How I've Warmed Up To Unions

[DamnYankee]

Well, we can't say what rich people in Hollywood do or don't do with their money. I'm sure plenty do share their wealth on plenty of occasions. It's really not important and is unrelated to our discussion.

Working people aren't against other people making money. Obviously companies have to make a profit. They aren't asking for a handout. They're asking for decent working conditions that are part of compensation that really pay for their labor and provide a standard of living that should be expected in a first world country.

What you're saying above is like me saying, "you're a conservative, you're supposed to believe in the virture of private charity. Why don't you give me some of that money you spend on your martinis so I can buy health insurance?"

Neither argument is particularly enlightened.

I'm a conservative and expect folks to be responsible for themselves and not expect handouts. Lefties, however, should volunteer to equilbrate their salaries with their union brethren. Unless they're hypocrites. *shrug*

 

[Adam Weinberg]

I'm a conservative and expect folks to be responsible for themselves and not expect handouts. Lefties, however, should volunteer to equilbrate their salaries with their union brethren. Unless they're hypocrites. *shrug*

No, they're not hypocrites. You're attributing beliefs to them that they've never stated.

I don't know many people at all who think everyone should make around the same amount of money or that high-earning rich people shouldn't be allowed to be rich. Left or right in this country are not that extremely different on this subject, even with the policy differences on programs, taxes, and spending.

Sounds like this discussion is just about wrapping up unless anyone else has anything to add.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm a conservative and expect folks to be responsible for themselves and not expect handouts. Lefties, however, should volunteer to equilbrate their salaries with their union brethren. Unless they're hypocrites. *shrug*

Or they can work out another way to make things work. Like they have done.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, they're not hypocrites. You're attributing beliefs to them that they've never stated.

I don't know many people at all who think everyone should make around the same amount of money or that high-earning rich people shouldn't be allowed to be rich. Left or right in this country are not that extremely different on this subject, even with the policy differences on programs, taxes, and spending.

Sounds like this discussion is just about wrapping up unless anyone else has anything to add.

I think that rich liberals ought to put their money where their mouth is and give it up for their union comrades. It's like Rosie O'Donnell asking for gun control while her body guards have guns. *shrug*

 

[Cypress]

Incorrect. Any Libertarian I know, supports the concept of unions. The chairman of my county LP Party stepped down to hand me the reigns a couple years back so he could spend time working with the union he took a lead role with. It actually forced me to think about the concept of unions then, because I was going to need to issue a statement of support. The rest of the group went right along with me.

The most well-known Libertarian (Ron Paul), also supports the idea of unions:
YouTube - Ron Paul on Unions

Supporting the "concept" of unions, is not the same as being an advocate for the right of every worker to organize.

This country has, what, 10% of its labor force unionized? And yet every poll ever taken, shows that the majority of americans would like to belong to a union?

Those numbers don't add up. Someone is gaming the system to the benefit of wealth and capital. This is not rocket science. It's self evident.


What is required for an environment where unions can thrive, and be on equal footing with management, are strong and robust labor laws and protections. An institutionalized and codified committment to the right to organize.

How do liberatrians feel about the free choice act? Are libertarians in favor of FDR's labor reforms, and labor rights laws?

I don't think they are. Republicans and libertarians, at least 99.9% that I've met, have always been violently against FDRs labor reforms and any of the modern era's progressive labor rights movements.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Equal work for equal pay. *shrug*

By your own admission, you were a student that couldn't put in the hours of a union member who's ONLY job was driving that bus. Also, you forget to mention a little thing known as senority. >shrug< You need to deal with the whole picture and not just what pleases you.

 

[DamnYankee]

By your own admission, you were a student that couldn't put in the hours of a union member who's ONLY job was driving that bus. Also, you forget to mention a little thing known as senority. >shrug< You need to deal with the whole picture and not just what pleases you.

I worked that job for four years, and my last hour got paid 1/2 as much as a union guy did in his first hour. *shrug*

 

[Mott the Hoople]

m-w.com

In this case the union is the collective, the labor is the means of production and the good are the films. Congratulations of touting the wonders of socialism.

The film industry isn't the only field that rips off its employees, and that issue has little to do with the economic discussion. I'm an engineer, a field where there is clearly a very high demand for my services, and I have been ripped off by employers and clients alike.

That's all well and good but the logical flaw of your argument is that it's ok for businesses and companies to pool their resources and negotiate advantages that allow them to maximize what they can charge the market but if laborers do the same thing that's socialism. We no, it's not. It's a double standard on your behalf.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Maybe not that much. I agree with some of what you mean, and I would never say never depending on the situation, but free trade does not just benefit only the wealthy. Protecting our industries with subsidies can hurt much poorer people in other countries who can have their standard of living raised while providing us with services that we aren't equipped to do any more.

Not to mention that those same dollars that could be taxed for subsidies can be used to support profitable industries in the marketplace, or help working people to save the money they need to invest and raise their standard of living.

I am not suggesting unions as an alternative to capitalism. I am saying that they are a part of the market. Maybe in some industries unions are no longer the way to go because of where the law and the market have developed, but I can see how in many it would still be a good tool for raising standards of living for working people while still delivering quality labor to employers.

Also, taking the film industry as an example, there is plenty of protectionism against U.S. films abroad because we are so economically powerful in this industry, and I do not think I would want to reciprocate that kind of action.

Granted, our film industry does not require protection from foreign competition as does the industry of a much smaller country with limited capital. If I were a South Korean filmmaker, I might feel differently, just as I might if I were an American Steelworker.

What you're saying it particularly true where skilled tradesman and craftsman are concerned. They can maximize their value in the market via unions while creating standards of peformance for members. Having working on a lot of construction and production projects with very few exception the best tradesmen I've worked with (fabricators, masons, machinest, electricians, etc) have almost all been union.

 

[WinterBorn]

What you're saying it particularly true where skilled tradesman and craftsman are concerned. They can maximize their value in the market via unions while creating standards of peformance for members. Having working on a lot of construction and production projects with very few exception the best tradesmen I've worked with (fabricators, masons, machinest, electricians, etc) have almost all been union.

One of the reasons that tradesmen in Adam's industry need a union is that they do not have any long term employment.

If you were an electrician at a shipyard or working for a construction company, you could negotiate for job security.

But people working on a movie set are only employed as long as the film is being made. Then they job hunt again.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Collective bargaining is socialism, by definition.

But my argument is that the free market better serves society. Again, these creative people would be available for other fields. Instead of cranking out hundreds of movies every year maybe they'd be curing diseases or building more efficient cars of curbing pollution or fighting AIDS in Africa. And maybe there would be less people sitting on the couch watching all these films.

Maybe they'd be going to church.

Maybe movies would be classy again like they were in 1930.

No, it's a double standard on your part. Businesses form cooperatives, marts, joint ventures, etc, all the time, so that they can leverage the markets to maximize their value for their products and services. Professionals do the same thing with their Professional socieites, (e.g. AMA, AMSE, The BAR Association, etc). So if it's ok for them to combine their resources why is it not ok for laborers and skilled trade and craftsman to do the same? You're not making a lot of sense here. You're saying it's ok for businesses to do one thing but it's not ok for workers to do the same thing? That makes no sense.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Now you're attempting the semantics angle with "organize" v "own". That's disingenuous at best.

And yeah $22 is too much for a trucker. When I was in school I drove a bus and did the same job that a union employee did for half the pay. The stated reason was that I was a student and therefore didn't need the money. Meanwhile I was paying off school loans while I was in school, was paying tuition, rent, food bills, gas, car insurance, etc., and of course couldn't work a lot of hours since I was a full time engineering student. I needed the damn money, and even if I didn't, I deserved it because I did a good job.

Equal work equal pay, right? Except for unions of course. I guess some folks are more equal than others.

Unions are great for those in them Adam- especially the slackers. They just suck for everyone else, and for society as a whole. *shrug*

Anyway, time for my martini. Good night and God Bless.

And $22/hr is to much for an engineer. What's your point?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

As a worker I'd love a union.
As an investor I don't think I'd touch a union company with a ten foot pool.
An thus you have the dilema
He who holds the purse strings makes the rules.

But there's also the economic maxim. Charge what the market will bear. Working people have the right to combine their collective resources in order to maximize what they can charge the market for their labor just as much as any business or professional does. To say other wise is an irrational and imoral double standard. It's saying that working people and skilled craftsman don't have the same rights to the free market as capitalist, business owners and professionals.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Supporting the "concept" of unions, is not the same as being an advocate for the right of every worker to organize.

This country has, what, 10% of its labor force unionized? And yet every poll ever taken, shows that the majority of americans would like to belong to a union?

Those numbers don't add up. Someone is gaming the system to the benefit of wealth and capital. This is not rocket science. It's self evident.


What is required for an environment where unions can thrive, and be on equal footing with management, are strong and robust labor laws and protections. An institutionalized and codified committment to the right to organize.

How do liberatrians feel about the free choice act? Are libertarians in favor of FDR's labor reforms, and labor rights laws?

I don't think they are. Republicans and libertarians, at least 99.9% that I've met, have always been violently against FDRs labor reforms and any of the modern era's progressive labor rights movements.

Well part of the decline of labor unions is the fault of laborers. If you want your rights respected, sometimes you have to get off your ass and fight for them. I know my grandfather did in a time when company thugs would come to your home and beat your ass for trying to organize a union.

 

[Topspin]

But there's also the economic maxim. Charge what the market will bear. Working people have the right to combine their collective resources in order to maximize what they can charge the market for their labor just as much as any business or professional does. To say other wise is an irrational and imoral double standard. It's saying that working people and skilled craftsman don't have the same rights to the free market as capitalist, business owners and professionals.

sure it is,
Again please name a large unionized company that's a great investment

 

[WinterBorn]

sure it is,
Again please name a large unionized company that's a great investment

The unions Adam referred to (and belongs to?) are a better investment than the films being made by nonunion people. At least on average.

 

[tinfoil]

Yes, they do. Working people create the products that management and investors hope to use to get wealthy.

Especially crafts people in my industry give of their skills and training to make a production possible. A movie is no different from an automobile or a house. It's built by a skilled team of technicians and artisans, and their contracts allow the management and investor to own and profit from their work.

If management doesn't want to pay what it's actually worth to those craftsmen and artisans, then it looks like they better build the product themselves, because ultimately they are the primary beneficiary. They are not doing working people a favor just by letting them practice their trade, otherwise we would all work for free.

unless you provided all the equipment and the insurance, licenses. etc,.. all you've done is show up to produce your end of the product. It's typical of people to not see all the extra stuff that goes into a business. So, think about it, Someone has to put out all the money first. That's the entity providing the opportunities.

 

[WinterBorn]

unless you provided all the equipment and the insurance, licenses. etc,.. all you've done is show up to produce your end of the product. It's typical of people to not see all the extra stuff that goes into a business. So, think about it, Someone has to put out all the money first. That's the entity providing the opportunities.

And when you buy equipment, you don't pay what you want to pay. The people selling it set the price. The same with insurance and license ect.

If you want to view labor as simply another company asset, then the laborers agreeing to a set price is the same as the companies that sell you equipment or insurance.

 

[Cypress]

unless you provided all the equipment and the insurance, licenses. etc,.. all you've done is show up to produce your end of the product. It's typical of people to not see all the extra stuff that goes into a business. So, think about it, Someone has to put out all the money first. That's the entity providing the opportunities.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

-- ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Republican

 

[Socrtease]

what I understand is good companies pay good workers well. It's as if you tools think only a union worker can get good pay and wages.

you say this as if B follows A. IF you are a good worker you will get paid well. If that was a law of economics there would have been no need for minimum wage laws, and worker safety, and child labor laws. Our history is full of examples where good workers got nothing for busting their ass but company towns and company stores where they pay you with one hand and take it away with another. If laws had not been written and unions not created this would not have changed for a much longer time and workers would be worse for it now.