Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

[Bombur]

The market decides wages and benefits. The unions job is to ensure the market does not.

I will focus on the part of your statement worth addressing.

There is no doubt that unions have lost the ability to effectively work in a globalized world. I have already said as much and don't think they are the answer going forward.

I do think it is their job to address issues in the market. I think it is even more accurate to say that labor in general should organize and represent their needs in the marketplace. When China manipulates the USD all labor should stand up and cry foul. When the nation makes regulations concerning the environment that hurts domestic production and encourages foreign production AND environmental destruction the laborers should cry foul. When corporate taxes benefit imports more than domestic production all labor should cry foul. When the tax structure of the nation is regressive labor should cry foul. When government programs at the low end of the income spectrum manipulate the incentive to work so much that it is no longer worth working labor should cry foul. When the entire world has a healthcare system that is more efficient than ours labor should cry foul.

Our politicians need to spend more time worrying about the middle and less time worrying about the edges. Everyone depends on that middle because they do most of the living, working, and dying in this country.

Those countries who promote equality over individual liberty will receive neither. Those who promote individual liberty over equality will receive a great deal of both. Unions are not conducive to individual liberty or equality. They are a barrier to both. Indeed, America was crying foul long before unions. Unions are not necessary in this respect. Crying foul ended slavery, economically harmful tariffs, and much more during the 19th century. Moreover, people should be crying foul when a union creates an artificial market with undue political influence at the expense of the American people.

Fine platitudes that have more to do with wishful thinking than reality and history.

It is a worldview that fails to understand the nature of the labor market, the importance of demand in economic growth, and how economies change as supply of certain things change.

Unions have promoted both the liberty and equality of labor. To deny basic history is sad to watch.

 

[Publius1787]

I will focus on the part of your statement worth addressing.

There is no doubt that unions have lost the ability to effectively work in a globalized world. I have already said as much and don't think they are the answer going forward.

I do think it is their job to address issues in the market. I think it is even more accurate to say that labor in general should organize and represent their needs in the marketplace. When China manipulates the USD all labor should stand up and cry foul. When the nation makes regulations concerning the environment that hurts domestic production and encourages foreign production AND environmental destruction the laborers should cry foul. When corporate taxes benefit imports more than domestic production all labor should cry foul. When the tax structure of the nation is regressive labor should cry foul. When government programs at the low end of the income spectrum manipulate the incentive to work so much that it is no longer worth working labor should cry foul. When the entire world has a healthcare system that is more efficient than ours labor should cry foul.

Our politicians need to spend more time worrying about the middle and less time worrying about the edges. Everyone depends on that middle because they do most of the living, working, and dying in this country.

Those countries who promote equality over individual liberty will receive neither. Those who promote individual liberty over equality will receive a great deal of both. Unions are not conducive to individual liberty or equality. They are a barrier to both. Indeed, America was crying foul long before unions. Unions are not necessary in this respect. Crying foul ended slavery, economically harmful tariffs, and much more during the 19th century. Moreover, people should be crying foul when a union creates an artificial market with undue political influence at the expense of the American people.

Fine platitudes that have more to do with wishful thinking than reality and history.

It is a worldview that fails to understand the nature of the labor market, the importance of demand in economic growth, and how economies change as supply of certain things change.

Unions have promoted both the liberty and equality of labor. To deny basic history is sad to watch.

Getting kinda tired of claims without reference.

 

[JQPublic1]

Has anyone ever heard about a little think called the labor market? has anyone here ever heard of the demand for labor? Can anyone please explain the correlation between work force population and unemployment combined with how they effect wages? They're not getting it.

Actually more production can lead to lower wages due to lower demand for labor. Skilled v unskilled is not nearly as important as underlying problems associated with stagnation of wages leading to stagnation of demand as production capacity increases.

Unions didn't just fight for higher wages. They fought for better working conditions and other benefits. All of which lead to a growing working class and middle class that created enough demand to actually feed the increasing production capacity.

The smaller the labor pool, no matter how you frame it, ensures higher wages as businesses compete for the same labor. Unions did not shrink unemployment they encouraged it as they still do. Americas transition to an industrial economy was natural and the ills of the work place naturally went away as unemployment decreased.

I don't think It is as simple as that. There are myriad factors that determine wages. Your premise has merit but is only one of an assortment of factors in that regard.