Right to Work Laws

[Conquer or Die]

Right to Work Laws prevent closed shop contracts that labor unions can force to sign with employers. An employer can find anybody to employ in their businesses without guaranteeing union membership.

I think this is both positive and negative. It prevents specific unions from gaining exclusive contracts for labor that cuts out poorer folks. However, it gives businesses legal power to void contracts and agreements thus striking out options for unions to engage in combat with the employer.

[Jimmie Higgins]

These laws have no intention of helping poor people, they are merely a euphemistically phrased way of saying anti-labor laws.

Modern trade-unions have all kinds of problems in the way that they are run, but "preventing a union closed shop" through "right to work states" just means in effect that the shop is closed and run by the bosses rather than closed by the union.

The anti-union arguments about the problems with unions are about as valid as a Feudal Monarch's arguments about corruption in bourgoise democracies - they are not interested in what's best for the subjects, they are only interested in preventing anything that threatens their autocratic rule.

[Conquer or Die]

These laws have no intention of helping poor people, they are merely a euphemistically phrased way of saying anti-labor laws.

Modern trade-unions have all kinds of problems in the way that they are run, but "preventing a union closed shop" through "right to work states" just means in effect that the shop is closed and run by the bosses rather than closed by the union.

The anti-union arguments about the problems with unions are about as valid as a Feudal Monarch's arguments about corruption in bourgoise democracies - they are not interested in what's best for the subjects, they are only interested in preventing anything that threatens their autocratic rule.

Right to work states have higher employment. They employ those willing to do work. Sacrifices are made for the benefit of the employer, true, but it also forces solidarity in the workplace. It is an anti-Libertarian law which will upset Left-Libertarians and Anarchists but it does not necessarily lead to negative things for the labor movement if it includes poorer workers.

Cesar Chavez spent out his political legacy guarding the border from illegal immigrants to the United States. Skilled Trade Unions have been notoriously conservative and pompous.

Social Liberalism - a dirty word on these forums, has a better solution. Exclusionary policies will not work for the labor movement. The more inclusion the better for the country.

[RGacky3]

Right to work states have higher employment. They employ those willing to do work. Sacrifices are made for the benefit of the employer, true, but it also forces solidarity in the workplace. It is an anti-Libertarian law which will upset Left-Libertarians and Anarchists but it does not necessarily lead to negative things for the labor movement if it includes poorer workers.


The higher employment is simply due to companies invensting where there is less labor protection.

Companies WILL not hire more people no matter what the costs unless they need to. If they need 5 workers and they cost is $20 a worker, they'll pay the $100, if the cost goes down to $10 a worker, they'll pay the $50 and with the extra $50 what do you think they are gonna do? Hire more workers? No, they are gonna pocket the profits. The need of workers has to do with market supply and demand and the industry technology and other factors, if he needed 10 workers he would have hired ten no matter what the cost because he knows he would make a profit.

Lowering labor costs DOES NOT mean more overall employment, lowering labor costs in one area compared to another might mean more investment there, but not actual growth (moving money is'nt growth).


Social Liberalism - a dirty word on these forums, has a better solution. Exclusionary policies will not work for the labor movement. The more inclusion the better for the country.

Unions are not exclusionary, many unions are now chaning with the times to protect illigal immigrants, right to work laws do nothing more than brake up benefits which benefit everyone ultimately.

[Conquer or Die]

The higher employment is simply due to companies invensting where there is less labor protection.

I've never seen any real figures on the subject. Seems like a sore one. I figured it had to do with illegal immigrants picking up the bill for large scale farms and factories.


Companies WILL not hire more people no matter what the costs unless they need to. If they need 5 workers and they cost is $20 a worker, they'll pay the $100, if the cost goes down to $10 a worker, they'll pay the $50 and with the extra $50 what do you think they are gonna do? Hire more workers? No, they are gonna pocket the profits. The need of workers has to do with market supply and demand and the industry technology and other factors, if he needed 10 workers he would have hired ten no matter what the cost because he knows he would make a profit.

They'll employ poorer people and reinvest the money.


Lowering labor costs DOES NOT mean more overall employment, lowering labor costs in one area compared to another might mean more investment there, but not actual growth (moving money is'nt growth).

Firms will reinvest their profits into different production. Since labor historically doesn't take a role in entrepeneurship then the big corporations will be the one subsidizing this cost.

Realistically the only hope for change will be within collectively controlled businesses like market co-operatives and co-operative farms.




Unions are not exclusionary, many unions are now chaning with the times to protect illigal immigrants, right to work laws do nothing more than brake up benefits which benefit everyone ultimately.

Unions, clubs, wealthy neighborhoods et al. have a history of exclusionary policies. They do this to protect their own at the detriment of the whole.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Right to work states have higher employment. They employ those willing to do work. Sacrifices are made for the benefit of the employer, true, but it also forces solidarity in the workplace. It is an anti-Libertarian law which will upset Left-Libertarians and Anarchists but it does not necessarily lead to negative things for the labor movement if it includes poorer workers.It does not increase solidarity because without the right to organize and not be fired for doing so and all the other potential (if not always realized due to bureaucracy or liberal-leadership of unions) of labor organizing, there is no solidarity. It makes it easier for employers to pit workers against each-other in a race to the bottom as far as wages and benefits and working conditions/speed of work.

The ultimate logic of "right to work states" leads straight to dockworker-style "shape-ups" where workers compete with each-other for low-paying jobs or don't get work that day. After all, why should a worker be guaranteed a job the next day just because he worked the day before - how is that "fair" to someone who is unemployed? Why not have workers fight for positions each morning so that only the most "enthusiastic" get to work?

Where do you draw the line of what protections or job security workers should or should not have?


Cesar Chavez spent out his political legacy guarding the border from illegal immigrants to the United States. Skilled Trade Unions have been notoriously conservative and pompous.Yes and bourgeois democracies are notoriously corrupt with no real popular decision-making, but that's no argument for a feudal monarchy or fascist take-over.

The unions are in bad shape and not radical and often not following things that really benefit the rank and file - most radicals on this site agree with this to some degree, but to say the alternative is to hand power over to the business owners is simply wrong unless your goal is more power for the bosses over the workers.

Re: Chavez - he had many political limitations due to his non-radical, yet militant outlook. But primarily Chavez was against the use of undocumented labor because of things like the Bracero program where immigrants were shipped into the US by business just to work for lower wages - in his view they were being used like scabs. This is a wrong way to look at it in the view of radicals - most argue that anyone working should have full rights and ability to organize and that is the way to build solidarity and equality for immigrant and native labor. The history of racism against blacks and Chineese in US labor shows that when one group of workers is denied the rights of the rest of workers, paid less, subject to worse conditions, or even prevented by the union from joining, these oppressed groups become a reserve labor force for business and are used to break strikes and to work as scabs.

The labor movement and even some sections of the radical movement had to learn this and that is why the radical left now is very strongly opposed to jim-crow laws for immigrants and ethnic/racial/religious oppression and divisions in the working class in general.

But again, problems in the labor movement are not a good reason in favor of dictatorial powers for the employers. For the working class, trade-unions are primarily a defensive organization (aside from radical unions). Because of that they have built-in limitations and problems, but it's better to have a shitty defense that might be improved than to give all your ammunition and weaponry over to the enemy.


Social Liberalism - a dirty word on these forums, has a better solution. Exclusionary policies will not work for the labor movement. The more inclusion the better for the country.Without the possibility to organize collectivly, there can be no labor movement, only individual laborers.


Firms will reinvest their profits into different production.All of the US was a "right to work" state before the late 1930s... there were two "Great Depressions" between the Civil War and World War II, so I don't think the 25% unemployment during the 1930s depression makes a very good case for "right to work" increasing employment. In fact much of the industry in the US is moving from the unionized "Rust Belt" to the "right to work" Sunbelt and US South... so actually it's "Right to Work" laws that are causing the 50% unemployment in Detroit - if the South was unionized and people had the same rights, then there would be no profit-incentive for industry to relocate.

"Right to Work" for workers translates to "race to the bottom". Keep this in mind over the next decade because unfortunately - unless there is a popular upsurge like in the 1930s or in Greece and Spain now, austerity and union-busting are in store and Detroit is the future for much of the American working class.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]Companies WILL not hire more people no matter what the costs unless they need to. If they need 5 workers and they cost is $20 a worker, they'll pay the $100, if the cost goes down to $10 a worker, they'll pay the $50

Such a state of affairs has less to do with capitalism, than with problems and solutions which any economy would face. Why would a socialist industry use more workers than they need?


and with the extra $50 what do you think they are gonna do? Hire more workers?

Why would they, if they are uneeded? But why would a socialist industry do so?


No, they are gonna pocket the profits.

Or invest back in the company...


The need of workers has to do with market supply and demand and the industry technology and other factors, if he needed 10 workers he would have hired ten no matter what the cost because he knows he would make a profit.

And a socialist industry would hire 13 even if it only needed 10?

[Dean]

Right to Work Laws prevent closed shop contracts that labor unions can force to sign with employers. An employer can find anybody to employ in their businesses without guaranteeing union membership.

I think this is both positive and negative. It prevents specific unions from gaining exclusive contracts for labor that cuts out poorer folks. However, it gives businesses legal power to void contracts and agreements thus striking out options for unions to engage in combat with the employer.
There is no evidence that labor unions cut out poorer labor - quite the contrary, there is only evidence that they raise wages for the industry they are engaged in, thusly raising the lot of non-union workers as well. And this is a positive externality that labor unions get absolutely no recognition nor compensation for.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And actually anyone interested in what Marx had to say on this very issue, you can check out "Value Price and Profit" where he basically takes on the argument that worker demands for increased wages would cause higher prices or unemployment.

[RGacky3]

Such a state of affairs has less to do with capitalism, than with problems and solutions which any economy would face. Why would a socialist industry use more workers than they need?



People would work less and make more, instead of the extra money being pocketed by the capitalist. It has to do with Capitalism, because capitalism requires getting more out of a worker for less.


Why would they, if they are uneeded? But why would a socialist industry do so?

The extra $50 goes to the workers :), if there are people with no work, people can all work less and make the same amount.


Or invest back in the company...

Which only makes sense if the investment will bring a return, so more often, just pocket it, which is why capitalism requires purpetual growth, which is impossible.


And a socialist industry would hire 13 even if it only needed 10?

A socialist society decides how much people work, what they make, and all of that based on social needs rather than profit, its democratic, so really what ever makes sense to the community.


I figured it had to do with illegal immigrants picking up the bill for large scale farms and factories.


Are they on employment figures?


They'll employ poorer people and reinvest the money.

If reinvesting it makes a return, more than likely they'll pocket it. But without unions thered be a lot more poorer people, so yeah, they'd be hiring poorer people.


Firms will reinvest their profits into different production. Since labor historically doesn't take a role in entrepeneurship then the big corporations will be the one subsidizing this cost.

Realistically the only hope for change will be within collectively controlled businesses like market co-operatives and co-operative farms.


They won't reinvest their profits into different production, more than likely they with pocket it, people that run the first run them for themselves, not for the firm.

Labor does'nt take a role in entrepenourship because it can't, its the banks.

The only hope for change is organization and class warfare, thats always been the hope for change.


Unions, clubs, wealthy neighborhoods et al. have a history of exclusionary policies. They do this to protect their own at the detriment of the whole.

Depends on the Union, Unions, like governments are not all made equal.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1884873]People would work less and make more, instead of the extra money being pocketed by the capitalist.

How so?



It has to do with Capitalism, because capitalism requires getting more out of a worker for less.


What is the advantage for the socialist system to get less from each worker, but cost more?




The extra $50 goes to the workers :), if there are people with no work, people can all work less and make the same amount.


But doesn't this suggest a rather static community? If the enterprise only requires 10 workers, but it uses the labor of 13, does it not mean some other enterprise is short three workers?

[RGacky3]

How so?

WHen purpetual growth and profit is'nt the motivating factor, and democracy is the ruling issue, thats the logical outcome, who would want to work more for less? Obviously people would rather work less for more.


What is the advantage for the socialist system to get less from each worker, but cost more?


The advantage is to the worker, as opposed to the opposite which is advantage to the capitalist.

Keep in mind WHO'S its costing, your talking abouy Capitalist, costing the capitalist, and getting less from the worker.


But doesn't this suggest a rather static community? If the enterprise only requires 10 workers, but it uses the labor of 13, does it not mean some other enterprise is short three workers?

People can talk to one another, it does'nt suggest a static community at all, its not enterprises against each other, it is (nessesarily) a community effort.

[Bud Struggle]

It's basic freedom. If workers want to join a union--they can. If they don't want to join a union they don't have to. Why force people to join an organization they don't like or have no interest in?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1888195]WHen purpetual growth and profit is'nt the motivating factor, and democracy is the ruling issue, thats the logical outcome, who would want to work more for less? Obviously people would rather work less for more.


I am sure people would want to work less for more, and would vote that way.

But that doesn't explain why using 13 workers when 10 would suffice is an advantage for the socialist syste,



The advantage is to the worker, as opposed to the opposite which is advantage to the capitalist.

Keep in mind WHO'S its costing, your talking abouy Capitalist, costing the capitalist, and getting less from the worker.


In such a socialist system, using 13 workers when 10 would suffice means there are 3 workers who are not available to work somewhere else. Why is working fewer hours in one enterprise an advantage over the cost of losing 3 workers elsewhere an advantage?




People can talk to one another, it does'nt suggest a static community at all, its not enterprises against each other, it is (nessesarily) a community effort.


Right. But you have already explained that as a result of all that talking (ie democracy) that it would be "obvious" that the workers would choose to use 13 workers instead of the needed 10.

[RGacky3]

It's basic freedom. If workers want to join a union--they can. If they don't want to join a union they don't have to. Why force people to join an organization they don't like or have no interest in?

Its actually anti-freedom, its taking away freedom that unions have to determine their working conditions, no ones forcing people to join unions, we are stopping bosses to hold all the cards.


But that doesn't explain why using 13 workers when 10 would suffice is an advantage for the socialist syste,

BECAUSE EVERYONE CAN WORK LESS AND THERE IS NO UNEMPLOYMENT, I've explained this already.


In such a socialist system, using 13 workers when 10 would suffice means there are 3 workers who are not available to work somewhere else. Why is working fewer hours in one enterprise an advantage over the cost of losing 3 workers elsewhere an advantage?

If they are needed somewhere else they'll work there, its only an advantage if there are 3 idle, I never said its an advantage to not have them work somewhere else.


Right. But you have already explained that as a result of all that talking (ie democracy) that it would be "obvious" that the workers would choose to use 13 workers instead of the needed 10.

If there are idle workers, not needed elsewhere.

[Baseball]

BECAUSE EVERYONE CAN WORK LESS AND THERE IS NO UNEMPLOYMENT, I've explained this already.


You have not explained why its an advantage for the socialist enterprise to use more workers than needed. All you have said its an advantage for workers to work less hours, and to work at all.



If they are needed somewhere else they'll work there,

Why? Isn't it an advantage for those 13 workers to work less hours where they are not all needed, than for those three workers to work more hours where they are?

[RGacky3]

You have not explained why its an advantage for the socialist enterprise to use more workers than needed. All you have said its an advantage for workers to work less hours, and to work at all.


because when you use more workers everyone can work less, thats why its an advantage.


Why? Isn't it an advantage for those 13 workers to work less hours where they are not all needed, than for those three workers to work more hours where they are?

I never said that did I, I never said take workers away from where they are needed to work where they are not needed, who said that? Read my posts.

[Unkut]

I used to think this kind of legislation was anti-freedom, but then I considered that private property in itself is something that's forced on us, something that we have no say in. Something that probably couldn't exist in the way that it does without the protection of the state. Right libertarians will only tell you half of the story (if that).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Right to Work Laws prevent closed shop contracts that labor unions can force to sign with employers. An employer can find anybody to employ in their businesses without guaranteeing union membership.

I think this is both positive and negative. It prevents specific unions from gaining exclusive contracts for labor that cuts out poorer folks. However, it gives businesses legal power to void contracts and agreements thus striking out options for unions to engage in combat with the employer.

France has right-to-work laws, but there's no legal power to void contracts. :confused:

I think the bigger issue is unimpeded access to collective bargaining mechanisms.

[mossy noonmann]

It's basic freedom. If workers want to join a union--they can. If they don't want to join a union they don't have to. Why force people to join an organization they don't like or have no interest in?

if this is the case why are so many companies rabidly anti union?
if it is a basic freedom you could try telling that to mcdonalds, wal mart etc....

[Lt. Ferret]

it IS a basic freedom. and walmart and other shit companies are anti-union because it cuts into their costs. these two things are not inclusive of each other.

you can go attempt to unionize at walmart or mcdonalds. thats your right. they'll fly in some corporate stooges and try to fire you all. i suppose thats their right as well, especially if you signed contracts in regards to unions.

iv worked jobs where i wanted to unionize, and iv also worked jobs in which i had absolutely no interest in a union. it should be my choice.

[Bud Struggle]

iv worked jobs where i wanted to unionize, and iv also worked jobs in which i had absolutely no interest in a union. it should be my choice.

And that's probably right. There are some shops the eally NEED to be unionized (WalMart for example) and some where it would actually be a determent to both the business and the employees.

[RGacky3]

and some where it would actually be a determent to both the business and the employees.

So sometimes the workers having a voice would be a detriment to them???


i suppose thats their right as well, especially if you signed contracts in regards to unions.



Actually legally its not their right.

[Lt. Ferret]

you have a voice even by showing up. besides most of the time iv been able to talk to my boss about problems im having with the business.

[RGacky3]

you have a voice even by showing up.

Thats not a voice, thats just not getting fired.


besides most of the time iv been able to talk to my boss about problems im having with the business.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Lt. Ferret]

lololol i know its called real life weeeeeird.


also, when you can work OTHER jobs, you always havea choice not to show up to work. iv done it before.

[Camlon]

Companies WILL not hire more people no matter what the costs unless they need to. If they need 5 workers and they cost is $20 a worker, they'll pay the $100, if the cost goes down to $10 a worker, they'll pay the $50 and with the extra $50 what do you think they are gonna do? Hire more workers? No, they are gonna pocket the profits. The need of workers has to do with market supply and demand and the industry technology and other factors, if he needed 10 workers he would have hired ten no matter what the cost because he knows he would make a profit.

Only if the industry they are going to are a monopoly. If there is competition, and costs go down to 10$ a worker. Then there will be a price competition, because if you put the price lower than your competitors you will earn more money. Hence, they won't get more profits at all, instead their products will be cheaper.

[RGacky3]

Then there will be a price competition, because if you put the price lower than your competitors you will earn more money. Hence, they won't get more profits at all, instead their products will be cheaper.

Either way, they would be making MORE money paying their workers less. What your saying is irrelivent to the discussion.

[RGacky3]

lololol i know its called real life weeeeeird.


also, when you can work OTHER jobs, you always havea choice not to show up to work. iv done it before.


Yeah, thats why I'm laughing at the concept that you can just "talk to your boss"

as to your second point, you realize that there is 10% unemployment? And most people don't have enough savings.

[Camlon]

Either way, they would be making MORE money paying their workers less. What your saying is irrelivent to the discussion.
Well, other workers can now buy their products cheaper. So if this happens in all industries, no one will be worse off because all of the prices has decreased.

[RGacky3]

Well, other workers can now buy their products cheaper. So if this happens in all industries, no one will be worse off because all of the prices has decreased.

If your getting paid $5 less per hour it does'nt really matter that the new ipod out is $20 cheaper, your just trying to not get evicted and get your groceries. Also before they cut prices, they'll keep them up as amuch as they can because its more money for them.

[Camlon]

If your getting paid $5 less per hour it does'nt really matter that the new ipod out is $20 cheaper, your just trying to not get evicted and get your groceries. Also before they cut prices, they'll keep them up as amuch as they can because its more money for them.

Of course it matters if the prices are lower. Or else, inflation would be awesome.

And this is a continuous process. First off, prices don't really get reduced in right to work states, but if they do. Then for instance the wages goes down by 5%, but so do the prices. If it's a crisis, then the prices won't go down, but that's because companies are stockpiling so they won't end up bankrupt.

[Conquer or Die]

It's basic freedom. If workers want to join a union--they can. If they don't want to join a union they don't have to. Why force people to join an organization they don't like or have no interest in?

Why should I obey your property, private or commercial? Why should I respect patents?

Labor power controlling industry through contracts was their prerogative until Right to Work laws came into effect. They effectively remove purchasing power from the unions.

It's an anti-libertarian law.

I should note that this issue cuts lines because it voids contracts in a free market against labor power but it also grants walk-aways from contracts thus preventing any form of slavery or debt slavery.

[Lt. Ferret]

right to work laws dont ban you from joining a union, they ban unions from FORCING you to join. there is a difference.

