- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Reaction score
- 2,125
- Location
- North America
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Whenever someone mentions unions, one of two things usually comes to mind.
1. Unions are political machines that create laws favorable to themselves, that hurt both employee and employer. They force businesses to pay unfair wages, and keep on employees who aren't pulling their weight. They are an example of why socialism is inferior to capitalism.
2. Unions protect the common worker in a world hostile to the common worker. They allow for collective bargaining and ensure each worker gets fair compensation in the form of wages and benefits. That without unions, jobs keeping many people comfortably in the middle class would drop to near minimum wage.
In my opinion, both sentiments are accurate. Unions do exist to protect the common laborer. The problem is, they are way to effective. And their effectiveness has upset the equilibrium in their respective markets. One side effect of this equilibrium upset is business are now considering undertaking the high initial cost of automating much of their production and distribution. In favor of the low operating costs the shift would bring in the future. Some see this shift as inevitable, and the only question is when will the bulk of our manufacturing and service industries pull the trigger.
The ones still left in the US that is, because even cheaper than dealing with unions or shelling out for the automation. Is transporting your existing capital to a cheaper labor market. And with 2 billion people half of whom live well under the poverty line already, China can't be beat in the labor market. But the one drawback to Chinese labor is lack of certain infrastructure. High Tech production infrastructure to be exact. A great deal goes into making certain things, like planes, and while China does have some of its own. Most of their valuable infrastructure is state controlled. And if you built your own down there, the state could take that to. Communism sucks like that.
I think it's to late to save certain industries, and near impossible to bring any back. But there are ones for lack of a better term, still stuck here. That we can expand. With our ultimate goal fending off automation for as long as possible while ensuring a fair market value for labor. And I think Unions easing off is a necessary step towards that. The most obvious concession Unions should make is on Terminations. Businesses should have a right to set a certain level of productivity. And if that level isn't met consistently, they should reserve the right to terminate. And employee compensation in total should equal the fair market price for the job in question. Businesses shouldn't be forced to pay for Cadillac insurance plans on top of an inflated salary. And finally, everyone should fund their own retirement. It's not difficult when your being fairly compensated for your work and you take appropriate steps.
I do not mean to imply that the businesses should always be at an advantage. But rather, an equilibrium sought between the Unions ability to bargain on what fair market compensation is and the businesses right to maintain standards and a certain level of profitability. Finding this equilibrium will take a fair amount of patience and practice from everyone involved. And a great deal of thought, for anyone familiar with Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. I recently stumbled on this article going into a different take on Smith's views. It claims Smith called for an equilibrium as well.
How would you like to see the way Unions operate change? And what are your thoughts on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations?
1. Unions are political machines that create laws favorable to themselves, that hurt both employee and employer. They force businesses to pay unfair wages, and keep on employees who aren't pulling their weight. They are an example of why socialism is inferior to capitalism.
2. Unions protect the common worker in a world hostile to the common worker. They allow for collective bargaining and ensure each worker gets fair compensation in the form of wages and benefits. That without unions, jobs keeping many people comfortably in the middle class would drop to near minimum wage.
In my opinion, both sentiments are accurate. Unions do exist to protect the common laborer. The problem is, they are way to effective. And their effectiveness has upset the equilibrium in their respective markets. One side effect of this equilibrium upset is business are now considering undertaking the high initial cost of automating much of their production and distribution. In favor of the low operating costs the shift would bring in the future. Some see this shift as inevitable, and the only question is when will the bulk of our manufacturing and service industries pull the trigger.
The ones still left in the US that is, because even cheaper than dealing with unions or shelling out for the automation. Is transporting your existing capital to a cheaper labor market. And with 2 billion people half of whom live well under the poverty line already, China can't be beat in the labor market. But the one drawback to Chinese labor is lack of certain infrastructure. High Tech production infrastructure to be exact. A great deal goes into making certain things, like planes, and while China does have some of its own. Most of their valuable infrastructure is state controlled. And if you built your own down there, the state could take that to. Communism sucks like that.
I think it's to late to save certain industries, and near impossible to bring any back. But there are ones for lack of a better term, still stuck here. That we can expand. With our ultimate goal fending off automation for as long as possible while ensuring a fair market value for labor. And I think Unions easing off is a necessary step towards that. The most obvious concession Unions should make is on Terminations. Businesses should have a right to set a certain level of productivity. And if that level isn't met consistently, they should reserve the right to terminate. And employee compensation in total should equal the fair market price for the job in question. Businesses shouldn't be forced to pay for Cadillac insurance plans on top of an inflated salary. And finally, everyone should fund their own retirement. It's not difficult when your being fairly compensated for your work and you take appropriate steps.
I do not mean to imply that the businesses should always be at an advantage. But rather, an equilibrium sought between the Unions ability to bargain on what fair market compensation is and the businesses right to maintain standards and a certain level of profitability. Finding this equilibrium will take a fair amount of patience and practice from everyone involved. And a great deal of thought, for anyone familiar with Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. I recently stumbled on this article going into a different take on Smith's views. It claims Smith called for an equilibrium as well.
How would you like to see the way Unions operate change? And what are your thoughts on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations?