The realities of Labor Unions

[NYcarbineer]

Unions have been on the decline for 50 years, so you anti-union conservatives have actually been WINNING that battle for half a century.

Now tell us:

What have you won for the American working class as a result?

Be specific.

Jobs from europe and the world due to right to work laws

Where are non-union American jobs paying better for comparable work now, in the US?

And not anecdotally...

 

[Iceweasel]

Then you tell us how the economic fortunes of the American worker improve once unions are gone.

They are almost gone now. Only about 11% of the private sector is unionized. The public sector lives off of the private sector and doesn't create wealth.

The way the middle class does better is the way it always has, when the economy improves. More goods are made, more are employed, at higher wages, etc. Taxing and adding to labor costs does not help business grow.

Unions have been declining for 50 years. Where is all this job growth at higher wages you're claiming happens after unions decline?

Be specific.

Try reading s l o w e r.

 

[zeke]

yes, free markets are best for everyone, including "working" men and women. And BTW, I work a lot more than the working men and women who work for me, why do you suppose they are the ones who get credit for working?

What does union busting and free markets have to do with one another?

And you claim to work more than your employees? Who knows. You also have quite a bit larger paycheck. Right?
Is effort and pay linked? Do business owners go into business to make the same amount of money as an hourly worker?

But more interesting than how hard you say you work is how you link up union busting and "free markets".
I wanna hear this.

I guess you don't think workers should be able to unionize so that they are rewarded for their efforts in this "free market" that you speak of.

 

[kaz]

yes, free markets are best for everyone, including "working" men and women. And BTW, I work a lot more than the working men and women who work for me, why do you suppose they are the ones who get credit for working?

What does union busting and free markets have to do with one another?

And you claim to work more than your employees? Who knows. You also have quite a bit larger paycheck. Right?
Is effort and pay linked? Do business owners go into business to make the same amount of money as an hourly worker?

But more interesting than how hard you say you work is how you link up union busting and "free markets".
I wanna hear this.

I guess you don't think workers should be able to unionize so that they are rewarded for their efforts in this "free market" that you speak of.

I didn't link union busting and free markets, you were busy arguing with the voices in your head and attributing what they said to me and I didn't want to interrupt them, that would have just been rude.

If you want o know what I think, you're going to have to ask me, not tell me.

 

[BlueJay28]

These are the facts about labor unions.

Labor Unions are unconstitutional.
It violates the Business owner's right to be safe and secure in his papers and effects regarding his business.

Labor unions are NOT professional associations, professional associations and labor unions are different, in that a labor union seeks to create a monopoly of labor available to the employer, a professional association boosts the reputability of the worker through setting codes and standards, and they offer information about the worker's profession, and offer resources, etc etc..

Labor Unions are often ran by criminals who engage in extortion, loan sharking, aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice, and fraud.


In the long run, labor unions cause poverty, by putting businesses out of business through bankruptcy.

The economic benefits are relatively short term, and even during their time as being an economic benefit, they create economic inequality in favor of the union workers, as opposed to non union workers, and they cause price increases further tipping the scales in favor of Union workers.

This pay increase is due to the fact that artificial labor monopolies have the exact same consequences as any other monopoly, amongst those are price hikes, by the demand of the monopoly.

Union workers create an artificial monopoly, which is STILL a monopoly, and monopolies have never worked for the consumer.
The consumer of labor is the employer and the customers or clients.

While monopolies are not unconstitutional for the consumer, they are against any standard that seeks to create reputability in business, and they ARE unconstitutional for the employer, because it violates the employers right to be secure in his papers and effects regarding his business.

Because the labor monopoly holds the employer hostage to the labor monopoly, it is very hard, if not impossible to fire the workers, or to take disciplinary action against the said worker or workers.

This means that the union worker can behave nearly any way that he so chooses and get away with it.
This inevitably turns the union workers into unruly scum with no discipline whatsoever.

Late check ins, early clock outs, rude and insulting behavior, and piss poor performance, frequent absences from work, dress that is only "moderately appropriate" and certainly not serious for the job, and excuse after excuse for it.

And even off the job... because the union workers have no discipline, their bad habits might roll over into their life away from work, and affect their behavior at home, and in public.

Labor Unions also cause discrimination, by making it mandatory to join the union.


So I would make it illegal under the current laws against extortion, and the Sherman anti trust laws against monopolies, to have labor unions.