[Conquer or Die]

right to work laws dont ban you from joining a union, they ban unions from FORCING you to join. there is a difference.

If I and my cohorts refuse to work unless YOU SIGN A CONTRACT FORCING UNION SHOP and you agree, then it's mutually inclusive decision making. You cannot run your shop without our union force. It's done, done and done.

Right to Work laws are *not* libertarian. Nor is any of Taft Hartley.

[Lt. Ferret]

wait i HAVE to join YOUR organization and pay dues (taxes) to your group in order to work at another person's business?


just because you spread the tyranny around doesn't make it less tyrannical. also, you use the same justification for someone signing a mutally inclusive deal to work for 2 dollars an hour because their alternative is starvation. gj there.

[Conquer or Die]

wait i HAVE to join YOUR organization and pay dues (taxes) to your group in order to work at another person's business?

Yes, if that business owner signed an exclusive contract with us under our conditions then he must obey under threat of penalty.



just because you spread the tyranny around doesn't make it less tyrannical. also, you use the same justification for someone signing a mutally inclusive deal to work for 2 dollars an hour because their alternative is starvation. gj there.

Exactly, that's precisely the reason why it's complicated and why I actually am undecided about right to work laws. There is a gray line that exists that can easily push underneath the boundaries of what is acceptable for any given job.

The bigger point for Free Marketers, Anarcho-Capitalists, and the generic Libertarian is that this very law prohibits voluntary action in the marketplace by an organization given consent by individuals. It therefore violates their maxims.

To the generic Marxist, however, the point is separate. Does labor control more production or less?

[RGacky3]

Of course it matters if the prices are lower. Or else, inflation would be awesome.



for individual workers wages are much more important, than consumer product prices.


Then for instance the wages goes down by 5%, but so do the prices. If it's a crisis, then the prices won't go down, but that's because companies are stockpiling so they won't end up bankrupt.

The prices won't drop 5% if the wages do, wages will drop as much as they can and prices will drop only as much as they need to.

If a company spends $30 on wages and gets back $50 in product they make a $20 profit, if their wages drop to $20 they arn't going to automatically drop prices to $40, they're gonna keep the extra $10, now they might have to drop prices a little to keep up with competition, but they'd much rather keep as much as they can.

[Lt. Ferret]

Yes, if that business owner signed an exclusive contract with us under our conditions then he must obey under threat of penalty.



Exactly, that's precisely the reason why it's complicated and why I actually am undecided about right to work laws. There is a gray line that exists that can easily push underneath the boundaries of what is acceptable for any given job.

The bigger point for Free Marketers, Anarcho-Capitalists, and the generic Libertarian is that this very law prohibits voluntary action in the marketplace by an organization given consent by individuals. It therefore violates their maxims.

To the generic Marxist, however, the point is separate. Does labor control more production or less?


so this isn't about the business owner dictating the terms to the unwashed masses this is about certain cliques of workers dictating terms to the unwashed masses, and just because you spread the tyranny around by a few points doesnt make you a freedom fighter.

[RGacky3]

THey arn't dictating to the masses, they are dictating to the capitalist, you got these things twisted around.

[Bud Struggle]

THey arn't dictating to the masses, they are dictating to the capitalist, you got these things twisted around.

Listen: if people WANT to join a union--they should be able to. If they don't want to join a union they should be able to abstain.

Nothing freer than that.

[RGacky3]

Listen: if people WANT to join a union--they should be able to. If they don't want to join a union they should be able to abstain.


Yeah, theres no law forcing people to join a union.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, theres no law forcing people to join a union.

so I can work anywhere I want and not be forced to joing a union? I' all for that! :D

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, theres no law forcing people to join a union.

If you don't join the union then you are a class traitor.

[Bud Struggle]

If you don't join the union then you are a class traitor.

If you don't join the union you don't get the job. That's not freedom.

[RGacky3]

If you don't join the union you don't get the job. That's not freedom.

Its to protect the gains of the workers, if thats "not freedom" then are you against minimum wages laws too? Or child labor laws?

Infact it reduces unemployment as a tool of capitalists to destroy unions.

Whats not freedom is capitalists being the ones overall that decide who and who does not get a job, unions protecting their gains and stopping capitalists to use scabs to drive down wages and working conditions I'd say is more freedom, because it takes power away from the Capitalist.

Is it "not freedom" too for Capitalists to refuse to pay a living wage? Or to lay off people to keep their profits high, you can't work there because bob wants to keep his bonus, or is it only not freedom if workers want to keep their wages and conditions?

BTW, the argument that this hurts other workers just does'nt fly, because as I said over and over again, bosses will ONLY hire when its profitable to do and its impossible to make the workers work more for less.

If Unions are barred from making contracts (really this sort of law is restricting contracts, something you libertarians should be against, but your not, becaus you don't care about freedom, only about capitalist power), what it will end up doing is encouraging capitalist to just have workers work more for less, meaning MORE unemployment, with strong unions, they'll want to work less, for more, meaning the capitalsit will be forced to hire more people (to get the work done).

But its funny that free market people want the government to restrict the rights of unions to make contracts, libertarian my ass, your plutocrats.

[ComradeMan]

If you don't join the union you don't get the job. That's not freedom.

Without the union there is no freedom.

[Bud Struggle]

Without the union there is no freedom.

That's where I have a problem. I really never cared personally for joining up with a bunch of people and doing something either political or financial.

It's always been--Bud contra mundum.

I'm sure it's good for some--and God Bless them. but that kind of thing certainly isn't meant for everyone.

[ComradeMan]

That's where I have a problem. I really never cared personally for joining up with a bunch of people and doing something either political or financial.

It's always been--Bud contra mundum.

But Comrade Bud, you cannot be against the world for you are part of the world.;)

[Bud Struggle]

But Comrade Bud, you cannot be against the world for you are part of the world.;)

Interesting point--I always felt apart, distant, maybe other. People are my brothers and sisters because I'm a Christian.

If I wasn't a Christian--I'd be a real bastard.

[ComradeMan]

Interesting point--I always felt apart, distant, maybe other. People are my brothers and sisters because I'm a Christian.

If I wasn't a Christian--I'd be a real bastard.

My idea of a revolutionary state would be just one big union composed of networks anyway.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you don't join the union you don't get the job. That's not freedom.
Why? Unions are a form of boycott, are you saying boycotts are coercive? Union shops are saying "we will not patronize your business as workers nor consumers if you don't hire union labor." Nothing inherently coercive about that.

[Baseball]

because when you use more workers everyone can work less, thats why its an advantage.


Except there is a finite amount of workers available.




I never said that did I, I never said take workers away from where they are needed to work where they are not needed, who said that? Read my posts.


I asked how is it a benefit to have 13 workers where are ten are needed when that results in having a workplace elsewhere having only seven when ten are needed?

Obviously, those three unneeded workers are working fewer hours and will continue to work fewer hours. That is supposedly a benefit, but it ignores those seven workers at the other firm, who are either working more hours to meet demand of their product, OR who are simply not working less which results in demand not being met. The latter seems a more plausaible scenario.

[RGacky3]

I asked how is it a benefit to have 13 workers where are ten are needed when that results in having a workplace elsewhere having only seven when ten are needed?


I never said it was a benefit, if there were 3 too much one place and 3 needed another. What I was saying was if there was 10 needed one place 10 needed another place and 24 workers, 12 could work both places and everyone could work less. I was'nt argueing the strawman you made up.


Obviously, those three unneeded workers are working fewer hours and will continue to work fewer hours. That is supposedly a benefit, but it ignores those seven workers at the other firm, who are either working more hours to meet demand of their product, OR who are simply not working less which results in demand not being met. The latter seems a more plausaible scenario.

When was I making that argument? THats a strawman, obviously if there are workers needed in one area it makes sense to have workers there rather than a place where they are not needed.

[Camlon]

for individual workers wages are much more important, than consumer product prices.

The only thing that matters for individual workers are real wages. And if consumer product prices decreases, then real wages increases.

Would you rather get 10% inflation and 5% wage increase or 5% deflation and no wage increase? The answer is clear, so no, nominal wages aren't more important than real wages.



The prices won't drop 5% if the wages do, wages will drop as much as they can and prices will drop only as much as they need to.

If a company spends $30 on wages and gets back $50 in product they make a $20 profit, if their wages drop to $20 they arn't going to automatically drop prices to $40, they're gonna keep the extra $10, now they might have to drop prices a little to keep up with competition, but they'd much rather keep as much as they can.Sure, they would like to keep the extra profit, but they can't. If you don't decrease the prices, then your competitors will decrease the price below yours and take your market.

We can see this in practice for electronics. Electronics has decreased a lot in price the last 10-20 years. Did they keep it all as profits, no because if they did another company would produce the same goods for a cheaper price and they will lose their market share.

[RGacky3]

The only thing that matters for individual workers are real wages. And if consumer product prices decreases, then real wages increases.



And REAL wages go down, because prices don't fall as fast as wages.


Sure, they would like to keep the extra profit, but they can't. If you don't decrease the prices, then your competitors will decrease the price below yours and take your market.



In the real world it does'nt work that way, companies realize that price wars would hurt their profit MORE than keeping prices steady. Plus remember the competition is for consumers AND investors, and whoever has the higher profit gets more investors.


We can see this in practice for electronics. Electronics has decreased a lot in price the last 10-20 years. Did they keep it all as profits, no because if they did another company would produce the same goods for a cheaper price and they will lose their market share.

Competition was'nt the reason for price drops, it was the market getting flooded, but prices are actually still pretty high compared to the cost of production, which has dropped dramatically compared to what it used to be.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1903348]I never said it was a benefit, if there were 3 too much one place and 3 needed another.

OK. So now we are told that the objective should be to work as few as many hours, while using as many workers as possible. Also the objective is to work as many hours as the job requires using only enough workers to to get te job done.


What I was saying was if there was 10 needed one place 10 needed another place and 24 workers, 12 could work both places and everyone could work less. I was'nt argueing the strawman you made up.

Now you are wasting the labor of four people where they are not needed.

[Sosa]

If you don't join the union you don't get the job. That's not freedom.

So what you're saying is that you want to benefit from what the workers struggled for without having to pay your dues. Its only fair that if you get to benefit from the better wages that the union workers obtain and all the other rights, you have to pay your dues too. its that simple

[RGacky3]

OK. So now we are told that the objective should be to work as few as many hours, while using as many workers as possible. Also the objective is to work as many hours as the job requires using only enough workers to to get te job done.


What? The former is the objective in socialism, the second is the objective in Capitalism.


Now you are wasting the labor of four people where they are not needed.

Its not being wasted because everyone can work less because of those 4.

[Camlon]

And REAL wages go down, because prices don't fall as fast as wages.

If this is the case, then profits has increased and if there is competition then someone will drive the prices down.


In the real world it does'nt work that way, companies realize that price wars would hurt their profit MORE than keeping prices steady. Plus remember the competition is for consumers AND investors, and whoever has the higher profit gets more investors.Doesn't work in that way, because when there is a lot of competitors then you will see the price dropping no matter the individual company does. Hence, every company will reduce their prices. What you are talking about only happends when there are very few companies in competition. Aka, close to monopoly.



Competition was'nt the reason for price drops, it was the market getting flooded, but prices are actually still pretty high compared to the cost of production, which has dropped dramatically compared to what it used to be.Market getting flooded is competition!

And no prices aren't pretty high compared to the cost of production. You just don't know all of the cost of production. There are other costs than hiring a worker and letting that worker work for 15 minutes to make some kind of computer chip. There are rents for different buildings, repairing capital, taxes, transport cost, advertising, accountants and other financial planners. For instance as an engineer, the cost of hiring an engineer is only half of the value an engineer have to generate.

[RGacky3]

If this is the case, then profits has increased and if there is competition then someone will drive the prices down.


Its interesting that what your proposing does'nt happen, you know why? Because its more profitable for everyone to keep prices high then to start price wars, so thats what they do.


Doesn't work in that way, because when there is a lot of competitors then you will see the price dropping no matter the individual company does. Hence, every company will reduce their prices. What you are talking about only happends when there are very few companies in competition. Aka, close to monopoly.



hmm, lots of competitors you mean like food prices?

Also most industries end up ologarchies anyway, but as far as lot of competitors, not if its more profitable to not start a price war, which many times its not, many times theres only so much market you can take, so its much more profitable to keep you prices high.


Market getting flooded is competition!


No its not, its over production thus you need ot lower prices to get rid of the excess production, not comeptition between firms.


And no prices aren't pretty high compared to the cost of production. You just don't know all of the cost of production. There are other costs than hiring a worker and letting that worker work for 15 minutes to make some kind of computer chip. There are rents for different buildings, repairing capital, taxes, transport cost, advertising, accountants and other financial planners. For instance as an engineer, the cost of hiring an engineer is only half of the value an engineer have to generate.

Overall production price drops, from workers and then technology, techology because more prevelent and advanced and thus drops production prices, the other stuff is generally stable, but is technology nad labor costs drop, then cost of production over all drops, btw, if you can make more with less, then less buildingss, less transport costs, less accountants, and other things, so yeah, cost of production drops, prices barely drop if they do at all, thus higher profits.

As for your point about the engineer, hmm, your talking about Marx's excess value exploitation right? Your a Marxist :D

[Camlon]

Its interesting that what your proposing does'nt happen, you know why? Because its more profitable for everyone to keep prices high then to start price wars, so thats what they do.

But it's not more profitable for the individual company to keep prices high, because then he will see the prices drop and he will lose his market. But if he drops the prices, then he will get more of the market share.

This may not happen if there are very few competitors, because then their actions will change the market. Hence, they can calculate that if they drop the prices then the competitors will do the same. However, in many fields this is not the case anymore, due to the globalisation of markets.



No its not, its over production thus you need ot lower prices to get rid of the excess production, not comeptition between firms.

The prices hasn't dropped due to overproduction, because then the companies would have been bancrupt for selling their products with losses. The prices has dropped, because production has shifted to where it's more efficient (asia) and the technology has improved.



As for your point about the engineer, hmm, your talking about Marx's excess value exploitation right? Your a Marxist :D
In your dreams :lol:

No, I got a presentation from a manager which presented how much a new graduate has to generate and what are the extra costs of hiring a worker. And he said that if a worker didn't generate that amount then he had his ways to get around the legal system and fire them. There are more costs than just hiring a worker and this may seem weird. Why should you pay a plumber 150-200 dollars for a 2 hour visit when his hourly wage is 30 dollars per hour. Because there other costs than just hiring the worker. Like paperwork, administration, taxes, the time he doesn't get orders, transport costs, etc.

[RGacky3]

But it's not more profitable for the individual company to keep prices high, because then he will see the prices drop and he will lose his market. But if he drops the prices, then he will get more of the market share.


Not if prices don't drop or only drop slightly, also the market share depends on the product.


This may not happen if there are very few competitors, because then their actions will change the market. Hence, they can calculate that if they drop the prices then the competitors will do the same. However, in many fields this is not the case anymore, due to the globalisation of markets.


THe globalisation of markets does'nt really change that too much, what globalisation of markets does is lower production cost, but that odes'nt mean prices will drop significantly, to a point to where lower wages are made up for.


The prices hasn't dropped due to overproduction, because then the companies would have been bancrupt for selling their products with losses. The prices has dropped, because production has shifted to where it's more efficient (asia) and the technology has improved.


They arn't selling their products with losses, they are meeting market demands, when production was less, the market demand was less because less people could afford it. Cost of productoin being less DOES NOT equal less prices, it equals MORE PROFITS, which is a priority, which you don't seem to get, profits are the most important thing.


