Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you described is one of the primary reasons that left wing utopia reduces to misery, and sometimes outright criminality. It is wishful thinking that leaves the mess for the public to deal with.
Unions may have served their purposes in the early 20th century, but today the public simply doesn't support unions, nor does the Democratic Party despite their rhetoric.
As I've tried many times to address-----Unions= A thing that many corporations are heartily involved in when their interests are at the root of that unions workings, in example, those "trade associations", "professional associations", "societies" and other euphemisms more acceptable than the hated term "union". Collective support of one's common interests constitutes a union regardless of the name. When you use terms such as "left wing utopia" you are buying into the anti union propaganda utilized by those with a ton of skin in the game, mainly the collectives of business interests....The business unions
We all know of these examples wherein the business interests are addressed as a collective of support for business friendly labor legislation, business friendly taxation exemptions, business friendly trade laws, zoning laws, environmental laws, the list goes on but it suffices to say that most all business owners and managers believe in some form of collective effort when seeking laws that protect their specific interests, and more to the point, to the detriment of workers interests.
When we see the rise of unions being a response to the greed of the early twentieth century corporatism your assertions seem to be lacking in those considerations that would allow for a bigger picture to emerge. That picture would include the fact that today's corporate greed is present at a continuing rate equal to that of the thirties.
This is the only context in which a discussion of modern day unionism can be held, seeing unions as a thing of historical necessity infers that the things that made them necessary have vanished. Laws made many years ago have been able to reign in the worst of corporate greed but as we've seen these last ten years the US corporate leadership has taken a definite negative turn toward labor that utilizes the federal courts and various "trade commissions" when seeking greater profit at labor's expense.
One other thing, this incessant harping on unions being a type of collective thuggery is laughable on it's face, but worse when one considers the police and private security have usually been the allies of the business class wars against the worker. I never supported the bad side of unions, and they have definitely been involved in many negative situations, are they perfect? Hell no.
But, where are the workers interests supposed to be represented? By their elected reps? By the "community"? Acting as though the war on unions hasn't left many Americans with the view that these organizations are somehow "outdated" misses the point that many here simply don't want to address up front, and that is the question of who looks out for labor's interest?
As I've tried many times to address-----Unions= A thing that many corporations are heartily involved in when their interests are at the root of that unions workings, in example, those "trade associations", "professional associations", "societies" and other euphemisms more acceptable than the hated term "union". Collective support of one's common interests constitutes a union regardless of the name. When you use terms such as "left wing utopia" you are buying into the anti union propaganda utilized by those with a ton of skin in the game, mainly the collectives of business interests....The business unions
We all know of these examples wherein the business interests are addressed as a collective of support for business friendly labor legislation, business friendly taxation exemptions, business friendly trade laws, zoning laws, environmental laws, the list goes on but it suffices to say that most all business owners and managers believe in some form of collective effort when seeking laws that protect their specific interests, and more to the point, to the detriment of workers interests.
When we see the rise of unions being a response to the greed of the early twentieth century corporatism your assertions seem to be lacking in those considerations that would allow for a bigger picture to emerge. That picture would include the fact that today's corporate greed is present at a continuing rate equal to that of the thirties.
This is the only context in which a discussion of modern day unionism can be held, seeing unions as a thing of historical necessity infers that the things that made them necessary have vanished. Laws made many years ago have been able to reign in the worst of corporate greed but as we've seen these last ten years the US corporate leadership has taken a definite negative turn toward labor that utilizes the federal courts and various "trade commissions" when seeking greater profit at labor's expense.
One other thing, this incessant harping on unions being a type of collective thuggery is laughable on it's face, but worse when one considers the police and private security have usually been the allies of the business class wars against the worker. I never supported the bad side of unions, and they have definitely been involved in many negative situations, are they perfect? Hell no.
But, where are the workers interests supposed to be represented? By their elected reps? By the "community"? Acting as though the war on unions hasn't left many Americans with the view that these organizations are somehow "outdated" misses the point that many here simply don't want to address up front, and that is the question of who looks out for labor's interest?
