Wal Mart anti Union video

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-w1nqzYTS4

Why is walmart so scared of unions? Ah, they listen to "associates," corporations are looking more draconian than the old stalninst USSR.

[Salyut]

I've wanted to see one of these videos for some time now. Thanks for finding it.

"Unions spending my paycheck on political campaigns, oh the horror!"

Doesn't Walmart back the Republican Party?

[Zapatas Guns]

How dare those evil Unions fight to get workers better pay, hours, and benefits. if I want to work for shit pay and with no power in anything I do than that is my right. /end sarcasm

[Bud Struggle]

Makes sense to me! :lol::lol::lol:

;)

[Burn A Flag]

If Wal-Mart is so labor friendly, then why do they have such shit low wages?

[Bud Struggle]

If Wal-Mart is so labor friendly, then why do they have such shit low wages?

You don't need to make high wages--all you'd do is spend them on Union dues anyway!

[bcbm]

its almost kind of sick when the guy says he is one of hundreds of thousands of former union members.

yeah, they all lost their union jobs during deindustrialization in the 70's and 80's and now they work at wal-mart for less money and fewer benefits. i'm sure in real life they are just as chipper about it.

[Nolan]

corporations are looking more draconian than the old stalninst USSR.

Actually it was more draconian after Stalin, especially after the return of market capitalism.

[Skooma Addict]

I am part of a union and so far it has only been a burden. Hopefully the minimum wage is not raised again, as I would like to keep my job so I can continue to afford to go to school.

[Robocommie]

Listen to Wal-Mart, unions are bad! Your employer says unions are bad! We listen to our employees! You do not need unions! TRUST US.

I had a girlfriend once who worked at Wal-Mart. She hated every single day. It's absolute bullshit corporate propaganda that they listen to you. In fact for the longest time she didn't even know her supervisor's first name. A while back the company started assigning hours worked from their central office in Bentonville, so she had no input at all on what hours she worked and if she wanted to rearrange her work schedule it had to be a long, bureaucratic process.

And let's be honest, this "employees, oh, ha ha, I meant associates!" thing is just a term denoting their practice of 40 part time workers to do the work of 20 full time workers, because part time workers don't get expensive things like benefits. Not that Wal-Mart is unique for that.

[Nolan]

Of course these people don't need unions. If there were these actors might not have jobs.

[Nolan]

I am part of a union and so far it has only been a burden. Hopefully the minimum wage is not raised again, as I would like to keep my job so I can continue to afford to go to school.

Ah, the wonders of loop-holed, half-assed regulations.

[The Red Next Door]

Wal bullshit as usually,

[redSHARP]

fuck this video, makes me fucking sick. I never understood why people get fired they sometimes blame "raised wages" and unions; why not blame the guy who handed you the slip?

[Stephen Colbert]

I also hate when people blame economic hardship on unions and people getting more than they are entitled to. Yea, some people are getting more than they are entitled to-- and they are the same fucking people exploiting and dividing working class people to not understand the necessity of organized labor and how it could spell serious trouble for those in power.

[RGacky3]

You don't need to make high wages--all you'd do is spend them on Union dues anyway!

Yeah, because giving them to the company (where you don't have a vote, is much better).


I am part of a union and so far it has only been a burden. Hopefully the minimum wage is not raised again, as I would like to keep my job so I can continue to afford to go to school.

I love how in your mind the ONLY answer is either take a pay cut or loose your job, thats the only option, taking from the captialist, or the capitalist taking a hit is never an option, its freaking rediculous.

[Dean]

I am part of a union and so far it has only been a burden. Hopefully the minimum wage is not raised again, as I would like to keep my job so I can continue to afford to go to school.

I'm sure you take 100% of the union contract for granted, too. Which union is it?

[Havet]

Ok everybody needs to fucking chill

There are good unions and bad unions. What makes an union good is its ability to represent the interests of its workers. If the workers think they can demand better terms individually, then joining an union would do no good.

But overall, collective effort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining#United_States) translates with higher standards for the working class, and that should be encouraged.

This video in particular is very dangerous, it really looks like corporate propaganda. It is assuming all unions are inefficient (hence losing customers), when in fact it is as simple as good management. Good management doesn't mean we need to find an angel to elect as the union representative, it just means that unions HAVE TO BE more transparent and more accountable to its members, something that Obama has unfortunately brought down (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Rolling-back-union-transparency-and-accountability-89723077.html). (And people still have the nerve to call him a socialist xD)

[Bud Struggle]

What is interesting about the video is how amaturish it is. WalMart with all it's money could have hired Steven Spielburg and Brad Pitt to make this video if they wanted.

There's something not quite right about this whole thing.

Besides if you don't like WalMart's union policy then union people shouldn't buy there, that's the best best way to change policy.

[RGacky3]

What is interesting about the video is how amaturish it is. WalMart with all it's money could have hired Steven Spielburg and Brad Pitt to make this video if they wanted.

There's something not quite right about this whole thing.

Besides if you don't like WalMart's union policy then union people shouldn't buy there, that's the best best way to change policy.

If it was not an actual WalMart company video, but was portraid as one, don't think for a second WalMart would'nt get rid of it.

BUt its a freaking instructional video for employees, what do you expect?


I've wanted to see one of these videos for some time now. Thanks for finding it.

"Unions spending my paycheck on political campaigns, oh the horror!"

Doesn't Walmart back the Republican Party?

No you don't get it, when the CEO does it its good, because YOU don't have a say in it, if its someone accountable to your vote its bad.

Whats funny, is that people will call a union corrupt when it acts slightly like a corporation is expected to act. If your boss spends your companies profits on political campains, shut your mouth, he's the boss, but if someone, WHO YOU HAVE A VOTE FOR does it, its corrupt.

Its exactly like a democracy and a monarchy, if a monarch abuses his power and inprisons a political enemy, its ok, because its expected, its institutionalized, if a politician in a democracy does it its a crime and a scandel, its the same thing with unions and corporations.

[Raúl Duke]

BUt its a freaking instructional video for employees, what do you expect?

They still make these kind of dumb-ass propaganda that not one single wallmart employee believes in?

It's not the fact that the video is a lie or a propaganda, but just the fact that they make believe or going through the motions of showing you this video (if it is an instructional video they show to new hires) instead of being honest that is insulting.

I mean, companies should just cut the bull-shit and be honest because no one buys that bullshit for a second.

[Jazzratt]

They still make these kind of dumb-ass propaganda that not one single wallmart employee believes in? I went for an interview at ASDA (it's part of the creepily named "Wal*Mart Family") and they showed one of these videos. I doubt most people actually employed there would be able to watch it without rolling their eyes or shouting but it's not really for them. I could see how, by watching that at a staff induction, you could easily be fooled into the idea that putting cabbages on shelves and helping mouthbreathers find the bread (in the aisle labled "Bread", for fuck's sake. In 25cm letters and everything) is enjoying fulfilling work.

[Robocommie]

This is actually classic capitalist bullshit, to be honest. "Ignore the unions, they're just out to use you, unlike us, and one day if you work hard enough you can be the boss."

[Skooma Addict]

There are good unions and bad unions. What makes an union good is its ability to represent the interests of its workers. If the workers think they can demand better terms individually, then joining an union would do no good.

Except often times it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not you are part of the union. You are harmed by the union either way.

[Nolan]

Except often times it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not you are part of the union. You are harmed by the union either way.

So tell us, dear olaf, how has your token union ruined your working life?

[Havet]

Except often times it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not you are part of the union. You are harmed by the union either way.

Any examples you'd like to share?

[Dean]

Except often times it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not you are part of the union. You are harmed by the union either way.

I'm sure every other worker was lamenting their padded compensation as the result of collective bargaining.

Funny how the folks on your side of the aisle are quick to lament any organized labor economic activity, but consistently refuse to criticize any of the same on the part of capital-owners.

We're all waiting to hear how terrible the labor union at your workplace was. This should be your best round of garbage yet!

[Jazzratt]

Except often times it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not you are part of the union. You are harmed by the union either way. Perhaps instead the employer should be able to fire you arbitrarily, pay you a starvation wage and force you to work whenever the fuck he wants you to, that way you won't feel like a total hypocritical arse when you enjoy the benefits (8 hour day, minimum wage, protection from unfair dismisal and the fact you aren't working in a fucking sweatshop) that have come from unions.

[Skooma Addict]

Man, my rep has really taken a nose dive from this thread.


Any examples you'd like to share?

I am not going to go into detail and share any specific personal examples if that is what you mean. Now I can point out relevant generic examples which apply to the real world (some of which happen to apply for me) as well if that is what you meant.


