Braineack

iTrader: (62)

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

ok first of all i must say i donk know a whole lot about unions
i know dems are for them and repubs are against them
and i know the unions themselves make political donations which i am not fond of i dont care what the party is

now i dont understand why unions are "bad"
and when the vid said they can demand wages higher and higher til the employer goes out of business
doesn't the employer have the right to not sign a contract?
isnt that what causes strikes and one method of taking down a union by simply refusing any contract whatsoever?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

political donations? They collect so much money they BUY politicians. (See Issue 2 in OH)

you dont understand why they are bad? they aren't just bad; they are evil.

Some businesses refuse to deal with unions, like walmart, and they grow and succeed, but some businesses want happy workers and coceede to them and end up broke. Unions are self serving.

Today's widespread unemployement is direct result of unions, such as minimum wage laws. Today's growth of inflation is direct result of unions, and the victim is the middle class; which is ironic because labor is part of the middle class.

If it were up to me, public unions would be outlawed.


Unions in a nutshell:

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

direct result of unions:

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I think it is important to distinguish between "private sector unions" and "public sector unions." I think most people would agree that the former served very important roles in the early 20th century in terms of forcing improvements in compensation, safety and liberty. They were and are also open to a lot of corruption.


With most private sector unions, my understanding is that if management refuses the union offer and the union members strike as a negotiating tactic - then, yes. The management refuses the union offer but as a result, ends up with a shutdown of production.

The main point in this context is that the management and private sector union are negotiating for their respective slice of the same pie (revenue generated by the company). If the private sector union demands eventually threaten the viability of the company, everyone has an incentive to renegotiate - or they all share the pain of a company closure.


With public sector unions, there is not the same dynamic. In the case of public sector unions, the management (politicians) and the union members are negotiating for their respective slice of the "taxpayers' pie." This gives incentive for public sector unions to endorse higher taxes.

The other problem with this system is that, as mentioned in the video, public sector unions can be organized efficiently as voters. Thus, union leaders can offer their votes to politicians that are seen as more likely to support the union objectives. This can result in a corruption of the operating system via conflict of interest.

That is, the system should be management - politicians representing taxpayers - negotiating with the public sector unions. Instead, it can become management - representing the unions - negotiating with the union.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

except the poster childs, child labor laws and the 5 day work week, were not result of unions.

and yes they were open to a lof of corruption, they were more or less "the mob."

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

so can the government refuse a union contract just as the private sector can?

all said and done i have no problem with the existence of unions
just as i have no problem with the existence of corporations
its not like anyone is holding a gun to anyones head here nor making laws saying u must sign a union contract

just as i have no problem with the existence of corporations

but what i do have a problem with is when the corporations/unions engage in corrupt relationships with the government.

that's one thing i dont get about all the people against the corrupt relationship between corporations and govt. i rarely if ever hear anyone talk about the corrupt relationship between unions/govt. dont get me wrong i hear ALOT of republicans talking about how unions are evil and they shouldn't be around and need to be taken down. IMHO that is just flat out wrong. In the exact same way that people say that corporations are evil and the corporations need to be taken down.
the organizations don't need taken down
the corrupt relationships need cut off

thems just the facts of life
i have quit ALOT of jobs simply because they did not meet my needs



one could argue that unions (if there were enough around) could raise wages for everyone union or not because why work at a low pay shop when it is not too difficult to get a job at a high pay shop

the market will work itself just fine when and only when corrupt relationships are removed on both sides

both the republican party and the democratic party are a bunch of idiots if you ask me
choose your poison

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Actually, mandatory unions do just that -- they make it illegal for a company to hire a non-union individual. It's a government-enforced monopoly on labor.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

that is ONLY because that would be a breach of the contract they signed with the union
they can refuse to sign a contract
no guns involved
that is the point i was trying to make
(if i am wrong some one correct me here and link me to something for elaboration)

IMHO I don't see how this issue is any different from the corporate govt corrupt relationship issue

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

not really anymore. If it is suggested they want to unionize, they put it to a vote. But certain areas only have so many things they can colaborate on.

In the private sector, the NLBR wants to prevent the business from countering the union at all costs.

acutally they are. plus, unions force ALL employees to join and cough up dues without consent. So as long as you're employee at a union company, you're a member of the union and have to pay and be represented as a group for interests that benefit the union leaders, not you.

that's the definition of union.

union busting is good if unions are bad. since unions are bad, union busting IS good.

but you're a rational indiviual. Others like to get roudy and violent and force their hands.

one COULD argue that...they wouldn't win an argument when they have to present facts and figures.

unions are the negation of the market.

this assumes there's a difference anymore.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Apparently you don't know how unions are formed or the tactics they emply to get their way.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

them are what you call some closed minded individuals
they refuse to hear the opinions of others

doesn't what they did fit under haggling?

edit: I am proud to say that i am more than willing to hear opposing views. That is how i have developed many of my views. I understand that i am human and may be wrong.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

that's pretty much how unions bargin, yeah.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

ok so what if two people quit for the same reason? or five? fifty? 500? 5000?
where do you draw the line at?
at what point does it become immoral for multiple people to quit their job for the same reason?
yes of course it hurts the business but it doesn't make sense for me to have the business's best interest as a priority just as it does not make business sense for the company to have my personal interests as their priority

should corporations be taken down because some of them put bullshit disease causing processed crap in our environment and food? or downright put their workers in unhealthy and particularly dangers conditions particularly in third world countries? there are poor *** gold miners in other countries using mercury with their bare hands to separate the gold from the dirt because they both have little choice and aren't educated enough to understand that that is the reason so many of them are sick

the existence of corporations is not a bad thing as we all know

thats like saying we need to do away with corporations because corruption has made its way there too

i know im starting to sound like a broken record here with the corporate/union comparison here but i just dont understand why most republicans think (or claim to be) they are so different. Oh wait i know why. It is because one supports them and one supports the other.

if there are laws forcing companies to sign contracts then i am totally against that
that would be BS

edit: i should have elaborated on the people quitting thing.
yes i view quitting and striking as essentially the same thing
when most people quit a job such as myself what i do is refuse to work for the company tell my friends and anyone who asks why i quit.
when people go on strike they refuse to work and actively inform many people why they quit via protesting.
i dont see much difference

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

Jared, what is your opinion of corn sugar?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

im just gonna assume that you are asking me if it is bad for me. right?
and i think i know where you are going with this
you wanna know if im crazy or not right?

first of all i dont care if you call it corn sugar or high fructose corn syrup it is the same to me
(although not the same to corporations as they have lobbied to legally change the name to corn sugar so it doesn't sound "bad")

for the most part it is just another form of sugar
you should NOT eat too much sugar
consuming too much corn sugar will have similar effects as consuming too much cane sugar
like wine it is a moderation food/drink whatever
benifical in small amounts.

you wanna get me goin on nutrition?
i have probably researched nutrition more than i have anything else

"The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day."—Dr Ley former Commissioner of the FDA.
if you take some time to research it is clear that the fda is concerned with profits more than health

employees of the food giant monsanto literally work for monsanto for a few years then the fda for a few years
back and forth
the existence of monsanto isn't bad, their relationship with the government is

this is possibly the biggest problem with govt corruption depending on your opinion as it literally determines wethor we get diseased and sick or not.
and it is probably the one that people are the least aware of
it baffles me

or how about how some farming corporations are trying to make it illegal to publish a picture of a cow farm? you know why they get pumped full of antibiotics? because they live their life in ankle deep manure and could not survive without the drugs.

according to the fda only drugs can cure, prevent, and tread diseases.
therefore it is illegal to market a natural treatment
i remember seeing on the news a few years ago that the fda went as far as to write a letter of warning to cherrios for saying their product reduced cholesterol
thank goodness that issue got enough publicity they did not take it further


i could rant for hours so i will just stop right here

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

The fda ain't approve drugs that aren't profitable? News to me .

Good response to the corn sugar question. My friends favorite response to the hfcs haters is: don't blame the companies who use hfcs, blame yourself for your own unhealthy habits.

Or as he says,"youre fat and lazy because you eat like ****, not because I made you eat like ****."

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Where do you want to draw the line? it's YOUR business, where ever the hell you want to draw the line.

Nowhere.

yes. But mostly by public opinion. (ie. to me: Yelp! > Food inspector)

no.

Would you rather have an "unhealthy" or "dangerous job" or none at all?



That's sad for them, maybe if their gov't wasn't so shitty and allowed businesses to prosper and their citizens to make their own choices and weren't forced into shitty jobs, they wouldn't have to resort to it.

no ****.

correct.

no way, not even close to the same thing.

dude. read about Boeing and the NLRB.


There's a huge difference. You seem to be a man that stands behind a contract. Well, when you agree to a job, you are signing a contract...that you'll work few X amount of hours, for Y amount of pay, in Z enviroment. When you strike, you are changing the rules. You are not obligating your contract, and you and using dirty tricks to force your hand. It's not longer a mutal agreement, you decide that you have special rights and use force to win a "negotiation", which most liekly didn't take effect.

When you quit, you simple terminate the agreement. The employer finds someone else he subjectively determines is fit for hte job at the price HE is willing to pay.