• 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!

How to Kill a Union,,,in 3 Easy Steps.

Realist1 said:
I've looked at it from quite a few Sources...:lol:
I didn't come up with the 70% quote,,,but I'd like to think that at least that many people in Unions would stick up for their Right to Privacy.:lol:

Try this:Binding arbitration is still bad for workers - Steve Forbes - POLITICO.com


Some senators recently decided to drop a controversial provision from the Employee “Forced” Choice Act that would have prevented workers from being able to vote via secret ballot in union elections.


That was a wise decision. After all, that provision — “card check” — is an undemocratic way for labor unions to gain new members and would put employees at risk of harassment and intimidation.



Read more: Binding arbitration is still bad for workers - Steve Forbes - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...


Like the author of the other blog Forbes seems to mischaracterize EFCA. There is a mandate for binding arbitration after 90 days. However, this does not mean that workers would not have a say in the terms of their contract. Again bargaining committees and the procedures of contract ratification are determined by union constitutions. Nearly all unions require a majority support for a contract to be ratified and bargaining committees are usually comprised of workers as well as union reps. In many cases, union reps could not just bargain in bad faith without worker support because workers are on bargaining committees. However, if Forbes is really concerned about guaranteeing a workers a say in their contract, then he would be advocating for government regulation about how workers chose to associate.

Does anyone really believe that Forbes cares about workplace democracy? If Forbes is just concerned about giving workers a voice, then why doesn't he advocate for government arbitration that is subjected to secret ballot vote by the workers? The man argues against binding arbitration because it weakens the business owners bargaining positions. He argues against a "short" election period because longer election periods give employers a better chance at dissuading workers from joining a union.
 
Joe1991 said:
I prefer Henry Fords line about paying his workers enough to be able to buy his cars.
Click to expand...

Ford wasn't unionized at the time.
 
Joe1991 said:
Yeah, I've heard that GOP lie repeated a thousand different ways,
I prefer Henry Fords line about paying his workers enough to be able to buy his cars.
Click to expand...

Henry Ford didn't need a union to do that.

Secondly, what I said is hardly a lie and easily understood by anyone with knowledge in economics. The unions were strongest in the 1950s and that was because America had virtually no foreign competition in most industries. We were about the only industrialized nation that didn't have the crap blown out of it during WWII so while Europe was piecing itself back to together we had a virtual global monopoly on exports. That is why we could pay workers so well in those days for manual labor and have 80% income rates and still be chugging right along as a nation. Our recession began in the 1960s right as the Europeans were coming back online and producing again. From then it was all down hill for American manufacturing: textiles, automobiles, steel makers, you name it. The final blow was NAFTA and as much as technology has improved our lives, it's also a cause for the decimation of unions. Today China and India can produce products for a fraction of what it would cost here in this country and that's why so much of that has left our shores. Unionizing further would only speed the process.

The numbers don't lie. Ideology, however, blinds.
 
Harshaw said:
They monopolize the sale of labor in a given market.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is exactly correct. I think that you are saying a monopolies are bad because they can act as price setters against a group of agents who are price takers. This causes the price setter to cut back production to an inefficient degree so that it can artificially raise prices. In this setting the price-takers have no bargaining power because they compete with each other. Correct me if I am mischaracterizing your position.

However, if this is the case then labor unions are not properly defined as price setters, because business has bargaining power. Businesses are not simply price takers because they can refuse a contract, force a strike and even bring in temporary workers.

Unions are ultimately bargaining over the division of profit in a company. Thus, they are bargaining with a single agent who has a strict reservation value of what they can concede. This is different than bargaining with numerous agents who all have different reservation values. Since unions are only dealing with one agent, they do not have the same incentives to make supply scarce in order to increase they price. They simply name the price that they want.
 
Realist1 said:
Tell me,,,why would anyone worthwhile join a Union? You end up PAYING someone else for your Right to Work...:roll:
Click to expand...

huh? you're very confused about how unions work.

Most professions have organizations that represent them, so that little $65 buck a month pays for a lot of good union activity, mostly representation and helping the business owners gain more contract work.