Perhaps instead the employer should be able to fire you arbitrarily, pay you a starvation wage and force you to work whenever the fuck he wants you to, that way you won't feel like a total hypocritical arse when you enjoy the benefits (8 hour day, minimum wage, protection from unfair dismisal and the fact you aren't working in a fucking sweatshop) that have come from unions.I am not protected from "unfair dismissal" because I am not important enough for the union to grant me that protection. I can be fired for any reason. If cuts need to be made and it comes down to me and a less productive employee with good union status, I am gone.

My wage would also be about what it is whether or not my store was unionized (my schedule would be better though). If I were being payed starvation wages, another company could pay me a higher wage and profit from it. Unions are only useful in specific cases and for specific purposes.

[Bud Struggle]

Perhaps instead the employer should be able to fire you arbitrarily, pay you a starvation wage and force you to work whenever the fuck he wants you to, that way you won't feel like a total hypocritical arse when you enjoy the benefits (8 hour day, minimum wage, protection from unfair dismisal and the fact you aren't working in a fucking sweatshop) that have come from unions.

And indeed the union have done a lot of good things, most of those in the past. But now a days a lot (though certainly not all) unions are moribund dinosuars fat with inflated union dues and corruption. All unions aren't good and all unions aren't bad--it depends on the union.

All in all though, the workers of WalMart need a decent union to straighten things out for the workers. And--no union is better tthan a bad union.

[Sir Comradical]

In real life, they'd all be fired for standing around and talking. Degenerates...

[Invincible Summer]

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Walmart-Cult&id=30397

And I can't find a clip, but I've seen it in a documentary where Wal-mart has these staff pep rallies where they all chant something about Wal-mart being awesome or something sick.

[Havet]

I am not going to go into detail and share any specific personal examples if that is what you mean. Now I can point out relevant generic examples which apply to the real world (some of which happen to apply for me) as well if that is what you meant.

Well I didn't mean a personal example, just a real-life specific example that you have studied and/or witnessed. It does not have to necessarily have happened to you, otherwise there'd be no privacy left.

And a couple of generic examples which apply to real world would also be encouraged.

[RGacky3]

Man, my rep has really taken a nose dive from this thread.


Free Market people's hatred of unions shows their true colors, its not about "freedom" its not about "markets," its about class power, thats it, their point of view is 100% that of Capitalist power and buisiness interests. Thats why they hate unions, even though they are not government or anything like that, its because they hate democracy.


Now I can point out relevant generic examples which apply to the real world (some of which happen to apply for me) as well if that is what you meant.


But you also have to point out how it would be better without the union, with the capitalist in total control.


I am not protected from "unfair dismissal" because I am not important enough for the union to grant me that protection. I can be fired for any reason. If cuts need to be made and it comes down to me and a less productive employee with good union status, I am gone.


Good union status? Your either a member or not, if your not part of a union, of coarse you'll be sacked first because the boss does'nt want to have to fight with the union, but thast just proof that unions work.

Unions are demoratic, which means one worker 1 vote, so I don't know what you mean by union status.


My wage would also be about what it is whether or not my store was unionized (my schedule would be better though). If I were being payed starvation wages, another company could pay me a higher wage and profit from it. Unions are only useful in specific cases and for specific purposes.

No, because there is 10% unemployment and the other company would pay starvation wages anyway, because they would make a bigger profit and get away with it. No company will pay more than they absolutely can get away with without a union.

But what union are you a part of?


And indeed the union have done a lot of good things, most of those in the past. But now a days a lot (though certainly not all) unions are moribund dinosuars fat with inflated union dues and corruption. All unions aren't good and all unions aren't bad--it depends on the union.

All in all though, the workers of WalMart need a decent union to straighten things out for the workers. And--no union is better tthan a bad union.

I actually think a bad union is better than no union, depending on how bad, (obviously one that is basically a mob front is useless, but one that is slightly less democratic or more beurocratic is still better than being at the total mercy of the boss),

But as to your analysis, where are you getting this? unions nowerdays have done A LOT of good in America since the early 2000s, especially since white collar workers and service workers started joining unions more. Also, what corruption? Any examples in the last 10 years?

[Dean]

I am not protected from "unfair dismissal" because I am not important enough for the union to grant me that protection. I can be fired for any reason. If cuts need to be made and it comes down to me and a less productive employee with good union status, I am gone.

My wage would also be about what it is whether or not my store was unionized (my schedule would be better though). If I were being payed starvation wages, another company could pay me a higher wage and profit from it. Unions are only useful in specific cases and for specific purposes.

So, the best you can offer is that it would be "marginally better" in terms of scheduling without a union - without even explaining why this is so? For one thing, your examples are so vague as to render them meaningless. They amount to hearsay.

You know what might help? Statistics concerning worker compensation as it relates to the presence of collective bargaining:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20050616ar01p1.htm

Data from the March 2002 Current Population Survey (CPS) (http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm), for example, show that unionized workers are 16.4 percentage points more likely than similar nonunion workers to be covered by an employer-provided health insurance plan, and 18.8 percentage points more likely to participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan.

Also: http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp143/

It should come as no surprise that unions raise wages, since this has always been one of the main goals of unions and a major reason that workers seek collective bargaining. How much unions raise wages, for whom, and the consequences of unionization for workers, firms, and the economy have been studied by economists and other researchers for over a century (for example, the work of Alfred Marshall). This section presents evidence from the 1990s that unions raise the wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise total compensation by about 28%.

...

Since unions have a greater impact on benefits than wages (see Freeman 1981), estimates of the union premium for wages alone are less than estimates of the union premium for all compensation (wages and benefits combined). That is, estimates of just the wage premium understate the full impact of unions on workers' pay. A 1999 study by Pierce estimates the union premium for wages at 20.3% and compensation at 27.5% in the private sector (see Table 1). Thus, the union impact on total compensation is about 35% greater than the impact on wages alone. (A later section reviews the union impact on specific fringe benefits such as paid leave, health insurance, and pensions.)

Hmm, seems like there are real data to prove that you're full of shit once again Olaf.

[Dimentio]

I would guess that Olaf doesn't plan to be a part of his company for long and therefore doesn't care about unionisation. His goal is to study so he could become a doctor, a teacher or a capitalist.

[Jazzratt]

I would guess that Olaf doesn't plan to be a part of his company for long and therefore doesn't care about unionisation. His goal is to study so he could become a doctor, a teacher or a capitalist. He seems to be studying economics so any jobs that are socially useful or indeed of any benefit to other people (doctor, teacher) are probably anathema to him. Capitalist, stockbroker, economist or some other maleficient leech profession that's a net defeciet to humanity seems more likely.

[Skooma Addict]

Well I didn't mean a personal example, just a real-life specific example that you have studied and/or witnessed. It does not have to necessarily have happened to you, otherwise there'd be no privacy left.

And a couple of generic examples which apply to real world would also be encouraged.

Okay, here is an example which I have eyewitnessed. My company made an agreement with the union to base pay on hours worked as opposed to productivity like it used to be. Even though the two have a lot of overlap, this is not always the case. Some people who work at my company just walk around aimlessly, grab a broom or something, and then pretend to do something (which is not even part of their job). They will make twice as much money as me even though I work twice as hard. Were cuts made, I would go first since the cost to fire me if far far cheaper than the cost to fire them. Were there no union, my position relative to theirs would be better.

Generic examples include the minimum wage, which is a binding price floor which makes it impossible for some laborers to find jobs, the inability of some people to join some unionized companies without being able to negotiate their own terms, and the fact that unions have contributed to companies going bankrupt.

Also, you all should be explaining what is so great about unions since people are paying money to support them. I assume many people think that without unions we would all work 12 hour days and we would be working in sweatshops, right?


Free Market people's hatred of unions shows their true colors, its not about "freedom" its not about "markets," its about class power, thats it, their point of view is 100% that of Capitalist power and buisiness interests. Thats why they hate unions, even though they are not government or anything like that, its because they hate democracy.It has nothing to do with class. I don't even take "class" to be a very important concept. I care about my own interests, not the interests of my business, nor of my union, nor of the union workers. Besides, it is not like I am in favor of banning unions. They just should not receive support from the government unless it is clear they are being abused. I am just trying to point out that they aren't as great as you guys make them out to be.


But you also have to point out how it would be better without the union, with the capitalist in total control.Okay, without the union I wouldn't have to pay union fees. There you go.


Good union status? Your either a member or not, if your not part of a union, of coarse you'll be sacked first because the boss does'nt want to have to fight with the union, but thast just proof that unions work.

Unions are demoratic, which means one worker 1 vote, so I don't know what you mean by union status.I told you already, my union does not care about me. I am only given protection from being fired after I have worked there for X amount of hours. As of now, I really do get nothing from the union except the ability to vote.

I have to work for the company for Y amount of hours before I get even the most basic benefits (benefits which I would reject if I could pocket my union payments). However, I am going back to college long before then.


So, the best you can offer is that it would be "marginally better" in terms of scheduling without a union - without even explaining why this is so? For one thing, your examples are so vague as to render them meaningless. They amount to hearsay.
I don't see what was so vague.



Hmm, seems like there are real data to prove that you're full of shit once again Olaf.
Nothing presented in your data goes against anything I have said, nor is it anything I would have denied. I would expect average wages to be higher in unionized industries.


I would guess that Olaf doesn't plan to be a part of his company for long and therefore doesn't care about unionisation. His goal is to study so he could become a doctor, a teacher or a capitalist. Correct (although none of those professions specifically).

Unions aren't as great as you guys claim, but they are better than a lot of free marketers claim. They are in the middle ground.

[RGacky3]

Also, you all should be explaining what is so great about unions since people are paying money to support them. I assume many people think that without unions we would all work 12 hour days and we would be working in sweatshops, right?

Well, thats kind of what happened in the past, and its what happens today in areas without strong unions or workers rights.


Okay, here is an example which I have eyewitnessed. My company made an agreement with the union to base pay on hours worked as opposed to productivity like it used to be. Even though the two have a lot of overlap, this is not always the case. Some people who work at my company just walk around aimlessly, grab a broom or something, and then pretend to do something (which is not even part of their job). They will make twice as much money as me even though I work twice as hard. Were cuts made, I would go first since the cost to fire me if far far cheaper than the cost to fire them. Were there no union, my position relative to theirs would be better.


There are problems with both forms of payment, but that has nothing to do with the unions. Had it been the otherway around some people might be able to make enough due to no faul of their own, and now is more steady, but pay by the hour is not a union concept.

But heres the thing, that form of payment was on that was decided by a union which is elected by the workers, the boss is not elected, are you saying that the boss makes better desicions for the workers? Were there no union you have no idea what things would be like.


Generic examples include the minimum wage, which is a binding price floor which makes it impossible for some laborers to find jobs, the inability of some people to join some unionized companies without being able to negotiate their own terms, and the fact that unions have contributed to companies going bankrupt.

Really? THe minimum wage is the reason for unemployment? So that would figure that countries with minimum wage have much much better employment right?

As far as people negotiating on their own terms, first of all they can if they're not in a union, second of all negotiating on your own terms is extreamly extreamly hard if not impossible given the power of individual capital over labor.

As far as your third fact is concerned, facts please?


It has nothing to do with class. I don't even take "class" to be a very important concept. I care about my own interests, not the interests of my business, nor of my union, nor of the union workers. Besides, it is not like I am in favor of banning unions. They just should not receive support from the government unless it is clear they are being abused. I am just trying to point out that they aren't as great as you guys make them out to be.


Unless its clear they are being abused? Abused??? Class conflict my friend, capitalism is based on abuse, union busting happens all the time.

It is about class, people like you preach free markets all the time, yet you ALWAYS defend big buisiness, and ALWAYS attack unions, why? None of the 2 have anything to do with free markets for or against, its because you guys are suckers, libertarians are suckers, tea baggers are suckers, being used by the capitalist class. Your argument about buisiness is always the market will handle itself, what about unions? THey arn't government institutions (unlike most big buisinesses and capitalists), infact they were opposed and still are by many governments, often violently, they are more free market than anything.


Okay, without the union I wouldn't have to pay union fees. There you go.

Well I guess you'd rather be ruled by a dictator as long as you would'nt have to pay taxes. You'd be happy in Cuba I think.


I told you already, my union does not care about me. I am only given protection from being fired after I have worked there for X amount of hours. As of now, I really do get nothing from the union except the ability to vote.


WHAT IS YOUR UNION???

Anyway, any conditions at your workplace would probably be thrown away had it not been for the union, also the ability to vote means your union HAS to care about you, whereas your boss, you don't vote for.


I don't see what was so vague.


Whats your union?


Unions aren't as great as you guys claim, but they are better than a lot of free marketers claim. They are in the middle ground.

Also saying "unions" arn't great is like saying *democratic countries" arn't great, theres differences, but they are all better than being at the total behest of a dictator (aka boss).

[Skooma Addict]

Well, thats kind of what happened in the past, and its what happens today in areas without strong unions or workers rights.It happens in countries where the labor force in unproductive relative to what we see in countries like America today. However, were there no unions in America, we would not all be working in sweatshops. Our productivity as workers relieves us from such a burden. However, in other countries (and America in the past) the sweatshops and factories are far far better than the alternatives given to the workers. If you started demanding 7.50 an hour for people working in sweat shops, most of them would just lose their jobs. You wouldn't be helping them.


There are problems with both forms of payment, but that has nothing to do with the unions. Had it been the otherway around some people might be able to make enough due to no faul of their own, and now is more steady, but pay by the hour is not a union concept.

But heres the thing, that form of payment was on that was decided by a union which is elected by the workers, the boss is not elected, are you saying that the boss makes better desicions for the workers? Were there no union you have no idea what things would be like.I was just pointing out specifically how the union harmed me. I would have been better off had the pay been the way it was before the union. This goes perfectly with my point that unions help some workers and hurt others.



Really? THe minimum wage is the reason for unemployment? So that would figure that countries with minimum wage have much much better employment right?

As far as people negotiating on their own terms, first of all they can if they're not in a union, second of all negotiating on your own terms is extreamly extreamly hard if not impossible given the power of individual capital over labor.

As far as your third fact is concerned, facts please?As for the minimum wage, it is a reason for unemployment, as long as it is binding. I am not going to debate what the effect of binding price floors is. But no, we would have to take more into account before we just claimed that countries with a minimum wage would have more unemployment than countries without them.

Negotiating my own terms wouldn't be that hard. The owner could profit up to the point where they pay me my DMVP, and so I could work somewhere else if they refused to do so.

As for the third fact, look at some of the American car companies.


It is about class, people like you preach free markets all the time, yet you ALWAYS defend big buisiness, and ALWAYS attack unions, why? None of the 2 have anything to do with free markets for or against, its because you guys are suckers, libertarians are suckers, tea baggers are suckers, being used by the capitalist class. Your argument about buisiness is always the market will handle itself, what about unions? THey arn't government institutions (unlike most big buisinesses and capitalists), infact they were opposed and still are by many governments, often violently, they are more free market than anything.Capitalists are not united as a class like you are implying. It is not like they are coming together and plotting to use libertarians for their own ends in some kind of secret operation. But no, I do not always defend big business. I support environmental regulations and the protection of private property for common citizens for example.


Well I guess you'd rather be ruled by a dictator as long as you would'nt have to pay taxes. You'd be happy in Cuba I think.I don't consider my boss a dictator. I just could care less if I am part of a "democratic union of workers" if the majority makes decisions which are in direct opposition to my interests.


WHAT IS YOUR UNION???

Anyway, any conditions at your workplace would probably be thrown away had it not been for the union, also the ability to vote means your union HAS to care about you, whereas your boss, you don't vote for.I am not going to tell you what my union is.

My union has to care about me because I can vote? It doesn't matter if I vote one way when my interests aren't aligned with the majority of the people in the union. If the union cared about me then they wouldn't go out of their way to make it so much easier to get me fired. All the union in my company does is protect seniority.


Also saying "unions" arn't great is like saying *democratic countries" arn't great, theres differences, but they are all better than being at the total behest of a dictator (aka boss).Unions aren't that great. In some cases, they are justifiable. But in many, there is no point in having them. But at the same time they aren't all evil organizations like some free marketers claim.


He seems to be studying economics so any jobs that are socially useful or indeed of any benefit to other people (doctor, teacher) are probably anathema to him. Capitalist, stockbroker, economist or some other maleficient leech profession that's a net defeciet to humanity seems more likely.I am far more concerned about earning a high income than I am about whether or not you deem my job to be "socially useful." But I am not training to become a capitalist, stockbroker, or an economist.

[RGacky3]

It happens in countries where the labor force in unproductive relative to what we see in countries like America today. However, were there no unions in America, we would not all be working in sweatshops. Our productivity as workers relieves us from such a burden. However, in other countries (and America in the past) the sweatshops and factories are far far better than the alternatives given to the workers. If you started demanding 7.50 an hour for people working in sweat shops, most of them would just lose their jobs. You wouldn't be helping them.


Un productive???? You mean .... like china? Like india? You moron.

Our productivity has nothing to do with whether or not we work in sweatshops, its not like capitalists will pay us more because of our productivity just to be nice, they'll take as much and give as little, its capitalism.

