• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

I think the point being made was that the amateur level spin on the story blaming unions was in keeping with the amateur level fact checking.

I think the bigger picture is that unions cost the state another company who will be relocating elsewhere taking jobs with them.
 
I think the bigger picture is that unions cost the state another company who will be relocating elsewhere taking jobs with them.
That's your spin. My spin is that anti union states harm both their own citizens as well as those of other states.
 
That's your spin. My spin is that anti union states harm both their own citizens as well as those of other states.

Since union membership is so low how do you know that? Your opinion noted but you have provided no evidence that your opinion is correct. The declining union membership would seem to prove you wrong
 
Since union membership is so low how do you know that? Your opinion noted but you have provided no evidence that your opinion is correct. The declining union membership would seem to prove you wrong
Declining union membership has much to do with anti union legislation and follows a vicious cycle of decreasing influence and resources which causes it to have decreasing influence and resources. It's being starved by corporate friendly politicians and an ignorant public who had been misled into believing their best interests lie with the rich rather than those who actually represent them.
 
another example of we only hire slaves...............if your not a slave, then we will not hire you.

It is the LAW.

National Labor Relations Act

Union defenders are always good for a display of histrionics.

The 90% of working Americans that are not in a union are not slaves.
 
Declining union membership has much to do with anti union legislation and follows a vicious cycle of decreasing influence and resources which causes it to have decreasing influence and resources. It's being starved by corporate friendly politicians and an ignorant public who had been misled into believing their best interests lie with the rich rather than those who actually represent them.

Union membership has declined in the private sector because the worlds economy is becoming more competitive and open. Unions cannot survive in competitive markets. They require anti-competitive measures that afford them monopolistic privileges. That's why they've thrown so much money into political campaigns over the decades. They need to install politicians that will cater to their cartel. This also explains why public-sector union membership has increased since the 60s. Public sector is not a competitive market relative to the private sector, and the people paying wages (the public) are an extra layer removed from the negotiating table and are less able to defend themselves against Union cost hiking.
 
Union membership has declined in the private sector because the worlds economy is becoming more competitive and open. Unions cannot survive in competitive markets. They require anti-competitive measures that afford them monopolistic privileges. That's why they've thrown so much money into political campaigns over the decades. They need to install politicians that will cater to their cartel. This also explains why public-sector union membership has increased since the 60s. Public sector is not a competitive market relative to the private sector, and the people paying wages (the public) are an extra layer removed from the negotiating table and are less able to defend themselves against Union cost hiking.

There is a logical disconnect in this thread whereas everyone seemingly gives lip service to "middle class jobs" but then most complains about the expenses to employers about paying "middle class wages."

You can't have middle class incomes (something we all apparently support) without paying middle class wages (something unions support).
 
There is a logical disconnect in this thread whereas everyone seemingly gives lip service to "middle class jobs" but then most complains about the expenses to employers about paying "middle class wages."

You can't have middle class incomes (something we all apparently support) without paying middle class wages (something unions support).

It doesn't adequately describe the union position to say they support middle-class wages. What they support is higher wages for their own members, and that's it. But it goes farther, because they also support non-competition with anyone outside their bargaining unit. This denies opportunities to those outside their little membership, and that's exactly what they want. They do not care one iota about the throngs of the unemployed, or anyone who would be able to do a better job, and/or do it for less, than their members.

Imagine if a business struck a deal with a municipal government whereby no other person was allowed to sell what that business sells in that community except that business. If a government ever honored that sort of deal, it would be blatant government catering to a corrupt cartel. By definition. The exact same mechanism is at play with public-sector unions. The mechanism is the exact same, the only difference is the way that for some reason or another, our laws honor and protect one type of anti-competitive cartel, while considering other types of cartels illegal.
 
It doesn't adequately describe the union position to say they support middle-class wages. What they support is higher wages for their own members, and that's it. But it goes farther, because they also support non-competition with anyone outside their bargaining unit. This denies opportunities to those outside their little membership, and that's exactly what they want. They do not care one iota about the throngs of the unemployed, or anyone who would be able to do a better job, and/or do it for less, than their members.

Imagine if a business struck a deal with a municipal government whereby no other person was allowed to sell what that business sells in that community except that business. If a government ever honored that sort of deal, it would be blatant government catering to a corrupt cartel. By definition. The exact same mechanism is at play with public-sector unions. The mechanism is the exact same, the only difference is the way that for some reason or another, our laws honor and protect one type of anti-competitive cartel, while considering other types of cartels illegal.

Rising union wages increase the wages for non union jobs in order for those employers to maintain competitive in the, inverse of the way that non union states decrease the wages of union states.
 
Rising union wages increase the wages for non union jobs in order for those employers to maintain competitive in the, inverse of the way that non union states decrease the wages of union states.

And the businesses pack up and move to those lower cost states, because consumers generally demand lower prices. Your notion of how competition works is backwards.
 
Rising union wages increase the wages for non union jobs in order for those employers to maintain competitive in the, inverse of the way that non union states decrease the wages of union states.

And the businesses pack up and move to those lower cost states, because consumers generally demand lower prices. Your notion of how competition works is backwards.
 
Declining union membership has much to do with anti union legislation and follows a vicious cycle of decreasing influence and resources which causes it to have decreasing influence and resources. It's being starved by corporate friendly politicians and an ignorant public who had been misled into believing their best interests lie with the rich rather than those who actually represent them.

Right, it always someone else's fault for personal choices made? When will you ever take responsibility for the failures of unions and liberalism? Personal choice only seems to matter when the choice is for an issue of interest to you.
 
And the businesses pack up and move to those lower cost states, because consumers generally demand lower prices. Your notion of how competition works is backwards.
They can demand lower prices by demanding lower pay for executives.

They can demand lower prices by demanding lower profit margins.

They can demand lower prices by demanding decreased advertizing expenditures.

They can demand lower prices by demanding decreased lobbying expenses.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Why is cutting the cost of labor the first and only right means of maintaining low prices? Why should American workers be the first to take a financial hit to maintain low prices?
Right, it always someone else's fault for personal choices made? When will you ever take responsibility for the failures of unions and liberalism? Personal choice only seems to matter when the choice is for an issue of interest to you.
There is an imbalance in the choices. That's the issue. If we provide an incentive for businesses to undermine worker pay, benefits, and safety, business will. That's a choice that's being dictated by bad policy which supports anti-union states.
 
They can demand lower prices by demanding lower pay for executives.

They can demand lower prices by demanding lower profit margins.

They can demand lower prices by demanding decreased advertizing expenditures.

They can demand lower prices by demanding decreased lobbying expenses.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Why is cutting the cost of labor the first and only right means of maintaining low prices? Why should American workers be the first to take a financial hit to maintain low prices?

There is an imbalance in the choices. That's the issue. If we provide an incentive for businesses to undermine worker pay, benefits, and safety, business will. That's a choice that's being dictated by bad policy which supports anti-union states.

Wonder why it is that big labor supporters aren't demanding that their leadership take cuts in salary? Hmmmm

Union bosses' salaries put 'big' in Big Labor - Washington Times

There are the facts that people like you want to ignore. The question is why does rhetoric trump actual results?
 
They can demand lower prices by demanding lower pay for executives.

They can demand lower prices by demanding lower profit margins.

They can demand lower prices by demanding decreased advertizing expenditures.

They can demand lower prices by demanding decreased lobbying expenses.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Why is cutting the cost of labor the first and only right means of maintaining low prices? Why should American workers be the first to take a financial hit to maintain low prices?

It isn't, and they aren't. Companies competing aggressively on cost seek to minimize all those input costs. It has never been the "first and only" cost that those who must compete on cost try to contain. They try to contain them all.

There is an imbalance in the choices. That's the issue. If we provide an incentive for businesses to undermine worker pay, benefits, and safety, business will. That's a choice that's being dictated by bad policy which supports anti-union states.

Businesses aren't the ones undermining pay and benefits. Other workers, those who are unemployed or underemployed, undermine worker pay and benefits, because the workers want to compete with those higher paid workers, by offering better service and/or offering it for cheaper. That is how all sellers compete. "I can offer something better and/or cheaper." Those who are down on their luck, struggling to make ends meet? They need to be able to compete. If it were up to unions, they wouldn't be allowed, unless they paid the union for the privilege. The enemy of unions are non-member workers, poorer workers, less fortunate and unemployed workers. Workers who want to compete with their inflated wages and benefits by offering something better and for cheaper. Workers who are good at what they do but do not want to be in a union. That is what unions are paid to do, is stamp those people out. Bar them from entry. Make it impossible for them to threaten their cushy jobs. Keep the outsiders pounding pavement, keep them unemployed, prevent them from bettering themselves, let them toil. This is all done so that the union members don't have to compete with these other workers.

All cartels do this. They manipulate the legal system to artificially constrict the supply of something (that is or would be in fact abundant) so that they can drive up its price. That is the fundamental mechanism by which all cartels operate, and that's why all economists that analyze labor unions recognize them as cartels and label them as such. Cartels are bad for everyone except (for the time being) those within their own privileged ranks. They make everyone else worse off. More for us, less for you. They are the actual embodiment of the very caricature they claim to be fighting against (the greedy business magnate).
 
Last edited:
Wonder why it is that big labor supporters aren't demanding that their leadership take cuts in salary? Hmmmm

Union bosses' salaries put 'big' in Big Labor - Washington Times

There are the facts that people like you want to ignore. The question is why does rhetoric trump actual results?
They're likely overpaid. But them earning a six figure income annually isn't nearly as expensive as the seven and eight figure salaries that the CEO's make. It's all relative.
 
They're likely overpaid. But them earning a six figure income annually isn't nearly as expensive as the seven and eight figure salaries that the CEO's make. It's all relative.

You have no idea what you are talking about, have never seen a business financial statement, have no idea the costs associated with starting a business yet you are an expert on how businesses operate? Please tell me why a union executive should make a six figure salary and what they do to earn that salary? What benefit do they provide to the common investor in the company they supposedly represent? Do your parents have stock in any company? Wonder how they feel about union management receiving all that money and generating nothing to them for their investment? Who do you think pays for the salaries of union management??
 
It isn't, and they aren't. Companies competing aggressively on cost seek to minimize all those input costs. It has never been the "first and only" cost that those who must compete on cost try to contain. They try to contain them all.
The statistics suggest otherwise:

CEOvsWORKERcomp.jpg


Businesses aren't the ones undermining pay and benefits. Other workers, those who are unemployed or underemployed, undermine worker pay and benefits, because the workers want to compete with those higher paid workers, by offering better service and/or offering it for cheaper. Your enemy (the unions') enemy, are non-member workers, poorer workers, less fortunate and unemployed workers. Workers who want to compete with their inflated wages and benefits by offering something better and for cheaper. That is what unions are paid to do, is stamp them out. Keep those outsiders pounding pavement, keep them unemployed, prevent them from bettering themselves. This is all done so that the union members don't have to compete with others.

All cartels do this. They manipulate the legal system to artificially constrict the supply of something (that is or would be in fact abundant) so that they can drive up its price. Cartels are bad for everyone except (for the time being) those within their own privileged ranks. They make everyone else worse off. More for us, less for you. They are the actual embodiment of the very caricature they claim to be fighting against (the greedy business magnate).
Capitalism is built on artificial constrictions of supply. This is not something unions have invented or are the only ones to utilize, it's the fundamental aspect of capitalism.
 
You have no idea what you are talking about, have never seen a business financial statement, have no idea the costs associated with starting a business yet you are an expert on how businesses operate? Please tell me why a union executive should make a six figure salary and what they do to earn that salary? What benefit do they provide to the common investor in the company they supposedly represent? Do your parents have stock in any company? Wonder how they feel about union management receiving all that money and generating nothing to them for their investment? Who do you think pays for the salaries of union management??
You're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding here. Union management is paid for by the members of the unions. That cost is not directly paid for by the company. It costs those of us with stocks nothing. As stockholders, CEO pay costs us infinitely more than union leader pay.
 
Undercutting your citizens into low paying jobs hurts both your citizens and the citizens of the states standing up for better conditions and pay.

Taking a low ball offer doesn't make you a winner, it makes the corporation low balling you a winner. Everyone else loses.

The point is the state and the people who live in it have the right to make that choice. And it is a choice. And if it undercuts another state too bad. I am in business nobody sheds any tears for me when my competitors come in and low ball their bids. Everybody is for that, except of course when it happens to them or the company they work for. Why should I give a crap about some whiny bitches who refuse to improvise, overcome and adapt. Boo fricken hoo. Much ado about absolutely nothing.
 
The statistics suggest otherwise:

CEOvsWORKERcomp.jpg

I'll reserve comment until you get that working.

Capitalism is built on artificial constrictions of supply.

No it's not "built on it." Left wingers always say stuff like this, they find some negative, illegal or undesirable behavior and then claim capitalism is "built on" the despicable thing. It's built on people trading freely with one another to make themselves better off. Now that's not to say a restricted supply isn't desirable for the entity that deals in it, it's completely natural that some sellers of something would seek to rig the system to restrict it for their own profit, but that is where the government is supposed to step in and forbid such anti-competitive behavior. It's why we have anti-trust laws, and it's why any economist, left wing or right wing, will acknowledge that collusion to cut off supply and undermine competitive bidding in the market must be regulated and stopped by government. That is a legitimate governmental function.

But instead of government stepping in and saying "this is a cartel, and is anticompetitive, and it's forbidden by our laws," you compete in the market like everyone else, we don't tolerate market-hindering collusion and cartel schemes, instead of doing that, the government officially sanctions these cartels and enables them. Some in legislative positions think this practice should end, but they face major battles getting that through because unions spend an insane amount of money installing political leaders to protect their cartel. It is corrupt to the bone, but they work hard to keep their cause noble-sounding.

This is not something unions have invented or are the only ones to utilize, it's the fundamental aspect of capitalism.

Negative behaviors that screw others over are natural, predictable flaws in humans. It's not unique to capitalism. It's a human characteristic. People don't suddenly all become perfect beings under socialist or communist regimes. People want to make themselves better off and will in some cases resort to schemes that are unfair, harmful, and are therefore made illegal. Cartels should all be illegal. So should monopolies. Labor cartels (unions) are a special exception that are not illegal, but they should be, or at least the anti-competitive tactics they use to protect their members and screw over outsiders.
 
Last edited:
I'll reserve comment until you get that working.
Image is showing for me. It's basically another graphic showing the disconnect between worker pay over the last few decades v. executive pay.

(hint: workers don't do nearly as well).
No it's not "built on it." Left wingers always say stuff like this, they find some negative, illegal or undesirable behavior and then claim capitalism is "built on" the despicable thing. It's built on people trading freely with one another to make themselves better off. Now that's not to say a restricted supply isn't desirable for the entity that deals in it, it's completely natural that some sellers of something would seek to rig the system to restrict it for their own profit, but that is where the government is supposed to step in and forbid such anti-competitive behavior. It's why we have anti-trust laws, and it's why any economist, left wing or right wing, will acknowledge that collusion to cut off supply and undermine competitive bidding in the market must be regulated and stopped by government. That is a legitimate governmental function.

But instead of government stepping in and saying "this is a cartel, and is anticompetitive, and it's forbidden by our laws," you compete in the market like everyone else, we don't tolerate market-hindering collusion and cartel schemes, instead of doing that, the government officially sanctions these cartels and enables them. Some in legislative positions think this practice should end, but they face major battles getting that through because unions spend an insane amount of money installing political leaders to protect their cartel. It is corrupt to the bone, but they work hard to keep their cause noble-sounding.



Negative behaviors that screw others over are natural, predictable flaws in humans. It's not unique to capitalism. It's a human characteristic. People don't suddenly all become perfect beings under socialist or communist regimes. People want to make themselves better off and will in some cases resort to schemes that are unfair, harmful, and are therefore made illegal. Cartels should all be illegal. So should monopolies. Labor cartels (unions) are a special exception that are not illegal, but they should be.
Governments support anti-competitive behavior though. Patent law is anti-competitive behavior sanctioned by the government. "Natural monopolies" are anti-competitive behavior sanctioned by the government. Etc.
 
You're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding here. Union management is paid for by the members of the unions. That cost is not directly paid for by the company. It costs those of us with stocks nothing. As stockholders, CEO pay costs us infinitely more than union leader pay.

Dude your union leaders make boat loads more than you. On average ten time and they live better than you, and your bitching about somebody actually busting hump selling the company to bring in the moola. What exactly do you get for the money you pay those punks? Job security? Better pay? Huh? What do you get for all the money you put out? Do you even bother to figure out if you make more money with them after their "service fee" or less than someone in a nonunion company in a comparable position?

Here's a little known fact about CEO's and why they make so damn much. Because good one are worth their weight in gold literally. They are very much like good salesmen. Damn near indispensable. Any old person just cant walk into a CEO position and run a company well and profitable. That's why people are willing to pay so much. Its also the reason people pay so much for baseball, football, and basketball players. The big names bring home the bacon. A rising tide lifts all boats.
 
Dude your union leaders make boat loads more than you. On average ten time and they live better than you, and your bitching about somebody actually busting hump selling the company to bring in the moola. What exactly do you get for the money you pay those punks? Job security? Better pay? Huh? What do you get for all the money you put out? Do you even bother to figure out if you make more money with them after their "service fee" or less than someone in a nonunion company in a comparable position?

Here's a little known fact about CEO's and why they make so damn much. Because good one are worth their weight in gold literally. They are very much like good salesmen. Damn near indispensable. Any old person just cant walk into a CEO position and run a company well and profitable. That's why people are willing to pay so much. Its also the reason people pay so much for baseball, football, and basketball players. The big names bring home the bacon. A rising tide lifts all boats.
A) I believe that wage disparity should be addressed for everyone, including union leaders.

B) The wages paid allowed them to make this helpful graphic, which shows that even if they're earning 10 times my income, that's significantly smaller than the disparity of CEOs.

CEO_worker_pay_ratio.png
 
Image is showing for me. It's basically another graphic showing the disconnect between worker pay over the last few decades v. executive pay.

(hint: workers don't do nearly as well).

Nor have they ever. American consumers continue rewarding companies that cut costs. American consumers don't want more expensive alternatives. They want less expensive alternatives. The rest is history. We'd have had to close our doors, close off trade, go protectionist, to avoid that. It is very difficult to argue we'd have higher living standards if we had done that.

Governments support anti-competitive behavior though. Patent law is anti-competitive behavior sanctioned by the government. "Natural monopolies" are anti-competitive behavior sanctioned by the government. Etc.

I'm not defending those other things (they're for another discussion), and nor does this observation justify the tactics of labor cartels.
 
Back
Top Bottom