Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-05-2013, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,038 posts, read 2,509,642 times
Reputation: 831

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thetroof View Post
Because racism discredits their accomplishments? No.

USA was 85% white in 1960's. So the VAST MAJORITY of Americans benefited.
They don't have any accomplishments.

Unless excluding workers from work, sending jobs elsewhere and lower pay are accomplishments.

If you look throughout human history you will see workers migrate from union areas to non-union areas. Only exception was Detroit for a couple decades. If union benefitted everyone then it would be just the opposite. It's like the old cliche. People vote with their feet.

Last edited by OhioRules; 05-05-2013 at 02:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2013, 01:54 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,289 posts, read 87,253,323 times
Reputation: 55556
u r right, the unions do a lot of harmful things. but in a corporate world where employment at will is becoming the rule and benefits a thing of the past, contract and temp labor have killed the unions. in 20 years we shall see if exterminating the unions has really benefited the workers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 02:01 PM
 
286 posts, read 330,789 times
Reputation: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
They don't have any accomplishments.

Unless excluding workers from work and lower pay are accomplishments.
Lower pay? Man, Americans are some of the dumbest individuals on this planet. I need to get outta here

Lower pay is the corporation hiring (enter immigrants name) to do your job at the fraction of the price. Today this is done by hiring 2 people from the other side of the globe on work Visas to do your job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,038 posts, read 2,509,642 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetroof View Post
Lower pay? Man, Americans are some of the dumbest individuals on this planet. I need to get outta here

Lower pay is the corporation hiring (enter immigrants name) to do your job at the fraction of the price. Today this is done by hiring 2 people from the other side of the globe on work Visas to do your job.
Laws of economics prove labor unions lead to lower pay.

Monopoly unions raise wages above competitive levels. This means if a company was going to hire 15 welders they can only hire 10 to compensate for higher labor costs. Nonunion wages fall because workers priced out of jobs by high union wages move into the nonunion sector, creating an excess of labor and bid down wages there. Thus, some of the gains to union members come at the expense of those who must shift to lower-paying or less desirable jobs or go unemployed.

Unions cause lower wages.

If you look throughout human history you will see workers migrate from union areas to non-union areas. Only exception was Detroit for a couple decades. If unions led to higher wages then it would be just the opposite. It's like the old cliche. People vote with their feet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 02:23 PM
 
286 posts, read 330,789 times
Reputation: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Laws of economics prove labor unions lead to lower pay.

Monopoly unions raise wages above competitive levels. This means if a company was going to hire 15 welders they can only hire 10 to compensate for higher labor costs. Nonunion wages fall because workers priced out of jobs by high union wages move into the nonunion sector, creating an excess of labor and bid down wages there. Thus, some of the gains to union members come at the expense of those who must shift to lower-paying or less desirable jobs or go unemployed.

Unions cause lower wages.
Your definition makes no sense. ''Creating an excess of labor''?. So people should accept less benefits across the board and job security in exchange for more Americans having the same crappier job? How Un-American
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
29,699 posts, read 24,780,162 times
Reputation: 28385
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Laws of economics prove labor unions lead to lower pay.

Monopoly unions raise wages above competitive levels. This means if a company was going to hire 15 welders they can only hire 10 to compensate for higher labor costs. Nonunion wages fall because workers priced out of jobs by high union wages move into the nonunion sector, creating an excess of labor and bid down wages there. Thus, some of the gains to union members come at the expense of those who must shift to lower-paying or less desirable jobs or go unemployed.

Unions cause lower wages.

If you look throughout human history you will see workers migrate from union areas to non-union areas. Only exception was Detroit for a couple decades. If unions led to higher wages then it would be just the opposite. It's like the old cliche. People vote with their feet.

Obviously you have never worked in a non union production shop. They hire as few people as possible, and have them work 12 hours a day, even 7 days a week at times. The primary motivation in the private sector is to hire as few people as possible. This creates a labor surplus. Your logic makes not one lick of sense whatsoever.

And other areas in the north experienced the same migration including Chicago, Cleveland, etc. People didn't want to live in a dysfunction region suffering an awful economic losing streak. People were poor, and their employment options in the south weren't going to change that. If people do migrate to lower paying regions, it's out of necessity, not choice. Most businesses like to pay as little as possible for labor, which is why a lot of work does migrate to these non union regions. Cheap, often times poverty level wages. I guess when you can't find a decent paying job in the north, the south might be the only option on the table. Why exactly aren't you planning to move there if it's so great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Do you honestly not think that unions have protected useless positions and imposed harmful policies to businesses/government?
I've seen the same thing happen in the private sector. EX, departments that could be run efficiently by 4 people, but since supervisor is everyone's friend, they keep 6-7 employed so no one has to work very hard. Better yet, they hire one really hard worker and pay them a dollar more, while keeping 5 subpar poor performers on staff to talk all day.