Your talking about the alternatives is stupid, thats alternatives in THIS system, the other alternative, is organizing and taking as much control as possible of your workplace. As if the only other alternative is to just play by the Capitalists rules, which is be ruled by us or die.


As for the minimum wage, it is a reason for unemployment, as long as it is binding. I am not going to debate what the effect of binding price floors is. But no, we would have to take more into account before we just claimed that countries with a minimum wage would have more unemployment than countries without them.

Well, on average no we would'nt, there are many countries to choose from, on average there should be.

The federal minimum wage came in at 1939, the unemployment rate in 1938 was 19%, at 1940 was 14.6%, ok 1 year, lets try 5 years ahead, 1942 was 1.2%. Whaaaatttt?


I was just pointing out specifically how the union harmed me. I would have been better off had the pay been the way it was before the union. This goes perfectly with my point that unions help some workers and hurt others.

In the long run you would'nt be, most of the benefits you have now whether or not your part of a union are from unions (as if buisinesses would give benefits just to be nice).


Negotiating my own terms wouldn't be that hard. The owner could profit up to the point where they pay me my DMVP, and so I could work somewhere else if they refused to do so.


It would be that hard becuase you have a lot too loose and the boss has a lot lot less to loose, you don't know much about economics do you.


As for the third fact, look at some of the American car companies.

The UNIONS bankrupted the company??? How?


Capitalists are not united as a class like you are implying. It is not like they are coming together and plotting to use libertarians for their own ends in some kind of secret operation. But no, I do not always defend big business. I support environmental regulations and the protection of private property for common citizens for example.


Its not secret, who funds Americans for prosperity, the cato institute? THey spit out talking points and libertarians eat it up.

Protection of private property for common citizens? Your joking right? Thats like saying "I believe in banning sleeping under the bridge for millionaires, not just homeless people."


I don't consider my boss a dictator. I just could care less if I am part of a "democratic union of workers" if the majority makes decisions which are in direct opposition to my interests.


You'd rather just your boss make those decisions which you have no say in and are inevitabily against your interests.

Again, you'd feel right at home in the USSR.


I am not going to tell you what my union is.


Why not? Because I'm thinking your full of it, shut me up and tell me what your union is, otherwise I'm calling bull.

What are you? too loyal to your union?


My union has to care about me because I can vote? It doesn't matter if I vote one way when my interests aren't aligned with the majority of the people in the union. If the union cared about me then they wouldn't go out of their way to make it so much easier to get me fired. All the union in my company does is protect seniority.


Ok, so you are arguing that a dictatorship is better than democracy, thats exactly your argument.

Vote against the leaders then, if you don't like it, most unions fight for entry leval workers just as much as senior workers because entry level workers vote too. But whats your union? Because I think your full of it.


Unions aren't that great. In some cases, they are justifiable. But in many, there is no point in having them. But at the same time they aren't all evil organizations like some free marketers claim.

Ok, let me restate

"Also saying "unions" arn't great is like saying *democratic countries" arn't great, theres differences, but they are all better than being at the total behest of a dictator (aka boss). "

[Skooma Addict]

Un productive???? You mean .... like china? Like india? You moron.

Our productivity has nothing to do with whether or not we work in sweatshops, its not like capitalists will pay us more because of our productivity just to be nice, they'll take as much and give as little, its capitalism.

Your talking about the alternatives is stupid, thats alternatives in THIS system, the other alternative, is organizing and taking as much control as possible of your workplace. As if the only other alternative is to just play by the Capitalists rules, which is be ruled by us or die.Workers in America are more productive due to capital accumulation. One worker in America can do a lot more than one person working in a sweatshop in China.

If a capitalist pays you starvation wages, another one can profit from hiring you. If there are no other competitors, someone can profit by entering the industry.


Well, on average no we would'nt, there are many countries to choose from, on average there should be.

The federal minimum wage came in at 1939, the unemployment rate in 1938 was 19%, at 1940 was 14.6%, ok 1 year, lets try 5 years ahead, 1942 was 1.2%. Whaaaatttt?Well, it should be clear why there was 1.2% unemployment in 1942...

Also, you are looking at America during the great depression, and again this proves nothing since there are many other variables which can cause unemployment to go up or down (govt work programs for example). Not only that, but theoretically employment can go up when the minimum wage is increased. It is just that employment would be lower than it otherwise would have been.

The concept of a binding price floor is very simple. Tell me, what would happen if there were a 100 dollar per hour minimum wage?


It would be that hard becuase you have a lot too loose and the boss has a lot lot less to loose, you don't know much about economics do you.If the boss wants to pay me too far below my DMVP for my liking, too bad for him. I will go work for someone else and he will be worse off than he could have been had he accepted my terms.



Protection of private property for common citizens? Your joking right? Thats like saying "I believe in banning sleeping under the bridge for millionaires, not just homeless people."I believe in enforcing the common persons right to private property. This is anti-big business, as I am sure many of them would love eminent domain to be expanded.


Why not? Because I'm thinking your full of it, shut me up and tell me what your union is, otherwise I'm calling bull.

What are you? too loyal to your union?Well I am not going to tell you, and I truly and honestly do not care if you think I am lying.

I am not saying more out of fear of my union than loyalty to it.


Ok, so you are arguing that a dictatorship is better than democracy, thats exactly your argument.:laugh:


Vote against the leaders then, if you don't like it, most unions fight for entry leval workers just as much as senior workers because entry level workers vote too. But whats your union? Because I think your full of it.My say is too small to matter. I am not going to say what my union is, and if you are going to accuse me of lying, then what is the point of this discussion?


"Also saying "unions" arn't great is like saying *democratic countries" arn't great, theres differences, but they are all better than being at the total behest of a dictator (aka boss). "So you accept my claim that unions aren't as great as you make them out to be then?

[Dean]

Nothing presented in your data goes against anything I have said, nor is it anything I would have denied. I would expect average wages to be higher in unionized industries.


Except often times it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not you are part of the union. You are harmed by the union either way.

Right, so a net increase in worker compensation is "harm." And you also indicate that the "industry," rather than union-member workers benefit from increased wages - further indication the the unions help non-union members (in right to work states, union contract benefits are required to be given to non-union members, too).

Lots of "harm" there, no doubt. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

I am far more concerned about earning a high income than I am about whether or not you deem my job to be "socially useful." Yes, we know you're a sociopath, you don't need to spell it out.

[Dimentio]

Unions are affected by two things:

1. How decentralised and democratic they are.

2. How active the workers are within them.

The second factor is probably the most important one. I think a great factor behind the weakness of unions in the USA in general is the fact that only like 12% of the work force is unionised. In Sweden, the number is about 75%, but that was partially because unionised workers used to get tax benefits before the alliance government took over.

[Ocean Seal]

Yes, I remember reading Nickel and Dimed and Ehrenreich spoke about Walmart's introductory anti-union video. Something about losing your voice... Hmmm so my voice tells me to not fight for higher pay and more humane conditions?

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, we know you're a sociopath, you don't need to spell it out.

Lol, what? I am a sociopath now?

I am an evil sociopath who has been brainwashed by some secret group of capitalists I guess.

[RGacky3]

I am an evil sociopath who has been brainwashed by some secret group of capitalists I guess.

Those are your words?


Workers in America are more productive due to capital accumulation. One worker in America can do a lot more than one person working in a sweatshop in China.

If a capitalist pays you starvation wages, another one can profit from hiring you. If there are no other competitors, someone can profit by entering the industry.


Proof about American productivity?

As far as another person profiting from hiring you, no he can't because he'll be making less of a profit, plus he's probably just hire someone else and pay them starvation wages, not a problem with 10% unemployment.


Not only that, but theoretically employment can go up when the minimum wage is increased. It is just that employment would be lower than it otherwise would have been.


Theres no proof of that, but even if it was, it just goes to show the absurdity of the capitalist system, it MUST maximize profit, no matter what, and the first to take any sort of hit are the workers. But btw, the minimum wage is a government program not a union one.


The concept of a binding price floor is very simple. Tell me, what would happen if there were a 100 dollar per hour minimum wage?

it would probably be different from what it is now, whats your point, numbers matter.


If the boss wants to pay me too far below my DMVP for my liking, too bad for him. I will go work for someone else and he will be worse off than he could have been had he accepted my terms.

Except maybe you can't find another job, maybe you have rent to pay, maybe there is high unemployment and others that will accept it, maybe other companies won't pay you higher because of the same reasons, maybe you live in the real world.


I believe in enforcing the common persons right to private property. This is anti-big business, as I am sure many of them would love eminent domain to be expanded.


Thats not anti big buisiness you moron. Like I said, its akin to saying "its illigal for millionares AND bums to sleep under the bridge.


I am not saying more out of fear of my union than loyalty to it.

Really? Your union is gonna check on revleft? They are going to track down who you really are? THen punish you? Are you insane?


:laugh:

Your saying a single unnaccountable person makes a better desicion than a democratic institution, so ... yeah, refute it.


My say is too small to matter. I am not going to say what my union is, and if you are going to accuse me of lying, then what is the point of this discussion?


Well its easy to refute me calling you a lier, but your say maybe small, but if its a real issue others would have it too, also you would prefer to have NO say?


So you accept my claim that unions aren't as great as you make them out to be then?

No they are as great as I make them out to be, and what I make them out to be is democratic instutions, which may sometimes have problems are are tons better than the alternative.


I am an evil sociopath who has been brainwashed by some secret group of capitalists I guess.

Evil is your words, and brainwashed but a group of capitalists are your words too.

[Skooma Addict]

Those are your words?I was just combining some of the asinine accusations which I have encountered.


Proof about American productivity?

As far as another person profiting from hiring you, no he can't because he'll be making less of a profit, plus he's probably just hire someone else and pay them starvation wages, not a problem with 10% unemployment.You want me to provide proof that one worker in America can accomplish more than one worker in a sweatshop in china? Isn't this common knowledge? Aren't you aware of the technology and capital which can be utilized by an American worker which a Chinese child in a sweatshop does not posses? I am assuming there was a misunderstanding. I am not saying that America workers work harder or anything like that.

They could hire someone else and hire me and still profit. No matter what they could profit until they pay me my DMVP. There is also an incentive for newcomers to enter any industry where workers are being underplayed. This just is not a problem in the long term no matter what.


Theres no proof of that, but even if it was, it just goes to show the absurdity of the capitalist system, it MUST maximize profit, no matter what, and the first to take any sort of hit are the workers. But btw, the minimum wage is a government program not a union one.So then you do not credit unions for the minimum wage, correct?


it would probably be different from what it is now, whats your point, numbers matter.Ill tell you what would happen. It would be impossible for most people to find employment. Now take this same concept and apply it to the modern minimum wage. Same concept, but a lesser effect.


Thats not anti big buisiness you moron. Like I said, its akin to saying "its illigal for millionares AND bums to sleep under the bridge.No it isn't. Historically big businesses have violated property rights whenever they could get away with it. Take for example factories which got away with polluting farms during the industrial revolution.


Your saying a single unnaccountable person makes a better desicion than a democratic institution, so ... yeah, refute it.What you are accusing me saying of doesn't even make sense. Refute that an unaccountable person makes a better decision than a democratic institution?

I don't know if you knew this but your boss is more accountable for their actions than a dictator.


Well its easy to refute me calling you a lier, but your say maybe small, but if its a real issue others would have it too, also you would prefer to have NO say?It really makes no difference to me if I have no say or a say that does not matter and will never make a difference.

[Dimentio]

If there was a 100 dollar minimum wage, the value of the dollar would plummet. That wouldn't matter for anyone who doesn't have large savings of dollars though. Inflation is overestimated as a threat.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]A while back the company started assigning hours worked from their central office in Bentonville, so she had no input at all on what hours she worked and if she wanted to rearrange her work schedule it had to be a long, bureaucratic process.

Why should she have an input when she works? Her job existed to provide a service for somebody else. What- The customer is supposed to arrange his life based upon your girlfriend's?

[RGacky3]

You want me to provide proof that one worker in America can accomplish more than one worker in a sweatshop in china? Isn't this common knowledge? Aren't you aware of the technology and capital which can be utilized by an American worker which a Chinese child in a sweatshop does not posses? I am assuming there was a misunderstanding. I am not saying that America workers work harder or anything like that.


Your argument was that the productivity in America was due to higher standards? Why are factories going to China? Where did technology come from? that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


They could hire someone else and hire me and still profit. No matter what they could profit until they pay me my DMVP. There is also an incentive for newcomers to enter any industry where workers are being underplayed. This just is not a problem in the long term no matter what.


Maybe they can make a better profit JUST hiring you, maybe they could make a better profit fireing you hiring someone else and making him work twice as hard knowing he'lll do it becuase they could fire him and hire you.

As for your second point, I think you misstyped it, can you clerify?


So then you do not credit unions for the minimum wage, correct?

They pushed for it yes, but its not a unoin program, its a government one.


Ill tell you what would happen. It would be impossible for most people to find employment. Now take this same concept and apply it to the modern minimum wage. Same concept, but a lesser effect.

Yeah, but there are bounds of reason, its not all or nothing, thats like saying "if you drink wine everyday all the time its bad for you, so don't drink wine." Thats rediculous, its the market system, trying to be regulated by the government because it does'nt regulate itself.


No it isn't. Historically big businesses have violated property rights whenever they could get away with it. Take for example factories which got away with polluting farms during the industrial revolution.

So? defending property rights still almost 99% benefits the buisiness class.


I don't know if you knew this but your boss is more accountable for their actions than a dictator.


Not to you.


It really makes no difference to me if I have no say or a say that does not matter and will never make a difference.

Ok, but there is NO reason you would'nt mention your union other than your full of it, whats the reason? Fear? Seriously?

[Havet]

Ok, but there is NO reason you would'nt mention your union other than your full of it, whats the reason? Fear? Seriously?

Probably the same reason why one isn't allowed to post personal information and images

[Nolan]

[QUOTE=Robocommie;1800719]


Why should she have an input when she works? Her job existed to provide a service for somebody else. What- The customer is supposed to arrange his life based upon your girlfriend's?

This is such a muddleheaded comment I don't know where to begin.


Why should she have an input when she works?

Because she's the worker. Without the worker no goods or services would ever be provided. Without bosses, services can - and have been.


Her job existed to provide a service for somebody else.

So?


What- The customer is supposed to arrange his life based upon your girlfriend's?

Red herring. And false on top of that. Try again.

[RGacky3]

Probably the same reason why one isn't allowed to post personal information and images

What union your part of is not personal information, its like saying what bank you use.

[Havet]

What union your part of is not personal information, its like saying what bank you use.

There is a (small) likelihood he can loose his job if someone in his union finds out where he works

In any case, its still personal information, and if he thinks there is a risk for him sharing it, then you should respect that. Of course, his credibility will suffer, but if he thinks its better than his job suffering, then that is his decision to make.

[RGacky3]

There is a (small) likelihood he can loose his job if someone in his union finds out where he works


No there is'nt, telling what union he works in has absolutely no risk at all.

The reason I want to know, is because different unions have different policies, and I'd like to know, because most unions will defend newcommers in the industry.

[Dean]

I guess Olaf still thinks that higher wages - which he further claims extend to non-union workers - is still some kind of "harm" from the unions, since he refuses to address the point.

Funny how those with liberal economic stances tend toward obscure absurdity: "people have a right to medicine for life-threatening situations because I feel that way; unions harm workers though their average compensation increases are 18-28% and these benefits even get passed on to non-members."

Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

[leftace53]

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Walmart-Cult&id=30397

And I can't find a clip, but I've seen it in a documentary where Wal-mart has these staff pep rallies where they all chant something about Wal-mart being awesome or something sick.

they do, they chant "W-A-L *squiggly* M-A-R-T, what does that spell? WAL MART!, who is right? CUSTOMER!"
I almost worked at wal-mart but then I found another job at a local bakery. Man was I every pleased to not have to work there.
When I was there for the interview process, there was like an entire 20 mins dedicated to what wal mart can offer you, and why wal mart is the best. It was pretty ridiculous.

[Scary Monster]

Free Market people's hatred of unions shows their true colors

I think all you guys are forgetting the Mises thread where Skooma favors fascism over a worker's society ;) I think that shows how he feels about unions.

[Robocommie]

Why should she have an input when she works? Her job existed to provide a service for somebody else. What- The customer is supposed to arrange his life based upon your girlfriend's?

Uh... what? Have you ever worked a job before? Arranging work schedules with your superiors is a pretty normal part of being employed.

[Skooma Addict]

I think all you guys are forgetting the Mises thread where Skooma favors fascism over a worker's society ;) I think that shows how he feels about unions.

Glad to know you think the U.S.S.R was a "workers society."

[Dean]

Glad to know you think the U.S.S.R was a "workers society."

At the time of Mises' writing, the character of the USSR hadn't been fully revealed - and as you noted, it was more in opposition to socialism than any kind of autocratic rule. I think Mises' positions are rather clear.

[RGacky3]

Glad to know you think the U.S.S.R was a "workers society."