No, I got a presentation from a manager which presented how much a new graduate has to generate and what are the extra costs of hiring a worker. And he said that if a worker didn't generate that amount then he had his ways to get around the legal system and fire them. There are more costs than just hiring a worker and this may seem weird. Why should you pay a plumber 150-200 dollars for a 2 hour visit when his hourly wage is 30 dollars per hour. Because there other costs than just hiring the worker. Like paperwork, administration, taxes, the time he doesn't get orders, transport costs, etc.

Ok, so what, those things are relatively static, I'm talking about the profit, margin, market share and prices as opposed to cost of production, those things don't go up as labor costs and technology goes down, those are in the origional calculation.

[Baseball]

Its not being wasted because everyone can work less because of those 4.[/QUOTE]


Which means there are four people who are not being productive. And it means that somewhere else is short four workers.

[RGacky3]

Which means there are four people who are not being productive. And it means that somewhere else is short four workers.

Are you really this stupid or are you just purposely not getting it.

I'm gonna do one more illustration, if you don't understand this I suggest you see a doctor to check for brain damage.

If your building sheds, with 2 guys, you 2 could probably work 8 hours a day to get 1 shed done every 2 days, but lets say there are 2 other guys without work, meaning NO ONE ELSE NEEDS THEM, MEANING ONE ONE ELSE IS SHORT 2 GUYS, then those 2 guys could help in building the sheds, and everyone could get the same work done working 4 hours a day, everyones happy.

Now honestly, if you cannot grasp this simple concept then you don't belong in this forum you belong in elementary school.

[Baseball]

Are you really this stupid or are you just purposely not getting it.

I'm gonna do one more illustration, if you don't understand this I suggest you see a doctor to check for brain damage.

If your building sheds, with 2 guys, you 2 could probably work 8 hours a day to get 1 shed done every 2 days, but lets say there are 2 other guys without work, meaning NO ONE ELSE NEEDS THEM, MEANING ONE ONE ELSE IS SHORT 2 GUYS, then those 2 guys could help in building the sheds, and everyone could get the same work done working 4 hours a day, everyones happy.

Now honestly, if you cannot grasp this simple concept then you don't belong in this forum you belong in elementary school.

No Gacky. What it means is that you have two extra workers who are not out
looking to build a shed that needs three people to build, and where there be only one worker available.

The result is either four well rested workers and only one shed, or four well rested workers, one very tired worker and two sheds. Since you repeatedly claim the former is the ideal situation for socialism, likely that is the outcome. Which means the community is short one shed.
That is NOT an advantage for the community.

[RGacky3]

The result is either four well rested workers and only one shed, or four well rested workers, one very tired worker and two sheds.

More sheds is'nt better, we're assuming 1 shed a week is what is needed.


Which means the community is short one shed.
That is NOT an advantage for the community.

No they arn't, only one shed a week is needed, Is it an advantage for a community to produce more than they need or want?

[Baseball]

More sheds is'nt better, we're assuming 1 shed a week is what is needed.



No they arn't, only one shed a week is needed, Is it an advantage for a community to produce more than they need or want?


OK. So this means we don't have four workers filling in potholes, building houses, fixing a leaky faucet ect ect ect.

[Revolution starts with U]

@Bud
"I want to do it myself" has always been the mantra of the free-rider :D

[RGacky3]

OK. So this means we don't have four workers filling in potholes, building houses, fixing a leaky faucet ect ect ect

No it does'nt mean that, if there are potholes to fill and houses to be built and so on, then you'll have workers there instead.

Are you saying that there is and will be ALWAYS more than enough work for everyone to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week? Because if you are your crazy.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1915369]No it does'nt mean that, if there are potholes to fill and houses to be built and so on, then you'll have workers there instead.

Why and how? After all, it is you say the working the fewest amount of hours is the objective of socialism. If that happy event occurs with the the shed builders of America, then socialism is said to have succeeded. So why would those shed workers want to then go and work and fill potholes? You would be taking away their victory.


Are you saying that there is and will be ALWAYS more than enough work for everyone to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week? Because if you are your crazy.

You are suggesting a static community- where nothing much changes.

[RGacky3]

Why and how? After all, it is you say the working the fewest amount of hours is the objective of socialism.

Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying fewer hours and no unemployment, is better than more hours and unemployment.


If that happy event occurs with the the shed builders of America, then socialism is said to have succeeded. So why would those shed workers want to then go and work and fill potholes? You would be taking away their victory.



Because the potholes need to be filled ...


You are suggesting a static community- where nothing much changes.

No I'm not.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1918421]Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying fewer hours and no unemployment, is better than more hours and unemployment.

Which is why you keep saying its better to have four people to build the shed rather than two. Four people are working rather than two, and all four are working less.

Except of course, this means the community has two workers not available to work elsewhere.




Because the potholes need to be filled ...

Somebody else can fill them in. Maybe two of those ten workers digging the holes for the new sewer line- a job that only really requires five workers. Those four shed builders are living the socialist dream.

[RGacky3]

Which is why you keep saying its better to have four people to build the shed rather than two. Four people are working rather than two, and all four are working less.

Except of course, this means the community has two workers not available to work elsewhere.


Are you reading anything I'm posting?


Somebody else can fill them in. Maybe two of those ten workers digging the holes for the new sewer line- a job that only really requires five workers. Those four shed builders are living the socialist dream.

Maybe, I don't get what your point is.