Of course businesses should have their associations. It's usually businesses that are in the similar fields businesses that need a general climate that would sustain their operations. I don't see anything particularly wrong with business is wanting to be associated with one another.
Your phrase of wars against the workers is an ideological one. Is supply and demand a form of warfare? If that is the case then everybody is waging a war against everybody else on the dating market since that is a free choice markets. You just don't like the fact that some people aren't getting much financially, as if they should be getting a whole lot despite the unmentionable effort and determination and willingness
There are people who cannot survive without welfare. Those are the truly disabled, the very old, and so long. But this countries concept of welfare is completely overblown on a ridiculous and unsustainable scale.many workers are complacent, relying promised to benefits, hoping that they would not have to upgrade their skills and putting the efforts. They have fantasies but not a whole lot of competencies. They have expectations but not the determination to meet such expectations. The society and everybody else somehow are there to meet these expectations for them. And the society somehow has to feel that it owes to these people.
Yes it is. I like to think about foot ball. It is ritualized combat. The rules don't favor one side above the other. Offence has it somewhat easier than defense so that we can have fun watching the game. But a lot of the rules are there so that the players don't get hurt.
Supply and demand needs that same kinds of rules for the same purpose. We need to encourage economic productivity over wastefulness. We need to make sure that the players don't get hurt.
Take Greece for example they currently have 27% unemployment. They are being punished for borrowing to much money. But who is punishing the other side for lending too much money? Those debts are bad, and so they suffer an economic loss. But a more functional plan for repaying the debts would put everyone to work and have everyone be less stressed fanatically.
The economy is currently out of whack. It needs some adjusting. What kind of adjusting and what kind of out of balance is open for debate.
What I think the problem is, is too much debt and not enough income. Adding income should fix the problem. Not everyone sees this. More are starting to but not enough. Unions and management have played the game as opponents rather than partners.
The simple truth is this The more you pay your workers the more they buy.
So unions have increased the wealth of the nation by getting money from where it is nonproductive and to where it is productive. Wages are a reward for being productive. The top would rather loan you the money than pay you wages as they think they can get their money back with interest if they do.
But the real way to get their money back with interest is to pay wages. That is productive rather then non productive. By moving jobs from a high labor market to a low one they have side stepped the effectiveness of unions. Unions need to follow the jobs and fight for higher wages in the new market.
China thinks that Unions are treason. So we need a different game plan to play there.
Wages get sustainable consumption. Debt driven consumption is long term unsustainable.
We have blown a debt bubble from 1981 on http://www.bearishnews.com/wp-conten...l-debt-gdp.jpg The substitution of debt for wages is trading a reduction in future consumption for an increase in present consumption. Well the future is here and consumption is off. And it will be off until we get our debts down or our wages up. Inflation in wages or writing off debts as bad. Make them good or forgive them. Take your pick.
Of course businesses should have their associations. It's usually businesses that are in the similar fields businesses that need a general climate that would sustain their operations. I don't see anything particularly wrong with business is wanting to be associated with one another.
Your phrase of wars against the workers is an ideological one. Is supply and demand a form of warfare? If that is the case then everybody is waging a war against everybody else on the dating market since that is a free choice markets. You just don't like the fact that some people aren't getting much financially, as if they should be getting a whole lot despite the unmentionable effort and determination and willingness
There are people who cannot survive without welfare. Those are the truly disabled, the very old, and so long. But this countries concept of welfare is completely overblown on a ridiculous and unsustainable scale.many workers are complacent, relying promised to benefits, hoping that they would not have to upgrade their skills and putting the efforts. They have fantasies but not a whole lot of competencies. They have expectations but not the determination to meet such expectations. The society and everybody else somehow are there to meet these expectations for them. And the society somehow has to feel that it owes to these people.
No one owes anything to anyone.
Of course, what was I thinking, these are simply a way for corporations to meet and greet, oh, if it's just a meeting why are they meeting in concert to address legal changes to labor laws sought by their little party get together???
War on workers---Historical fact, but again a twist of words gets in the way of real meaning, (it's synonymous with dating?) . Any reading of American labor struggles would allow you a much better understanding of the facts with regard to the outright attacks on the forty hour work week, the laws regarding overtime, safety, pensions, and too many other laws that management has sought to change at the federal level. You could use some remedial American history lessons..
Welfare? Lets talk a little about those "who cannot survive without welfare", Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of those too big to fail welfare queens that raped the American treasury a few years ago. Yes I do agree that these people have unmet expectations of themselves and I'm also tired of their thinking that we owe them for their colossal failures...........
Yeah, I know these aren't the same "welfare" people you were referring to, like most on the right wing of things you pretend that the big welfare queens get our money as a justifiable quid pro quo for all those "job creation" miracles they've pulled out of their hats, but the truth is these are the same people that send American jobs overseas while they argue the merits of global economics only as it relates to their interests.
"No one owes anything to anyone"... Lets be clear about the fact that our laws make certain obligations a form of owing. We OWE the legal level of labor compensation called for by our laws, we OWE the government our allegiance, we OWE our share of taxes for the general well being, and, we OWE each other the respect that needn't be a thing withheld for the fact of our differences. I'm well aware of your feelings regarding unions, so you don't like them, but to call their demise a natural passing is disingenuous in light of all the historical accounts of their being a severe challenge to the greatest power base in the most powerful nation on earth.
Your assertions regarding how I feel about the entire financial construct in America as it relates to labor is the result of a tremendous bias in your thinking. You have insisted upon taking a position against unions for the fact that they offend your sense of "free markets" and other euphemisms that have no valid place in an economic system that is not free nor a real market.
These politicized economic fantasies inevitably give way to a form of social Darwinism that offers no solutions to our economic dilemmas with the exception of introducing the convoluted notion of "positive eugenics" as a valid theory. Unions, regardless of national origin are simply the path to what you have so conveniently termed, "a general climate that would sustain" the workers best interest. There are two sides to the equation.
Of course, what was I thinking, these are simply a way for corporations to meet and greet, oh, if it's just a meeting why are they meeting in concert to address legal changes to labor laws sought by their little party get together???
War on workers---Historical fact, but again a twist of words gets in the way of real meaning, (it's synonymous with dating?) . Any reading of American labor struggles would allow you a much better understanding of the facts with regard to the outright attacks on the forty hour work week, the laws regarding overtime, safety, pensions, and too many other laws that management has sought to change at the federal level. You could use some remedial American history lessons..
Welfare? Lets talk a little about those "who cannot survive without welfare", Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of those too big to fail welfare queens that raped the American treasury a few years ago. Yes I do agree that these people have unmet expectations of themselves and I'm also tired of their thinking that we owe them for their colossal failures...........
Yeah, I know these aren't the same "welfare" people you were referring to, like most on the right wing of things you pretend that the big welfare queens get our money as a justifiable quid pro quo for all those "job creation" miracles they've pulled out of their hats, but the truth is these are the same people that send American jobs overseas while they argue the merits of global economics only as it relates to their interests.
"No one owes anything to anyone"... Lets be clear about the fact that our laws make certain obligations a form of owing. We OWE the legal level of labor compensation called for by our laws, we OWE the government our allegiance, we OWE our share of taxes for the general well being, and, we OWE each other the respect that needn't be a thing withheld for the fact of our differences. I'm well aware of your feelings regarding unions, so you don't like them, but to call their demise a natural passing is disingenuous in light of all the historical accounts of their being a severe challenge to the greatest power base in the most powerful nation on earth.
Your assertions regarding how I feel about the entire financial construct in America as it relates to labor is the result of a tremendous bias in your thinking. You have insisted upon taking a position against unions for the fact that they offend your sense of "free markets" and other euphemisms that have no valid place in an economic system that is not free nor a real market.
