
I totally agree, also the labor market has the right to organize and screw the owner
Wow, this is a very different stance then the one you had a few pages ago, about fired employees being able to sue for an apology and back wages.
My stance has always been the same, Fair Trade, Fair labor practices. If companies are fair with labor, there would be no reason labor would want to organize against its own interest
How do you define fair and how would you enforce it?
I say “fair” is whatever a company can get away with before the employees go somewhere else and whatever employees can get away with before the company hires someone else.[/quote]
Nate,
You are using plain old fashioned common sense. Didn’t you know that liberals know what is best for all of us? I am so thankful I have them to protect me from myself.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
There are times when business can and should give raises, there are times when they can not and should not.
Actually they should be able to whenever the hell the owner feels like it.
I totally agree, also the labor market has the right to organize and screw the owner
Wow, this is a very different stance then the one you had a few pages ago, about fired employees being able to sue for an apology and back wages.
My stance has always been the same, Fair Trade, Fair labor practices. If companies are fair with labor, there would be no reason labor would want to organize against its own interest
How do you define fair and how would you enforce it?
I say “fair” is whatever a company can get away with before the employees go somewhere else and whatever employees can get away with before the company hires someone else.[/quote]
That would be fair if every location had a supply of jobs, some places have an over supply of labor and with your idea, it is ripe for abuse. I say fair is where the management is fair to the point the labor feels the company has everyone�??s interest in mind.Not just the owner or the stock holder.
I do not know Toyota�??s or Honda�??s business model is, but they must be reasonably successful at conveying these points.