So, instead of the union picking favorites, supervisors and high ups get that privilege. The results can suck either way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 03:12 PM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,431,657 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Laws of economics prove labor unions lead to lower pay.

Monopoly unions raise wages above competitive levels. This means if a company was going to hire 15 welders they can only hire 10 to compensate for higher labor costs. Nonunion wages fall because workers priced out of jobs by high union wages move into the nonunion sector, creating an excess of labor and bid down wages there. Thus, some of the gains to union members come at the expense of those who must shift to lower-paying or less desirable jobs or go unemployed.

Unions cause lower wages.

If you look throughout human history you will see workers migrate from union areas to non-union areas. Only exception was Detroit for a couple decades. If unions led to higher wages then it would be just the opposite. It's like the old cliche. People vote with their feet.
Oh good grief, here you are on another of these idiotic threads spouting the same nonsense. Your offering didn't float in that other thread but here you are similarly stating some economics course you took not only proves Unions served to lower mean averages across the board but also that workers migrated away from unionized areas.

Rebuttal is wasted on you as you cannot or will not assimilate facts to the contrary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 05:00 PM
 
Location: CHicago, United States
6,933 posts, read 8,476,638 times
Reputation: 3510
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
The Unions have made great accomplishments for workers in this country.

However, they must adapt to the times. Problems that I see with Unions today:

#1 Public Unions owning their own health insurance provider - using collective bargaining to give it a monopoly at the local contract level - then charging sometimes 30 to 40% above fair market value for the service provided. When teacher's unions do this that means less money for textbooks, technology, ending pay to play sports, fixing a leaky roof, compensating teachers, etc...

#2 Wanting public voting for recertifcation or other major votes - so that union members can be intimidated into voting the "correct" way.

#3 Fighting to protect outdated jobs. City of Detroit has a farrier even though they haven't had a horse in decades. Just mindlessness, which hurts Union support.

#4 Fighting to protect poor workers - see NYC teachers that are suspended with full pay surfing the web all day waiting years in some cases to have their hearing.

#5 Public Unions fighting to protect a pension system that cannot work. Most teacher's pensions require the funds to average 10% a year after management fees in order to fulfill the promises to teachers. After you factor out the bonds that pension holds - their stocks sometimes need to average around 15% to hit their mark. This just isn't going to happen...and the teacher's union here fought against lowering the expectations by 0.5% and then even 0.25%. Ford's pension system puts them at a disadvantage to Toyota's 401K.

Unions will remain important and they helped put in place many laws that protect workers today, but some of their policies are harmful to people supporting them.
1. Which specific health insurance companies or healthcare providers are you making reference to?

2. From wht I know, union elections are by secret balot. Which unions/elections are you referring to?

3. What's your source for the claim you make. It's easy to cite one job in one city, but do you have others to cite ... or even information about Detroit?

4. Unions defend their members. Some are bad-actors, most not. Just like there are bad employers, as well as good. A member is entitled to representation. The NRA has some bad members, as well as good ... and the NRA fights for them all. Federal and state, and sometimes local laws govern the collective bargaining process. This process is the product of decades of legislative action ... and agreements reached between employers and employees. The democratic process.

5. Who says the system can't work? It's the result of collective bargaining agreements ... not a union holding a gun to the head of the government/employers. Nobody forces either party ... union or employer to enter into an agreement. Pension or otherwise. Yes, some agreements are not wise over the long-run, but the union didn't bring on those situations by themselves. Employers are willing partners.

You need to re-think your objections to balance the argument that it takes two to 'tango.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 06:01 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,934,632 times
Reputation: 7314
Unions, like dinosaurs, will never adapt. If they could have, if they were smart enough to do so, their ranks would not have fallen by 5/6th of their private sector peak, going from 35% to a trivial 6% private sector membership today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Lewes, Delaware
3,490 posts, read 3,782,708 times
Reputation: 1953
Private unions are a part of the free market system, capitalism at its finest and any republican that has a problem with private unions like the IBEW or the UA is nothing more than a commie pinko scumbag. As for public unions, where the taxpayer is on the dole, that's a different story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:19 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top