Maybe not, but I'm sure he smiled when salvador allende was taken out by Pinochet, the fact is over and over again radical capitalists have shown a contempt for democracy and freedom and have always been for autocratic rule.

[Scary Monster]

Glad to know you think the U.S.S.R was a "workers society."

Lol i think this quote is what folks here would call a "strawman argument" since ive never once said the USSR was a workers society.
And hell no the USSR wasnt a workers society. I dont think thats what you would call a state which still retained bureacracy and top-down management.

But anyhoo, in the context of what Mises had written, and what others here have noted, there was not a proper account of the characteristics of the USSR at the time. As everyone argued in the Mises thread, he was glad fascism swept through europe and suppressed socialism, any momentum of a worker's movement, and you declared that you sided with Mises' argument.

[Ele'ill]

[QUOTE=Robocommie;1800719]


Why should she have an input when she works? Her job existed to provide a service for somebody else. What- The customer is supposed to arrange his life based upon your girlfriend's?


I see you have yet to enter the working world- let alone the working world of retail.

How would you like a 3pm-12am shift followed by an 8am-5pm shift followed by a 5am-2pm shift followed by a 10am-7pm shift followed by two days off then a nine day stretch without time off with those types of erratic hours. It's what we call bullshit.

[Skooma Addict]

At the time of Mises' writing, the character of the USSR hadn't been fully revealed - and as you noted, it was more in opposition to socialism than any kind of autocratic rule. I think Mises' positions are rather clear.

Mises' positions are not clear to you, as you attacked two strawmen during that conversation.


Lol i think this quote is what folks here would call a "strawman argument" since ive never once said the USSR was a workers society.

In which case your initial claim makes no sense, as Mises preferred fascism in Practice (Italy) to Socialism in Practice (U.S.S.R.). Mises did not consider either to be a "workers society."


And hell no the USSR wasnt a workers society. I dont think thats what you would call a state which still retained bureacracy and top-down management.

Right. It is just the result of attempting socialism on a large scale.


But anyhoo, in the context of what Mises had written, and what others here have noted, there was not a proper account of the characteristics of the USSR at the time.

Whatever it is you mean by that. I have no clue.


As everyone argued in the Mises thread, he was glad fascism swept through europe and suppressed socialism, any momentum of a worker's movement, and you declared that you sided with Mises' argument.


Right, he was glad that it stopped Bolshevism-which was responsible for far more deaths than Italian fascism at the time the book was written-from spreading through the whole of Europe. A Europe divided between fascism and socialism (that is, what they look look like in real life) is better than a Europe which is dominated by either of the two.

[Loknar]

The union 'idea' is very tyrannical!

The past two jobs I've been hired at REQUIRED that I join the union, there was no other option. There was no other option! Why shouldnt I have a choice?

Basically at both jobs I lost $30 dollars at each job at the beginning of the month...imagine my frustration when useless individuals walk in with food stamps on the 1st of the month...

[RGacky3]

Right. It is just the result of attempting socialism on a large scale.

How was socialism attempted? Did they democratize the economy? If not, it was'n attempted.

[Dean]

In which case your initial claim makes no sense, as Mises preferred fascism in Practice (Italy) to Socialism in Practice (U.S.S.R.). Mises did not consider either to be a "workers society."
There is no escaping the fact that fascism had been in general far more stratified and totalitarian than the USSR or other socialist regimes at the time of his writing. The bottom line is that he supports any for-profit model as opposed to any popular management of social arrangements.

He supports centralized power - its not really a controversial point. All the anti-socialist rhetoric I've seen your kind post here has made it increasingly clear.

[∞]

Associates, associates, they're so good when they direct us what to do...what, do these guys have beaten-wife-syndrome?

My dad's friend works in a Union and hes the most highly paid Cashiers I've ever seen.

[Loknar]

Yes because cashiers deserve to make $15 per hour.

I work in a grocery store. Many veteran employees there (who will retire with their glamorous pension plans) simply do not work as hard as people such as my self who are paid less.

The only factor determining your pay is solely based on how long you have been working there. I alternate, in my department, with one other worker. We do the same amount of labor and yet he is paid about %66 more than I am paid and has a pension.

My experience working under these conditions has made me anti union. I want the uniion around as a counter weight to my employer however I am sick of them defending people who steal and continuely enforce these unfair payment practices.

Jesus I work with such an unproductive labor force that I am called yo cashier because the people making $15 an hour (I make $9) arent moving their arms fast enough.

I wonder if any communists have experienced this...it's frustrating...

[∞]

Yes because cashiers deserve to make $15 per hour.
First, I wasn't trying to justify their pay, I was only attacking the Wal-Mart propaganda against it.



I work in a grocery store. Many veteran employees there (who will retire with their glamorous pension plans) simply do not work as hard as people such as my self who are paid less.
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj290/TheWoodenBlock/coolstorybro5.jpg

I work at a medical clinic, but who the fuck cares?


The only factor determining your pay is solely based on how long you have been working there. I alternate, in my department, with one other worker. We do the same amount of labor and yet he is paid about %66 more than I am paid and has a pension.
They've also dealt with financial burdens you can only dream about.

My experience working under these conditions has made me anti union. I want the uniion around as a counter weight to my employer however I am sick of them defending people who steal and continuely enforce these unfair payment practices.
That is why I'm an Anarcho Syndicalist because we shouldn't have a boss, and I'd rather have the Union harassing associates than have people slave for barely enough to get by... Collective bargaining is meh...but collective ownership is the only real system which can advocate 1) Working harder 2)Participating in all decisions which need to be made.

















Jesus I work with such an unproductive labor force that I am called yo cashier because the people making $15 an hour (I make $9) arent moving their arms fast enough.

I wonder if any communists have experienced this...it's frustrating...

Aaaw, maybe we should abolish people being able to organize and demand better conditions. Even better idea, why don't we live in a fascist country, then we can all be dirt poor.

[Dean]

Yes because cashiers deserve to make $15 per hour.

I work in a grocery store. Many veteran employees there (who will retire with their glamorous pension plans) simply do not work as hard as people such as my self who are paid less.

The only factor determining your pay is solely based on how long you have been working there. I alternate, in my department, with one other worker. We do the same amount of labor and yet he is paid about %66 more than I am paid and has a pension.

My experience working under these conditions has made me anti union. I want the uniion around as a counter weight to my employer however I am sick of them defending people who steal and continuely enforce these unfair payment practices.

Jesus I work with such an unproductive labor force that I am called yo cashier because the people making $15 an hour (I make $9) arent moving their arms fast enough.

I wonder if any communists have experienced this...it's frustrating...

I never cried a tear for Kroger when I worked there, primarily because they were managing a multi-million dr/day facility when I was making 7.50/hr, and "meritocratic pay rises" at 15-35C were 15C across the board.

It's good to know you're so concerned with what some else will make from your labor. Me? I'm concerned about my own interests.

[Hiero]

its almost kind of sick when the guy says he is one of hundreds of thousands of former union members.

yeah, they all lost their union jobs during deindustrialization in the 70's and 80's and now they work at wal-mart for less money and fewer benefits. i'm sure in real life they are just as chipper about it.

It is an interesting point. It is true in Australia, get alot of older guys who had a trade, but there is not longer the market for that labour. It happen in Newcastle, Australia when the BHP steel works shut down. Now all thoose guys are working as causals at super markets. Though in Australia the anti-Union propoganda isn't as a common as in the USA.

[Havet]

Me? I'm concerned about my own interests.

Atlas Shrugged much?

[Dean]

Atlas Shrugged much?

No, child. :wub:

[Loknar]

I never cried a tear for Kroger when I worked there, primarily because they were managing a multi-million dr/day facility when I was making 7.50/hr, and "meritocratic pay rises" at 15-35C were 15C across the board.

It's good to know you're so concerned with what some else will make from your labor. Me? I'm concerned about my own interests.

Hey I'm concerned about my interests as well and thats why I do a good job.

I'm merely pointing out what union labor ends up accomplish when you remove pay based upon merit.

[Dean]

Hey I'm concerned about my interests as well and thats why I do a good job.

I'm merely pointing out what union labor ends up accomplish when you remove pay based upon merit.

Higher compensation across the whole industry. If you were "for your interests" you'd support this. As it stands, you're more interested in the utility of your bosses at whatever grocery chain you worked at, which makes you a laughable little clown.

[Loknar]

Higher compensation across the whole industry. If you were "for your interests" you'd support this. As it stands, you're more interested in the utility of your bosses at whatever grocery chain you worked at, which makes you a laughable little clown.

No I dont support it. I understand seniority pay but it shouldnt be the only factor determining wage increase. Productivity should be the highest factor. Thanks to unions, not only is your pay based upon seniority, it's also a window into unsustainable pension funds.

What do you mean by the utility of my bosses?

[Dean]

No I dont support it. I understand seniority pay but it shouldnt be the only factor determining wage increase. Productivity should be the highest factor. Thanks to unions, not only is your pay based upon seniority, it's also a window into unsustainable pension funds.

What do you mean by the utility of my bosses?

There is no personal benefit for you getting pay on commission (which is the ), primarily because unions didn't cause companies to switch from that model. Companies also prefer stable wage costs, because it allows for smoother and more flexible budgeting. They would prefer to pay you 10$ an hour rather than an average of 9$/hr on inconsistent commission!

Furthermore, there is no evidence that pay rises for production would amount to the added compensation that labor unions are able to leverage for.

The bottom line is that you don't understand economic activity in the slightest. This is why you are couching your pro-capitalist rhetoric in a false sense of self-interest. It's complete bullshit, and you've shown that you don't even have much self-interest that drives your ideology. It's all improvised justifications, and rather terrible at that.

Both you fucking idiots claimed that labor unions hardmed the labor force, and proceeded to give the worst, most incomprehensible arguments for this, or in Olaf's case, actually give contrary evidence.

[Skooma Addict]

Both you fucking idiots claimed that labor unions hardmed the labor force, and proceeded to give the worst, most incomprehensible arguments for this, or in Olaf's case, actually give contrary evidence. Dean, of all people, you should not be accusing others of making incomprehensible arguments. Nobody denies that Unions can help many of their members. The problem is that unions help their members at the expense of other workers. Since you just spewed out a few insults, I am justified in having you do a little reading.

From MES...

How may a union achieve a restrictionist price? Figure 69 will illustrate. The demand curve is the demand curve for a labor factor in an industry. DD is the demand curve for the labor in the industry; SS, the supply curve. Both curves relate the number of laborers on the horizontal axis and the wage rate on the verti*cal. At the market equilibrium, the supply of laborers offering their work in the industry will intersect the demand for the labor, at number of laborers 0A and wage rate AB. Now, suppose that a union enters this labor market, and the union decides that its members will insist on a higher wage than AB, say 0W. What unions do, in fact, is to insist upon a certain wage rate as a minimum below which they will not work in that industry.
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/images/fig69.gif




The effect of the union decision is to shift the supply curve of labor available to the industry to a horizontal one at the wage rate WW', rising after it joins the SS curve at E. The minimum reserve price of labor for this industry has risen, and has risen for all laborers, so that there are no longer laborers with lower reserve prices who would be willing to work for less. With a supply curve changing to WE, the new equilibrium point will be C instead of B. The number of workers hired will be WC, and the wage rate 0W.

There is another reason why an openly restrictionist union will cause less unemployment than a more liberal one. For the union which restricts its membership serves open warning on workers hoping to enter the industry that they are barred from joining the union. As a result, they will swiftly look elsewhere, where jobs can be found. Suppose the union is democratic, however, and open to all. Then, its activities can be described by the above figure; it has achieved a higher wage rate 0W for its working members. But such a wage rate, as can be seen on the SS curve, attracts more workers into the industry. In other words, while 0A workers were hired by the industry at the previous (non*union) wage AB, now the union has won a wage 0W. At this wage, only WC workers can be employed in the industry. But this wage also attracts more workers than before, namely WE. As a result, instead of only CF workers becoming unemployed from the union’s restrictionist wage rate, more—CE—will be un*employed in the industry.

[iskrabronstein]

This is a ridiculous argument against unions, as are most arguments that one pulls directly from Econ 101 textbooks. In the given model, unless the concern under threat of unionization comprises a monopolistic market share (in which case more workers are excluded by anti-competitive barriers to entry than by union activities proper, anyway) then its unionization alone cannot force an increase in base wage rate to the extent that you suggest.

Unions are not some kind of anti-productive hysteria that sweep the hoi polloi every so often - they are political organs that work under very difficult conditions in organization and operation, and one unionized concern in a relatively competitive market cannot have such a drastic effect on the base wage rate. The threat of unionization would at most force an increase in wage-rate to around the median value between market minimum and union minimum - because, it is to be remembered, the vast majority of union victories in conflict with management are based on working conditions and work benefits. Coupled with this trend in collective bargaining is the simple fact that unions in new industries are subject to concentrated economic and political attack from their own and other managements.

You capitalists always argue like these political and economic organisms exist in a vaccuum, do not react and change constantly according to circumstance.

So, if you can find a single example of a union entering a hitherto non-union industry, and forcing the base wage-rate up by such a drastic amount due to solely its bargaining, not the concomitant unionization of other concerns within the market, then I'll reconsider my criticisms.

But until you provide some proof that this model actually describes how the phenomena operate, do try to remember that we Marxists understand economics too.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, most of the time one single labor union won't make that much of a difference in an industry with many competitors (assuming it is small). However, unions still insist on a higher wage than otherwise would have been the case, and thus necessarily cut the number of would be employees. So yes, most of the time one union will not make much of a difference (just as one of the old style craft unions did not make much of a difference). However, unions will still have the effect which has been outlined. Also, lets not forget that there are some very large unions which certainly by themselves can have a major influence over the demand for labor.

Victories by unions in regards to working conditions and benefits would still have the same effect by the way.

[Dean]

Dean, of all people, you should not be accusing others of making incomprehensible arguments. Nobody denies that Unions can help many of their members. The problem is that unions help their members at the expense of other workers. Since you just spewed out a few insults, I am justified in having you do a little reading.

From MES...

How may a union achieve a restrictionist price? Figure 69 will illustrate. The demand curve is the demand curve for a labor factor in an industry. DD is the demand curve for the labor in the industry; SS, the supply curve. Both curves relate the number of laborers on the horizontal axis and the wage rate on the verti*cal. At the market equilibrium, the supply of laborers offering their work in the industry will intersect the demand for the labor, at number of laborers 0A and wage rate AB. Now, suppose that a union enters this labor market, and the union decides that its members will insist on a higher wage than AB, say 0W. What unions do, in fact, is to insist upon a certain wage rate as a minimum below which they will not work in that industry.
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/images/fig69.gif


I've seen a lot of these charts, and they always rely on a few assumptions:

-the given commodity experiences "sticky prices" (labor does not)
-the given industry is sensitive to commodity costs to the point of demand changes ("law" of demand)
-that this model reflects real market conditions in general.

The bottom line is that this is a fairly common economic model, and it has rather curious consequences: that is, that all market influence is bad, and free, uninhibited market activity always has the best results.

Don't believe me? Replace unions with any other economic activity down to the sale of a given commodity and you will see that applying standard macro/microeconomic theories will consistently show some kind of damaging effect.

In fact, they ignore rather critical issues, such as the relative power of employers versus employees, a similar concept expressed here:

Finally, there is competition between the buyers and the sellers: these wish to purchase as cheaply as possible, those to sell as dearly as possible. The result of this competition between buyers and sellers will depend upon the relations between the two above-mentioned camps of competitors – i.e., upon whether the competition in the army of sellers is stronger. Industry leads two great armies into the field against each other, and each of these again is engaged in a battle among its own troops in its own ranks. The army among whose troops there is less fighting, carries off the victory over the opposing host.

Let us suppose that there are 100 bales of cotton in the market and at the same time purchasers for 1,000 bales of cotton. In this case, the demand is 10 times greater than the supply. Competition among the buyers, then, will be very strong; each of them tries to get hold of one bale, if possible, of the whole 100 bales. This example is no arbitrary supposition. In the history of commerce we have experienced periods of scarcity of cotton, when some capitalists united together and sought to buy up not 100 bales, but the whole cotton supply of the world. In the given case, then, one buyer seeks to drive the others from the field by offering a relatively higher price for the bales of cotton. The cotton sellers, who perceive the troops of the enemy in the most violent contention among themselves, and who therefore are fully assured of the sale of their whole 100 bales, will beware of pulling one another's hair in order to force down the price of cotton at the very moment in which their opponents race with one another to screw it up high. So, all of a sudden, peace reigns in the army of sellers. They stand opposed to the buyers like one man, fold their arms in philosophic contentment and their claims would find no limit did not the offers of even the most importunate of buyers have a very definite limit.

Your model relies very particularly on this kind of fact - external to the above model - not existing.

In simple terms, if it is still valuable to employ labor, there is incentive. As we have seen, however, investments provide more lucrative returns, so manufacturing labor has more or less vanished in the United States, and across the globe, moneyed interests are learning that the credit risk of lending to services and manufacturing is not worth the risk: http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-lending-falls-across-the-globe-2009-12

Probably because capital accumulation has reached a critical mass (http://www.businessinsider.com/not-everyone-is-hurting--the-rich-get-richer-as-the-income-inequality-gap-explodes-2010-3 (http://www.businessinsider.com/not-everyone-is-hurting--the-rich-get-richer-as-the-income-inequality-gap-explodes-2010-3)) and any further sucking will make the whole system shudder.

In other words: just because some Misean blowhard used inapplicable, narrow economic theories to justify anti-union bias doesn't mean shit. You admitted yourself that unions raise wages in the whole industry.

[Skooma Addict]

-the given commodity experiences "sticky prices" (labor does not)

I don't see how this is even relevant. Wages are sometimes sticky in the short run. If labor is not sticky, what is the problem? The graph does not make any such assumption.


-the given industry is sensitive to commodity costs to the point of demand changes ("law" of demand)

Okay, so are you going to deny the law of demand? lol.


-that this model reflects real market conditions in general.

Rothbard does not just assume this. He explains why this is the case.

I also don't see how your quote from the man who was decisively refuted in the 1800's is in any way relevant. It doesn't even make that much sense.


Your model relies very particularly on this kind of fact - external to the above model - not existing.

Relies on what fact not existing? Idk what you are talking about.


In simple terms, if it is still valuable to employ labor, there is incentive. As we have seen, however, investments provide more lucrative returns, so manufacturing labor has more or less vanished in the United States, and across the globe, moneyed interests are learning that the credit risk of lending to services and manufacturing is not worth the risk: http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-...-globe-2009-12 (http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-lending-falls-across-the-globe-2009-12)

Irrelevant.


Probably because capital accumulation has reached a critical mass (http://www.businessinsider.com/not-everyone-is-hurting--the-rich-get-richer-as-the-income-inequality-gap-explodes-2010-3 (http://www.businessinsider.com/not-everyone-is-hurting--the-rich-get-richer-as-the-income-inequality-gap-explodes-2010-3)) and any further sucking will make the whole system shudder.

Irrelevant.


In other words: just because some Misean blowhard used inapplicable, narrow economic theories to justify anti-union bias doesn't mean shit. You admitted yourself that unions raise wages in the whole industry.

Unions generally raise wages for their members. If the average wage for the industry goes up, that is only because low skilled labor is prevented from competing.

[RGacky3]

The problem with that graph is that when it comes to labor demand is ALWAYS gonna be the least amount to get the most work done, when it comes to unskilled labor there is always gonna be unemployment so they arn't gonna be fighting for laborers, when it comes to skilled labor there is a finite supply however those skilled laborers can't really switch industries can they.

When it comes to labor especially the supply and demand is just a tiny part of the equation.

As far as attracting more workers its not going to unless their are jobs available, and actually a union might help for that, by reducing hours and making it more costly to work people overtime.

[Dean]

Irrelevant.



Irrelevant.
No, it is relevant, you arrogant, dismissive creep. The chart relies on a lowered demand for labor which is only accomplished if it is no longer profitable to employ labor. In fact, we've seen that non-service production is weaker than financial sector investment. This is why the derivatives market is three times as large as our total held assets. These conditions have the direct effect if disempowering labor and commodity production investments.

Furthermore, the above relies on the notion that a larger reserve price will be acquired for labor, but gives no proof as to why this is the case.

[Skooma Addict]

No, it is relevant, you arrogant, dismissive creep. The chart relies on a lowered demand for labor which is only accomplished if it is no longer profitable to employ labor.
Which it is. It is no longer profitable to hire those people and pay them what the union requires where it would have once been profitable to do so.


In fact, we've seen that non-service production is weaker than financial sector investment. This is why the derivatives market is three times as large as our total held assets. These conditions have the direct effect if disempowering labor and commodity production investments.I don't see how this "disempowers" labor.


Furthermore, the above relies on the notion that a larger reserve price will be acquired for labor, but gives no proof as to why this is the case.Because the number of laborers is reduced. Basic supply and demand.

[Dean]

Which it is. It is no longer profitable to hire those people and pay them what the union requires where it would have once been profitable to do so.
...
Because the number of laborers is reduced. Basic supply and demand.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it can be applied to all pricing regimes.

If Coke demands 1$ for a 20oz drink it narrows the pool of potential buyers and potential sales. But that's not to say it will overall hurt coke or consumers.

There isn't any indication, you see, that the above conclusion is accurate - that the overall result is to unemploy individuals and empower a minority. In the same vein, so there is little evidence that Coke's pricing system has overall lowered the value of its business model.

This is why the above charts are so hard to assess - they can describe particular phenomena, but it can't say, for instance, whether labor pricing is even close enough to its equilibrium value to actually lower demand.


I don't see how this "disempowers" labor.
You don't "see" how investment in derivatives being more lucrative than productive capital investment disempowers those who rely on the latter? No wonder you think worker leverage organizations hurt workers :laugh:

[Skooma Addict]

This is why the above charts are so hard to assess - they can describe particular phenomena, but it can't say, for instance, whether labor pricing is even close enough to its equilibrium value to actually lower demand.Except it doesn't need to be.....

During this conversation I took it for granted that you had at least an elementary understanding of supply and demand. You do not, and thus this conversation cannot continue until you educate yourself on the topic.

The market is never at equilibrium. The demand for labor can change regardless of whether or not the market is close to equilibrium. If what you said was true, then once a certain point is reached (a point far away enough from equilibrium), we should never expect to see the demand for labor change. But this is wrong and stupid.


You don't "see" how investment in derivatives being more lucrative than productive capital investment disempowers those who rely on the latter? No wonder you think worker leverage organizations hurt workers :laugh:Investing in industries simply because they are labor intensive would just lead to malinvestment, and the workers would simply lose their jobs. But no, I don't see how me not investing in the steel working industry disempowers steel workers. They were not born with any right to receive my investments to begin with.

You should stop playing so much oblivion and reread your econ 201 book.

[Dean]

Except it doesn't need to be.....

During this conversation I took it for granted that you had at least an elementary understanding of supply and demand. You do not, and thus this conversation cannot continue until you educate yourself on the topic.

The market is never at equilibrium. The demand for labor can change regardless of whether or not the market is close to equilibrium. If what you said was true, then once a certain point is reached (a point far away enough from equilibrium), we should never expect to see the demand for labor change. But this is wrong and stupid.

Investing in industries simply because they are labor intensive would just lead to malinvestment, and the workers would simply lose their jobs. But no, I don't see how me not investing in the steel working industry disempowers steel workers. They were not born with any right to receive my investments to begin with.

You should stop playing so much oblivion and reread your econ 201 book.
The classic problem with your ridiculous posts: conflation between power and rights. What an idiot.

[Skooma Addict]

I don't see how I disempower someone who I don't associate with directly or indirectly. Unless that is you are making the classic false assumption that the economy is a zero sum game...

[RGacky3]

But no, I don't see how me not investing in the steel working industry disempowers steel workers. They were not born with any right to receive my investments to begin with.

The fact that YOU (the investor) get to choose whether or not they recieve investment is disempowering.

[Dean]

The fact that YOU (the investor) get to choose whether or not they recieve investment is disempowering.

What are you talking about? Divestment doesn't harm the subject or those who depend on it! Money and its movement doesn't matter! We could all learn a thing or two from Meth Addict.

[Skooma Addict]

The fact that YOU (the investor) get to choose whether or not they recieve investment is disempowering.

The fact that you don't spend all your money at McDonalds disempowers the workers there. Every dollar you spend somewhere else is a dollar you could have spent at McDonalds. Thus, you are constantly disempowering McDonalds workers.

[∞]

Lets put these unions aside, instead of collective bargaining lets try collective ownership. The problem with these unions is they only cooperate with the bourgeois.

[Dean]

The fact that you don't spend all your money at McDonalds disempowers the workers there. Every dollar you spend somewhere else is a dollar you could have spent at McDonalds. Thus, you are constantly disempowering McDonalds workers.

Consumer purchases are not capital investments.

[Johnny Panic]

You don't need to make high wages--all you'd do is spend them on Union dues anyway!
I pay $9 a month
and the average Union employee makes 3x what non union does

[Johnny Panic]

Lets put these unions aside, instead of collective bargaining lets try collective ownership. The problem with these unions is they only cooperate with the bourgeois.
I agree
Which is why I'm IWW we believe

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

[Manic Impressive]

epic necroing of a thread I clicked on it and was like ah cool Bud Struggle is back then I was like :(

[NoOneIsIllegal]

What happened to him? (I never visit O.I. and probably have heard more about him than his actual posts)

PS: epic necro noice