These politicized economic fantasies inevitably give way to a form of social Darwinism that offers no solutions to our economic dilemmas with the exception of introducing the convoluted notion of "positive eugenics" as a valid theory. Unions, regardless of national origin are simply the path to what you have so conveniently termed, "a general climate that would sustain" the workers best interest. There are two sides to the equation.
Your business associations are not the same thing as unions. Business associations are not part of a particular employer and their budget. Workers unions are within these companies and organizations, therefore, directing intervening in their business operations. Businesses can lobby government, but labor does too. The equivalent of these business associations can be workers party, or one step down, the Democratic Party. You can vote and you can participate in any sort of political party movement, occupy movement, meet up, and stuff. And when you do that, you are also changing rules, as many organizations have. So don't make it like you don't get a say at all. You do. I think your problem is more such that if there is a workers party or a movement, you have trouble getting supporters to go, whereas business get togethers do not have trouble getting attendees. Who can you blame. The thing is, you are free organize in this country. There are aarp, women's organisations, lgbt organizations, drivers organizations, not all are business and corporate. These are effective organizations that represent people of that demographic. Workers can do that too.
But unions are not exactly an advocacy group. Instead, they get their hands on often privately owned businesses. But do they have a right in that? They can switch, quit, organize a political party, etc. why do you feel that strangers have an entitlement over another stranger's business, just because one is hired to do something? It seems like forced charity. This is exactly why these days you don't hire people unless you absolutely have to.
What you want is an easier way to get money that employees expect based solely on their expectations and lifestyles. So that they do not have to go out there and do real legit advocacy. You get more for yourself and your companies employees. Workers advocacy is much broader across all workers, not employer-specific unions.
What about the businesses that don't hire anyone? Aren't they not even paying the wages that other companies are paying? Should they "get away" with it? So those companies that do hire people are subject to unions, because they Are stupid? Next time, remember not to expand your business so you Don't have to do any of this.
When you hire a plumber, a babysitter, or any sort of help with tasks, would you select the more expensive one, pay them labor and 401k or IRA, or perhaps hire quite a few and divide the labor so more of them get your payment? Did you ask if they have kids at home, or elderly folks, or if they are struggling with money, and if so, did you pay more than they charge? Or perhaps they suffered a car accident five years ago, grew up with alcoholics, just immigrated, had lower IQs, were divorced, or has thyroid issues, or whatever, would you ask them that and pay what fits their lifestyle and NEEDS?
"Economic groups work to win private goods, which are benefits that only the members of the group will enjoy. When a labor union agrees to a contract, for example, its members benefit from the contract, whereas nonunion members do not. If there is no private good incentive, people might choose not to join (especially if there is a membership fee or dues). There are four main types of economic groups: business groups, labor groups, agricultural groups, and professional associations". All self intere$t groups...
Labor unions have historically been a small portion of American economic interest groups, the larger numerical count comes down on the side of business and professional groups. The AMA recently lobbied for changes to law that directly benefited Doctors at the expense of the general public, the NAM, a national manufacturers group requests changes to our trade laws and other laws that would allow them collectively to benefit, and they are successful at your expense.
When one compares the collective power of unions to the power of those business "associations" the business groups grip on government is way beyond that of union lobbying efforts. So, it's really about interests and who is being served by the efforts of those who seek their own self interests from the rest of society be it a union seeking higher wages for their members or a manufacturer lobby group petitioning government for labor law changes or safety law changes, or tax relief, or the sundry of benefits they seek from legal change. Unions ARE the lobby focal for labor's interest, and often the only group offering labor an advocate political voice while business is inundating government every hour of every day.
With regard to your comparison of a union worker to babysitters and plumbers I can only respond in kind and allow that most people without representation have already determined their comfort level as it relates to their own singular wage demands. I really don't understand the mindset of those who have made a habit of pontificating their particular notions from anything less than personal experience or a scholarly approach to the issue at hand. I'd love to know what the circumstances are/were that makes ordinary working people so afraid of organizing in their own self interest.