As a union sheet metal worker, I make twice what most untrained workers make. But I am certaibly free to quit and go work for a non-union business or even start my own.
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
Henry Ford didn't need a union to do that.

Secondly, what I said is hardly a lie and easily understood by anyone with knowledge in economics. The unions were strongest in the 1950s and that was because America had virtually no foreign competition in most industries. We were about the only industrialized nation that didn't have the crap blown out of it during WWII so while Europe was piecing itself back to together we had a virtual global monopoly on exports. That is why we could pay workers so well in those days for manual labor and have 80% income rates and still be chugging right along as a nation. Our recession began in the 1960s right as the Europeans were coming back online and producing again. From then it was all down hill for American manufacturing: textiles, automobiles, steel makers, you name it. The final blow was NAFTA and as much as technology has improved our lives, it's also a cause for the decimation of unions. Today China and India can produce products for a fraction of what it would cost here in this country and that's why so much of that has left our shores. Unionizing further would only speed the process.

The numbers don't lie. Ideology, however, blinds.
Click to expand...

So what is your solution for getting wages up? They have been stagnating for a decade and please don't say tax cuts, that has been tried. How can we rebuild an economy when American workers make the same amount year after year and energy, food and medical costs continue to rise? A union used to be the ticket to the middle class for a working man, is that carrot to be thrown away just to satisfy the stockholders?
 
angrycarpenter said:
So what is your solution for getting wages up? They have been stagnating for a decade and please don't say tax cuts, that has been tried. How can we rebuild an economy when American workers make the same amount year after year and energy, food and medical costs continue to rise? A union used to be the ticket to the middle class for a working man, is that carrot to be thrown away just to satisfy the stockholders?
Click to expand...

In a global market with much cheaper labor, the more you take wages up, the more jobs will go elsewhere.

How do you solve that?
 
Harshaw said:
In a global market with much cheaper labor, the more you take wages up, the more jobs will go elsewhere.

How do you solve that?
Click to expand...

Unionize everyone. :2wave:
 
JimboJ said:
I don't think this is exactly correct. I think that you are saying a monopolies are bad because they can act as price setters against a group of agents who are price takers. This causes the price setter to cut back production to an inefficient degree so that it can artificially raise prices. In this setting the price-takers have no bargaining power because they compete with each other. Correct me if I am mischaracterizing your position.
Click to expand...

This, I more or less agree with.

However, if this is the case then labor unions are not properly defined as price setters, because business has bargaining power. Businesses are not simply price takers because they can refuse a contract, force a strike and even bring in temporary workers.
Click to expand...

Then they have no labor, and scabs are only temporary.

Remember, though, that a monopoly, in practice, need not control 100% of the market.


Unions are ultimately bargaining over the division of profit in a company. Thus, they are bargaining with a single agent who has a strict reservation value of what they can concede. This is different than bargaining with numerous agents who all have different reservation values. Since unions are only dealing with one agent, they do not have the same incentives to make supply scarce in order to increase they price. They simply name the price that they want.
Click to expand...

That certainly depends on the situation. Unions have been, on many occasions, in a position to make ridiculous demands and force industries to take them. The UAW is a pretty good example.

The monopolistic power of unions is recognized in Section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, which lists unfair practices on the part of unions.
 
Harshaw said:
In a global market with much cheaper labor, the more you take wages up, the more jobs will go elsewhere.

How do you solve that?
Click to expand...

You do it the old fashioned way, with import tariffs. Every country in the world practices protectionism why is it bad for us? The fact that we are not all over the slave produced crap from China just shows how much power they have over our economy. Protectionism is only bad for multinationals who want to take profits by moving stuff around the world without having to pay a fee. Access to American markets should come at a price, as it is now we are just giving it away for free.
 
Joe1991 said:
Unionize everyone. :2wave:
Click to expand...