Um, don't you think if labor unions were unconstitutional they would have been ruled unconstitutional at some point in the last 100 years or so?

not necessarily.

The death penalty is still here, so is "in god we trust" on our money, and so is religion being taught in public schools, so did racial segregation until the 1960s, so did slavery until 1865.

Its only unconstitutional, unless I agree with it.... isn't that right mister democrap piece of sh!t ?
lol

 

[JoeB131]

Then, for you, there are money market funds required in each 401K that would grow as well as the money you have in your mattress. Well, better, actually.

Plus matching funds from your employer. Free money!

See? Easy.

I know. Still not good enough.

And by the way, pension funds are invested in -- wait for it -- the stock market. Often in hedge funds, alternatives and other securities which are riskier than traditional mutual funds. Why? Because the funds in the negotiated pensions have to earn enough money to keep up with promises made to unions and have to take higher risks.

Point is, making good is on the hedge fund manager, not the retiree. ANd that's how it should be.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I keep a copy of my 2008 Q4 401K statement as a reminder of any fuck who wants to talk me into a 401K ever again.

401K's are the biggest rippoff of the working man since... well, Free Trade Treaties.

"Hey, why don't you put this money in a big pot and we'll go off and play the market. And while we can get out at any time, you can't get out without paying a 20% penalty!!!!"

I should do the same...comparing my 401k in 2008 with my 401k now ...all I can say is DAMN! Glad I raised my contributions in 2008. (Buying stocks on sale is a wonderful thing...)

 

[Jarlaxle]

4. Remove bizarre and inefficient workplace rules & restrictions elements (such as this guy can't drive that truck, this guy can't turn that wrench, fucking ridiculous)

Yeah, you know, I worked in a place that had that kind of rule. they kept making warehouse guys drive trucks even though they didn't have CDL's. Hilarity ensued. But they didn't want to hire enough truck drivers or purchase enough trucks.

Did they drive on public roads (yard jockeys do not need a CDL), and did the trucks actually require a CDL? We have six trucks at work, all the same size and configuration and all but one the same manufacturer...two require CDL's (33,000lb GVWR), four do not (25,950 or 26,000lb GVWR).

 

[Jarlaxle]

And if the company goes belly up...

Where is that pension now? It is rather interesting how people shy away from taking care of their own money because that is 'dangerous' but are perfectly fine allowing someone else to maintain control of the risks over it.

I recall the average pension payout at Polaroid was about $12.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Unions have already declined for decades, and this is what you've gotten:

Marriage has gone down too. Maybe that's the problem? Correlation isn't causation, try again.

Well then, offer alternative causations that are more plausible.

Off the top of my head: the floodgates were opened in 1968 to an avalanche of unskilled immigrants.

 

[OnePercenter]

Because I don't believe you've ever been a business owner, at least not a business owner who competed in the private sector.

Why? Because I make it easy? Which it is.....

 

[initforme]

The only way a worker can now stick it to his employer is to constantly be seeking out higher wages and being ready to walk out on his current job at any time. No 2 weeks notice either... that is unfair to the worker. The company should have zero ability to have this much control.

 

[S.J.]

Because I don't believe you've ever been a business owner, at least not a business owner who competed in the private sector.

Why? Because I make it easy? Which it is.....

Because you make WHAT easy?

 

[reconmark]

DMC sole defendant in RN wages lawsuit after 7 other hospital systems settle

Detroit Medical Center will go it alone as the remaining defendant in a class action lawsuit on behalf of metro Detroit registered nurses after seven other hospital systems agreed to combined settlements of about $48 million.

Chief Judge Gerald Rosen at U.S. District Court signed an order last week to distribute settlement funds to nurses of Henry Ford Health System, Beaumont Health System, the former Mt. Clemens General Hospital (now McLaren Macomb Hospital) and Trinity Health Michigan, now a division of Livonia-based CHE Trinity Health.

A class of more than 20,000 registered nurses certified by Rosen in September, which provided direct patient care in Detroit-area acute care hospitals since 2002, filed a 2006 lawsuit alleging eight hospital systems colluded to keep pay scales for RNs artificially lower than market forces dictate.

When some idiot starts a thread and ignorantly informs me how big business is my friend and unions seek to monopolize the labor force, I'm simply reminded of the many instances of the above listed activities of big business.

Without a union these Nurses would have been cheated and screwed over for many years.

 

[OnePercenter]

You never owned a business, period. Your posts reveal the fact, this one is no different. Non union shops aren't fucking anyone, you leftist liar.

Proper training isn't possible without a union? Seriously? A union can be good for both parties but not if they exert so much control the business goes overseas or shuts down, which has happened all too often.

How do my posts reveal that?

From my personal experience, Union training is far superior than any other, especially when your dealing with state-of-the-art equipment.

 

[OnePercenter]

Whoa, union boy blew a gasket! Lots of businesses do very well and produce fine products without a union. Gosh, how is it even possible? Airline work is shifting to right to work states in the south, thanks to the heavy handedness of unions. Hate didn't make them move and hate isn't what motivates the opposition. Failure to agree with you isn't equivalent to not caring about working folks.

The fact that you think so is a big part of the problem, arrogance and intolerance is par for the course. So much so, unions screw their workers out of an job, so who really has the workers' best interest in mind?

Airlines are doing nothing more than attempting to increase profits on the backs of their employees.

 

[BULLDOG]

.

It's a 10% IRS penalty, as with all retirement plans (pensions too!) and the 20% figure would be money kept by the custodian for taxes if you don't follow the law and roll it over.

There are also "lifestyle" mutual funds in 401K plans that essentially do the investing for you, lowering risk as you age. These are for the people who freak out at the notion of personal finance and would rather have someone else take care of it for them, because they buy into the notion that someone else is responsible for their money.

Yes, there are all sorts of schemes for Wall Street to separate you from your hard earned money, i'm sure.

I've had quite enough of that, thank you.

Then, for you, there are money market funds required in each 401K that would grow as well as the money you have in your mattress. Well, better, actually.

Plus matching funds from your employer. Free money!

See? Easy.

I know. Still not good enough.

And by the way, pension funds are invested in -- wait for it -- the stock market. Often in hedge funds, alternatives and other securities which are riskier than traditional mutual funds. Why? Because the funds in the negotiated pensions have to earn enough money to keep up with promises made to unions and have to take higher risks.



.

Obviously, you don't understand the place of pensions or 401K hold in union negotiations. They are just another form of compensation to the workers. The workers could have the money being directed to either of those places, or added to their paycheck, but they forego that to put it up for their retirement. There are advantages to pooling those funds for a better return at retirement. The point is that pensions are the workers money to start with, that the companies agree to invest in a suitable way for the workers. The amount is negotiated each time a new contrast is signed, and the company is never surprised by the amount they are responsible for, or will be responsible for in the future. It is agreed to before the first penny is put back for the first worker. You and many others act as if pensions are some sort of surprise that the unions spring on the companies when ever thy want to. It's not. It was agreed to by all parties long before the first payout. You probably wouldn't encourage a business to unilaterally break a contract and not pay money owed to another business, so why would it be OK to do the same thing to their workers?

 

[NYcarbineer]

These are the facts about labor unions.

Labor Unions are unconstitutional.
It violates the Business owner's right to be safe and secure in his papers and effects regarding his business.

Labor unions are NOT professional associations, professional associations and labor unions are different, in that a labor union seeks to create a monopoly of labor available to the employer, a professional association boosts the reputability of the worker through setting codes and standards, and they offer information about the worker's profession, and offer resources, etc etc..

Labor Unions are often ran by criminals who engage in extortion, loan sharking, aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice, and fraud.


In the long run, labor unions cause poverty, by putting businesses out of business through bankruptcy.

The economic benefits are relatively short term, and even during their time as being an economic benefit, they create economic inequality in favor of the union workers, as opposed to non union workers, and they cause price increases further tipping the scales in favor of Union workers.

This pay increase is due to the fact that artificial labor monopolies have the exact same consequences as any other monopoly, amongst those are price hikes, by the demand of the monopoly.

Union workers create an artificial monopoly, which is STILL a monopoly, and monopolies have never worked for the consumer.
The consumer of labor is the employer and the customers or clients.

While monopolies are not unconstitutional for the consumer, they are against any standard that seeks to create reputability in business, and they ARE unconstitutional for the employer, because it violates the employers right to be secure in his papers and effects regarding his business.

Because the labor monopoly holds the employer hostage to the labor monopoly, it is very hard, if not impossible to fire the workers, or to take disciplinary action against the said worker or workers.

This means that the union worker can behave nearly any way that he so chooses and get away with it.
This inevitably turns the union workers into unruly scum with no discipline whatsoever.

Late check ins, early clock outs, rude and insulting behavior, and piss poor performance, frequent absences from work, dress that is only "moderately appropriate" and certainly not serious for the job, and excuse after excuse for it.

And even off the job... because the union workers have no discipline, their bad habits might roll over into their life away from work, and affect their behavior at home, and in public.

Labor Unions also cause discrimination, by making it mandatory to join the union.


So I would make it illegal under the current laws against extortion, and the Sherman anti trust laws against monopolies, to have labor unions.

Um, don't you think if labor unions were unconstitutional they would have been ruled unconstitutional at some point in the last 100 years or so?

not necessarily.

The death penalty is still here, so is "in god we trust" on our money, and so is religion being taught in public schools, so did racial segregation until the 1960s, so did slavery until 1865.

Its only unconstitutional, unless I agree with it.... isn't that right mister democrap piece of sh!t ?
lol

No need to throw a fit, Grandma. Nothing you said has anything to do with what I asked you.

 

[Mac1958]

.

It's a 10% IRS penalty, as with all retirement plans (pensions too!) and the 20% figure would be money kept by the custodian for taxes if you don't follow the law and roll it over.

There are also "lifestyle" mutual funds in 401K plans that essentially do the investing for you, lowering risk as you age. These are for the people who freak out at the notion of personal finance and would rather have someone else take care of it for them, because they buy into the notion that someone else is responsible for their money.

Yes, there are all sorts of schemes for Wall Street to separate you from your hard earned money, i'm sure.

I've had quite enough of that, thank you.

Then, for you, there are money market funds required in each 401K that would grow as well as the money you have in your mattress. Well, better, actually.

Plus matching funds from your employer. Free money!

See? Easy.

I know. Still not good enough.

And by the way, pension funds are invested in -- wait for it -- the stock market. Often in hedge funds, alternatives and other securities which are riskier than traditional mutual funds. Why? Because the funds in the negotiated pensions have to earn enough money to keep up with promises made to unions and have to take higher risks.



.

Obviously, you don't understand the place of pensions or 401K hold in union negotiations. They are just another form of compensation to the workers. The workers could have the money being directed to either of those places, or added to their paycheck, but they forego that to put it up for their retirement. There are advantages to pooling those funds for a better return at retirement. The point is that pensions are the workers money to start with, that the companies agree to invest in a suitable way for the workers. The amount is negotiated each time a new contrast is signed, and the company is never surprised by the amount they are responsible for, or will be responsible for in the future. It is agreed to before the first penny is put back for the first worker. You and many others act as if pensions are some sort of surprise that the unions spring on the companies when ever thy want to. It's not. It was agreed to by all parties long before the first payout. You probably wouldn't encourage a business to unilaterally break a contract and not pay money owed to another business, so why would it be OK to do the same thing to their workers?

As a financial professional who runs both 401K's and pensions for business clients, I can tell you unequivocally that you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, obviously the specifics and benefits of a pension are agreed to in a contract. But "it's the workers' money to start with?" Huh? No it's not. You even say it: "The company is never surprised by the amount they are responsible for." And the business is often held liable if the pension goes in the shitter, see below.

And, in order to comply with the demands of the unions in negotiations, pensions often have to make ridiculous promises of returns in the fund just to keep it afloat, and we're seeing the predictable results across the country, as pension funds are either in trouble, having to make adjustments or both. Look at Colorado's PERA disaster for a textbook case. They had to hit 8.5% annualized growth to make ends meet. So much for THAT.

And "there are advantages to pooling those funds for a better return at retirement". Uh, no. There is zero guarantee a pension fund is going to out-perform a 401K, and 401K plans are getting significantly better in providing options that are simpler and easier to understand while providing good growth and lifetime income guarantees, and often fees are significantly lower.

I'd keep going, but I suspect I'd be wasting my time.

My plan for unions is balanced, reasonable, workable.

.

 

[zeke]

And, in order to comply with the demands of the unions in negotiations,

So which is it there Mac. Did the unions "negotiate" the agreement with the companies. Or did the unions "demand" something from the company?

If it was negotiate, then what's the problem? The company didn't have to agree to the provisions in the negotiation now did they?

And if it was union demands, seems like you should have a problem with the people acting on behalf of the company. Must be a pretty weak company rep if they agree to "demands" that the company knows can't be met.

But I am sure, with you being a financial professional and all, that you know for a fact the union people are just to slick and accomplished for any company representative to even have a fair chance at the negotiating table.

Poor companies.