I did own and manage a business in the sixties with a union crew, I can't say that this arrangement made my business any less of a competitive enterprise, nor did I feel like they comprised any type of "control" over my business in light of the fact that I could choose not to renew their contract and go forward with a non union crew. I CHOSE to remain a union employer for the simple reason that this removed any type of further wage/benefit demands for four years at a time. I eventually sold that business to try other types of business ventures, and ultimately ended up as a union contract employee for the last twenty years of my work life.
I know from where I speak when I say that unions do provide benefit, I also know from experience the benefits I garnered from joining a business collective that served as a voice in opposition to the large insurance carriers that payed my customers repair bills while attempting to deprive us of a fair compensation value for our work. This debate should be inclusive of those arguments that can address the good AND bad of any collective, be it private, professional, labor, educational, or any other form of collective action taken by one group to the detriment of any segment of society.
In my last stint as a union steward I could only try to persuade my fellow union members to become politically aware to the extent that they could see the benefit to having a larger voice in the outcome of political action. We worked closely with the company on a multitude of efficiency initiatives that ultimately saved millions of dollars in production costs, we backed political action that resulted in the company receiving huge tax breaks to remain in state, they repaid our efforts by offloading a ton of our work to China, India, and other low wage suppliers.
It was about their bottom line and nothing else, leaving the union to view our interest in kind as a sole focus in negotiations. Your view of an economic construct that magically operates on principles and theories to everyone's eventual benefit based upon a predetermination of everyone's innate value supposes a kind of righteousness in that system, with every body in "their place" so to speak. When a strategy of activity puts one group in the gun sights of the other, no one wins for long. Humans do have a benefit from looking out for each other, it's called a decent society, one that looks inviting to those of other less civilized nations, that sounds a lot like the US, but for how long?
History has demonstrated the fact of human greed as a thing that seldom if ever contributes to the spread of a nations well being. The rule of law is the one thing that will bring greed to a level we can deal with, it can't eradicate it, nor can we ever expect these greedy entities to treat their employees with any real respect, if it's all about the money then let that be the battle cry of both sides and we'll hope for the best. In the meantime organized employers will attempt to take from their employees to satisfy THEIR NEEDS and the employees can either organize themselves to the extent that THEIR NEEDS are met, or not...
Welfare? Lets talk a little about those "who cannot survive without welfare", Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of those too big to fail welfare queens...
My read on Goldman Sachs and the other big banks is they are broke without a $30 an hr minimum wage. They need that much inflation to not fail.
"Economic groups work to win private goods, which are benefits that only the members of the group will enjoy. When a labor union agrees to a contract, for example, its members benefit from the contract, whereas nonunion members do not. If there is no private good incentive, people might choose not to join (especially if there is a membership fee or dues). There are four main types of economic groups: business groups, labor groups, agricultural groups, and professional associations". All self intere$t groups...
Labor unions have historically been a small portion of American economic interest groups, the larger numerical count comes down on the side of business and professional groups. The AMA recently lobbied for changes to law that directly benefited Doctors at the expense of the general public, the NAM, a national manufacturers group requests changes to our trade laws and other laws that would allow them collectively to benefit, and they are successful at your expense.
When one compares the collective power of unions to the power of those business "associations" the business groups grip on government is way beyond that of union lobbying efforts. So, it's really about interests and who is being served by the efforts of those who seek their own self interests from the rest of society be it a union seeking higher wages for their members or a manufacturer lobby group petitioning government for labor law changes or safety law changes, or tax relief, or the sundry of benefits they seek from legal change. Unions ARE the lobby focal for labor's interest, and often the only group offering labor an advocate political voice while business is inundating government every hour of every day.
With regard to your comparison of a union worker to babysitters and plumbers I can only respond in kind and allow that most people without representation have already determined their comfort level as it relates to their own singular wage demands. I really don't understand the mindset of those who have made a habit of pontificating their particular notions from anything less than personal experience or a scholarly approach to the issue at hand. I'd love to know what the circumstances are/were that makes ordinary working people so afraid of organizing in their own self interest.
I did own and manage a business in the sixties with a union crew, I can't say that this arrangement made my business any less of a competitive enterprise, nor did I feel like they comprised any type of "control" over my business in light of the fact that I could choose not to renew their contract and go forward with a non union crew. I CHOSE to remain a union employer for the simple reason that this removed any type of further wage/benefit demands for four years at a time. I eventually sold that business to try other types of business ventures, and ultimately ended up as a union contract employee for the last twenty years of my work life.
I know from where I speak when I say that unions do provide benefit, I also know from experience the benefits I garnered from joining a business collective that served as a voice in opposition to the large insurance carriers that payed my customers repair bills while attempting to deprive us of a fair compensation value for our work. This debate should be inclusive of those arguments that can address the good AND bad of any collective, be it private, professional, labor, educational, or any other form of collective action taken by one group to the detriment of any segment of society.
In my last stint as a union steward I could only try to persuade my fellow union members to become politically aware to the extent that they could see the benefit to having a larger voice in the outcome of political action. We worked closely with the company on a multitude of efficiency initiatives that ultimately saved millions of dollars in production costs, we backed political action that resulted in the company receiving huge tax breaks to remain in state, they repaid our efforts by offloading a ton of our work to China, India, and other low wage suppliers.
It was about their bottom line and nothing else, leaving the union to view our interest in kind as a sole focus in negotiations. Your view of an economic construct that magically operates on principles and theories to everyone's eventual benefit based upon a predetermination of everyone's innate value supposes a kind of righteousness in that system, with every body in "their place" so to speak. When a strategy of activity puts one group in the gun sights of the other, no one wins for long. Humans do have a benefit from looking out for each other, it's called a decent society, one that looks inviting to those of other less civilized nations, that sounds a lot like the US, but for how long?
History has demonstrated the fact of human greed as a thing that seldom if ever contributes to the spread of a nations well being. The rule of law is the one thing that will bring greed to a level we can deal with, it can't eradicate it, nor can we ever expect these greedy entities to treat their employees with any real respect, if it's all about the money then let that be the battle cry of both sides and we'll hope for the best. In the meantime organized employers will attempt to take from their employees to satisfy THEIR NEEDS and the employees can either organize themselves to the extent that THEIR NEEDS are met, or not...
You're still not getting it. Private businesses belong To the private owners. They tell you their needs for employees and you look at the terms and you sign up voluntarily. No one forces you to sign up. your needs do not come before their needs and your needs are not equal to their needs. It is their business, not yours. If your needs are not met, the right way is to find a different employer or to start your own business. You can request the raise by showing to your employer that you have a better offer and if they do not match that you are going to quit.
You failed to respond to the plumber example because you do not have a compelling argument. The matter of the fact that you are also an employer of some kind as you have hired people from time to time. But I doubt that you fulfilled any of these responsibilities that you want other employers to have.
It's funny that you mentioned the rule of law. Let's talk about it dad. The Constitution clearly says that one come for the associate and that includes the freedom not to associate.yet in most unionized place is a worker has to join the union. That is against the law.
Your rule of law looks a whole lot more like the rule of mob. They are productive members of the union climb on the backs of productive members. Total strangers get a hand on another strangers business budget and demand to pay based on one's own needs and past decisions. I don't see anything about decent society there. This is not decent. Climbing on the backs of other people is the total opposite of looking out for one another. Your points are basically contrary ironies.
Have you ever wondered what your rules would do to this country? Already businesses say they hire someone when they absolutely have to. Why? Because there are so many things that they have to fulfill so many men dates so many needs, yes knees, that they have to fulfill, needs that they may not even be aware of, needs that I told you divide by the worker. If that is true the businesses may want to look at the full background of a potential higher. Because the more needs these people are, the more the business is potentially have two subject to. Are you encouraging businesses to do more than background checks, to probe a person's background financial status economic background social background family status number of dependents health of the family members? Because any of this would immediately affect the workers need? The list is endless. You're making businesses ignore those potential hires that would claim an extraordinary deed or threatened to sue. You are also alienating these people who have such needs. you want businesses to close down. You are businesses to shrink and downsize them selves. And they may well do that in the coming decades, as more and more regulations are put up by the political left in exchange for votes. And in the end, these policies will not substantially improve workers lives and employment prospects. Then the cycle comes back to ground zero again, blame businesses.
Why would a business person even start of business today?
You're still not getting it. Private businesses belong To the private owners. They tell you their needs for employees and you look at the terms and you sign up voluntarily. No one forces you to sign up. your needs do not come before their needs and your needs are not equal to their needs. It is their business, not yours. If your needs are not met, the right way is to find a different employer or to start your own business. You can request the raise by showing to your employer that you have a better offer and if they do not match that you are going to quit.
And your not getting it. A job that was profitably done in the US for a lot $ per hr got moved to somewhere else that has a way over abundance of labor and so the going rate for labor is very low. Why was the labor rate high in the US? In large part by the actions of unions. Why is the labor rate low over there? Because they haven't or can't unionized. So they want to sell into a union labor market and use non-union labor to do it. Makes a lot of profit. In the short term. And for the first adopters.
Now there are some issues to consider. The governments debt was in part leveraged against the job being done here not there. So they are dodging their tax burden by moving the job over there. The world's economy tends to contract with the removal of the wages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
You failed to respond to the plumber example because you do not have a compelling argument.
Here it is. Driving down the cost of labor is bad for you and everyone else. Yes you may make some short term profits but long term you get stagnant growth and economic depression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
The matter of the fact that you are also an employer of some kind as you have hired people from time to time. But I doubt that you fulfilled any of these responsibilities that you want other employers to have.
It's funny that you mentioned the rule of law. Let's talk about it dad. The Constitution clearly says that one come for the associate and that includes the freedom not to associate.yet in most unionized place is a worker has to join the union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
No one forces you to sign up.
You just don't get a job. You are arguing both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
That is against the law.
Your rule of law looks a whole lot more like the rule of mob. They are productive members of the union climb on the backs of productive members. Total strangers get a hand on another strangers business budget and demand to pay based on one's own needs and past decisions. I don't see anything about decent society there. This is not decent. Climbing on the backs of other people is the total opposite of looking out for one another. Your points are basically contrary ironies.
You say that enjoying a prosperity bought in large part by union activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
Have you ever wondered what your rules would do to this country?
look at what union wages did to this country. Now it is time to do it to the rest of the world. I wont say anything about you thick headed lack of understanding. If you don't pay your workers anything then no one will have the money to buy what you are making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
Already businesses say they hire someone when they absolutely have to. Why?
because the debt load in the US and the world is way to high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
Because there are so many things that they have to fulfill so many men dates so many needs, yes knees, that they have to fulfill, needs that they may not even be aware of, needs that I told you divide by the worker. If that is true the businesses may want to look at the full background of a potential higher. Because the more needs these people are, the more the business is potentially have two subject to. Are you encouraging businesses to do more than background checks, to probe a person's background financial status economic background social background family status number of dependents health of the family members? Because any of this would immediately affect the workers need? The list is endless. You're making businesses ignore those potential hires that would claim an extraordinary deed or threatened to sue. You are also alienating these people who have such needs. you want businesses to close down. You are businesses to shrink and downsize them selves. And they may well do that in the coming decades, as more and more regulations are put up by the political left in exchange for votes. And in the end, these policies will not substantially improve workers lives and employment prospects. Then the cycle comes back to ground zero again, blame businesses.
Why would a business person even start of business today?
Do you get it. Take job from here and move it the and if everyone does it we all go broke unless we way over pay them over there by their standards. They need to get our pay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