:roll:

How you gonna do that, champ? Planning to invade China or India any time soon to impose it?
 
angrycarpenter said:
You do it the old fashioned way, with import tariffs. Every country in the world practices protectionism why is it bad for us? The fact that we are not all over the slave produced crap from China just shows how much power they have over our economy. Protectionism is only bad for multinationals who want to take profits by moving stuff around the world without having to pay a fee. Access to American markets should come at a price, as it is now we are just giving it away for free.
Click to expand...

Then the rest of the world buys the cheaper stuff from elsewhere and the jobs disappear anyway.
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
Henry Ford didn't need a union to do that.

Secondly, what I said is hardly a lie and easily understood by anyone with knowledge in economics. The unions were strongest in the 1950s and that was because America had virtually no foreign competition in most industries. We were about the only industrialized nation that didn't have the crap blown out of it during WWII so while Europe was piecing itself back to together we had a virtual global monopoly on exports. That is why we could pay workers so well in those days for manual labor and have 80% income rates and still be chugging right along as a nation. Our recession began in the 1960s right as the Europeans were coming back online and producing again. From then it was all down hill for American manufacturing: textiles, automobiles, steel makers, you name it. The final blow was NAFTA and as much as technology has improved our lives, it's also a cause for the decimation of unions. Today China and India can produce products for a fraction of what it would cost here in this country and that's why so much of that has left our shores. Unionizing further would only speed the process.

The numbers don't lie. Ideology, however, blinds.
Click to expand...

Well this reasoning depends on the industry. The service industry cannot be outsourced. This is becoming a larger share of our economy. Therefore, trade is not much of a threat to unions there. Moreover, unions and a welfare state more generally can create stable employment that encourages individuals to invest in relatively high skills that are particular and necessary for their industry. If interested you can find a more nuanced argument for this latter point is found in "Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage"
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Then the rest of the world buys the cheaper stuff from elsewhere and the jobs disappear anyway.
Click to expand...

So we are just screwed because our workers insist on a higher standard of living than Malaysia? is that your answer? Do we just expect too much being a worker in the richest country in the world?
 
Harshaw said:
This, I more or less agree with.



Then they have no labor, and scabs are only temporary.

Remember, though, that a monopoly, in practice, need not control 100% of the market.




That certainly depends on the situation. Unions have been, on many occasions, in a position to make ridiculous demands and force industries to take them. The UAW is a pretty good example.

The monopolistic power of unions is recognized in Section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, which lists unfair practices on the part of unions.
Click to expand...

Sure if unions go on strike then the company is without labor and scabs are only temporary. However, the workers also go without work. Presumably they too could find some other temporary job. However, a strike is costly for both agents, which gives both of them bargaining power in setting the price. The fact that some unions have won extremely favorable terms from firms, does not mean that unions, generally defined, are unilateral price setters. Moreover, unions do not have an incentive to under supply their labor in the same way that monopolies have an incentive to under supply their products. It is the incentive to under supply production that causes dead weight loss and prevents monopolies from achieving an efficient outcome.
 
angrycarpenter said:
So we are just screwed because our workers insist on a higher standard of living than Malaysia?
Click to expand...

Maybe. I didn't create the conditions; I'm only pointing out what's what.

is that your answer? Do we just expect too much being a worker in the richest country in the world?
Click to expand...

No one is entitled to any standard of living, and changing conditions necessitate . . . change. Much as our products face stiff competition in the global market, so does our labor. Do you actually think labor is exempt? That would be the mark of a fool.

Everyone wants "globalization," but there are many who refuse to accept its full implications.
 
JimboJ said:
Sure if unions go on strike then the company is without labor and scabs are only temporary. However, the workers also go without work. Presumably they too could find some other temporary job. However, a strike is costly for both agents, which gives both of them bargaining power in setting the price. The fact that some unions have won extremely favorable terms from firms, does not mean that unions, generally defined, are unilateral price setters. Moreover, unions do not have an incentive to under supply their labor in the same way that monopolies have an incentive to under supply their products. It is the incentive to under supply production that causes dead weight loss and prevents monopolies from achieving an efficient outcome.
Click to expand...

It's that if people want to buy, they have only one source from which to do it, which gives the monopoly undue power. They don't need to undersupply to exercise monopolistic power; that's but one tool.
 
Harshaw said:
It's that if people want to buy, they have only one source from which to do it, which gives the monopoly undue power. They don't need to undersupply to exercise monopolistic power; that's but one tool.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't know what you are referring to when you say "It's that if people want to buy...."

I agree that agents do not need to under-supply production to exercise monopoly power. However, typically folks think that monopolies are inefficient because they have incentives to under-supply production. For example, say that a monopolist knew how much each person was willing to pay for a product and they could charge each person according to their preferences. One might say that the resulting allocation is unfair, but it would not be inefficient because there would not be any dead weight loss. Now why would it be unfair? Its unfair because the monopolist gets to capture all of the surplus from the sales. However, this is a question of distribution not efficiency.

Since labor unions do not have an incentive to under supply labor they do not introduce dead weight loss. So unions aren't "bad" in the sense of causing the same inefficiencies as monopolists. However, their bargaining strength does affect the distribution of profits. To say that this effect is bad is a normative judgment and depends upon your interests as well as your philosophical predispositions.
 
Why do you think I consider a monopolistic entity bad because of "inefficiency"? Or solely because of it?
 
Harshaw said:
Maybe. I didn't create the conditions; I'm only pointing out what's what.



No one is entitled to any standard of living, and changing conditions necessitate . . . change. Much as our products face stiff competition in the global market, so does our labor. Do you actually think labor is exempt? That would be the mark of a fool.

Everyone wants "globalization," but there are many who refuse to accept its full implications.
Click to expand...

Everyone does not want globalization but stockholders think it is pretty cool. "Free trade" is a direct assault on workers all over the world and the governments that would protect them. The proponents of this profit above all else approach to business have been trying to kill the very idea that unionization is beneficial to a local or national economy. The idea of a group of workers having any power over how business is done is repugnant and I despair at the number of Americans who share this belief.

Karl Marx predicted a time when so much wealth would be concentrated in so few hands that democracy becomes meaningless and the rich will have the power to overrule the will of any number of ordinary citizens, in other words the collapse of western democratic civilization into an oligarchy. I am not even close to being a communist but he may have been right on that one.
 
angrycarpenter said:
Everyone does not want globalization but stockholders think it is pretty cool. "Free trade" is a direct assault on workers all over the world and the governments that would protect them. The proponents of this profit above all else approach to business have been trying to kill the very idea that unionization is beneficial to a local or national economy. The idea of a group of workers having any power over how business is done is repugnant and I despair at the number of Americans who share this belief.

Karl Marx predicted a time when so much wealth would be concentrated in so few hands that democracy becomes meaningless and the rich will have the power to overrule the will of any number of ordinary citizens, in other words the collapse of western democratic civilization into an oligarchy. I am not even close to being a communist but he may have been right on that one.
Click to expand...

You can whine about it and assign whatever motivations you like, but it is what it is. A trade war will not bring jobs back.
 
Harshaw said:
Why do you think I consider a monopolistic entity bad because of "inefficiency"? Or solely because of it?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Why do you think monopolies are bad? I guess if your answer is that you think monopolies are bad "solely because of it," I would push you to be a bit more specific. If you are merely concerned that monopolistic powers affect distribution, then this is an normative position. You would be in fact saying that the firm owner or the shareholders should get a larger share of the profit, than they get when they have to bargain collectively with workers. You would also be saying what workers should get a lower share of the profit, than they could otherwise get with a union. Someone else may legitimately think otherwise. From this answer we cannot simply conclude that protecting collective bargaining rights is bad.

Please note that I am not conceding that unions are monopolies in the traditional definition. However, I am arguing that even if one assumes that they are, we cannot necessarily say that their monopolistic power is bad without making a normative judgment. That is, this judgment requires a particular conception of justice that is contestable. We don't need this normative judgment to say that a monopoly over some commodity is bad.
 
I think monopolies are bad because they stifle competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom