If unionizing is bad why isn't incorporation?

[untermensche]

That is immaterial.

Most likely you got job protections most minimum wage workers don't get. An appeals process of some kind.

You probably got breaks during the day many minimum wage workers don't get. You possibly had a plan to earn paid time off as well which is something many minimum wage workers don't get. You possibly had health insurance.

You really know little of the situation you were in.

I know I made minimum wage and I was forced to join the union and pay union dues if I wanted the job. I know I didn't give a crap about that other stuff.

That's the situation I was in.

Your apathy doesn't create your situation.

The job came with the stipulation you support the union.

How is this any different from a job stipulating you must wear shoes?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No union does any amount of dictating.

Everything they get is because of negotiation and the free choice of management to agree to the terms of contracts.

Union: "Give us what we want or you don't operate".

That doesn't sound like negotiation to me.

Agreed! Sounds more like a strawman.

Here is how Union Negotiations work.

1. Union makes demand for pay, work hours, health insurance, benefits
2. Corporation makes counter demand on the above, lowers the pay.
3. Union demands raising the wage.
4. Corporation says ain't possible, we'd all die.
5. Union facepalms
6. Corporation says they'll pay B instead of A for wages, however, will offer pension benefits in lieu of higher pay now.
7. Union agrees.
8. Corporation underfunds Pension and shoves fist up union's butt.
9. Unions get called the bad guy.

 

[untermensche]

No union does any amount of dictating.

Everything they get is because of negotiation and the free choice of management to agree to the terms of contracts.

Union: "Give us what we want or you don't operate".

That doesn't sound like negotiation to me.

That isn't the situation.

It is; "We can't operate without a contract, start negotiating."

It means smaller profits, that's all.

But problems arise when owners feel they are entitled to certain profits.

The entitlement mentality is strongest in ownership.

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea rears it's ugly head.

Offering up shit for the 1000th time doesn't make it stink less.

Your immediate jump to hyperbole and talk of infinities shows you have no rational argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Union: "Give us what we want or you don't operate".

That doesn't sound like negotiation to me.

I wish my union had this mythical power.

That's what happens with a sufficiently strong union.

- - - Updated - - -

Union: "Give us what we want or you don't operate".

That doesn't sound like negotiation to me.

That isn't the situation.

It is; "We can't operate without a contract, start negotiating."

It means smaller profits, that's all.

But problems arise when owners feel they are entitled to certain profits.

The entitlement mentality is strongest in ownership.

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea rears it's ugly head.

Offering up shit for the 1000th time doesn't make it stink less.

Your immediate jump to hyperbole and talk of infinities shows you have no rational argument.

If you can pay for anything out of profits then they must be infinite.

 

[ksen]

I wish my union had this mythical power.

That's what happens with a sufficiently strong union.

- - - Updated - - -

Union: "Give us what we want or you don't operate".

That doesn't sound like negotiation to me.

That isn't the situation.

It is; "We can't operate without a contract, start negotiating."

It means smaller profits, that's all.

But problems arise when owners feel they are entitled to certain profits.

The entitlement mentality is strongest in ownership.

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea rears it's ugly head.

Offering up shit for the 1000th time doesn't make it stink less.

Your immediate jump to hyperbole and talk of infinities shows you have no rational argument.

If you can pay for anything out of profits then they must be infinite.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's what happens with a sufficiently strong union.

- - - Updated - - -

Union: "Give us what we want or you don't operate".

That doesn't sound like negotiation to me.

That isn't the situation.

It is; "We can't operate without a contract, start negotiating."

It means smaller profits, that's all.

But problems arise when owners feel they are entitled to certain profits.

The entitlement mentality is strongest in ownership.

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea rears it's ugly head.

Offering up shit for the 1000th time doesn't make it stink less.

Your immediate jump to hyperbole and talk of infinities shows you have no rational argument.

If you can pay for anything out of profits then they must be infinite.

You never like it when I point this out but no adequate rebuttal has ever been posted. Your side takes it as a truism that you can fund whatever you want from profits.

 

[DBT]

The balance of power is skewed in favour of the employer, so without laws or unions that protect the interests and welfare of employees, they get screwed (unless there is a shortage of suitable applicants). History has demonstrated this time and time again...and the reason why the union movement was formed.

 

[untermensche]

If you can pay for anything out of profits then they must be infinite.

Of course that is your fantasy and not what anybody has said.

What was said was that if profits exist and perks and benefits exist for only a few in an organization, some of those profits and the money that pays for perks, like private jets and huge severance packages, could go to the people who actually work for a living.

 

[Togo]

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea rears it's ugly head.

Your immediate jump to hyperbole and talk of infinities shows you have no rational argument.

If you can pay for anything out of profits then they must be infinite.

No, this is fallacious (slippery slope informal fallacy). As ksen pointed out, you're jumping straight from the existence of something to the idea that it must therefore be infinite. In order to demonstrate that an argument advanced relies on profits being infinite, rather than merely existent, you need to show that the argument fails if profits are merely extremely large. You can't do that.

I appreciate that you may genuinely believe you have something, but you don't - it's fallacious reasoning. That's why no one ever takes your infinite profits complaint and uses it themselves.

And for future reference, that was a rebuttal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you can pay for anything out of profits then they must be infinite.

Of course that is your fantasy and not what anybody has said.

What was said was that if profits exist and perks and benefits exist for only a few in an organization, some of those profits and the money that pays for perks, like private jets and huge severance packages, could go to the people who actually work for a living.

The problem is that your side takes it as a given that there is enough such money to fund whatever you want.

The only way that can be true is if the money is infinite.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The only way that can be true is if the money is infinite.

This is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

[Togo]

The problem is that your side takes it as a given that there is enough such money to fund whatever you want.

The only way that can be true is if the money is infinite.

No, still fallacious.

Try explaining how you get from 'sufficient money' to 'infinite money'.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Labor banding together in the form of a union to sell labor = bad

Capital banding together in the form of a corporation to sell a product = good

Why?

Well Corporations (are supposed to) pay taxes.

Also, Unions aren't people:

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/06/21/corporations-are-people-i-guess-unions-arent

(in case the sarcasm isn't apparent, I'm pro-union)

aa

 

[Bronzeage]

No union does any amount of dictating.

Everything they get is because of negotiation and the free choice of management to agree to the terms of contracts.

Union: "Give us what we want or you don't operate".

That doesn't sound like negotiation to me.

- - - Updated - - -

First you have to state it correctly:

Labor banding together in the form of a union to drive up the price of labor = bad

It's bad because this means higher prices to consumers.

No it doesn't.

It means smaller profits, that's all.

But problems arise when owners feel they are entitled to certain profits.

The entitlement mentality is strongest in ownership.

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea rears it's ugly head.

Offering up shit for the 1000th time doesn't make it stink less.

You were certainly paying attention in conservative catechism class. That's the only place where people believe unions have this kind of power.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I take no issue with the right to collectively bargain for labour. I think that should be a protected right.

I do take issue with unions taking power over other workers, and forcing them into the union, and disallowing the employer to hire non-union employees. I especially take issue with a union forcing this on an entire industry. I take issue with unions drawing large union dues to enrich the union bosses too. And I take issue with union made rules like seniority. Unions can be just as exploitative towards workers as employers can.

It is one thing for unions to band together to combat exploitation from employers and to group together to get better wages. It is something else entirely for unions to exert power over other workers.

And at the end of the day I am for a guaranteed minimum income, as a tax refund available to everybody. Take the "work for us or starve" power advantage away from the employer and unions lose a lot of their legit purpose.

 

[Axulus]

Labor banding together in the form of a union to sell labor = bad

Capital banding together in the form of a corporation to sell a product = good

Why?

Well Corporations (are supposed to) pay taxes.

Also, Unions aren't people:

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/06/21/corporations-are-people-i-guess-unions-arent

(in case the sarcasm isn't apparent, I'm pro-union)

aa

I canimagine why, the ASA and technical unions in general place barriers to entry in the profession, raising wages of the members by about 15%.

 

[Bronzeage]

I take no issue with the right to collectively bargain for labour. I think that should be a protected right.

I do take issue with unions taking power over other workers, and forcing them into the union, and disallowing the employer to hire non-union employees. I especially take issue with a union forcing this on an entire industry. I take issue with unions drawing large union dues to enrich the union bosses too. And I take issue with union made rules like seniority. Unions can be just as exploitative towards workers as employers can.

It is one thing for unions to band together to combat exploitation from employers and to group together to get better wages. It is something else entirely for unions to exert power over other workers.

And at the end of the day I am for a guaranteed minimum income, as a tax refund available to everybody. Take the "work for us or starve" power advantage away from the employer and unions lose a lot of their legit purpose.

So you are going with government power, the ultimate union.

 

[ZiprHead]

Did you get any benefits?

Health insurance? Job protections?

Not that I can recall. Nothing of value anyway. I was a teenager working a summer job. Benefits and protections weren't high on my list of concerns.

- - - Updated - - -

There were other people making more than minimum wage. Like, say, the union leaders. As an entry level cash handling and bagging technician I did not.

So you were a bag boy?

Cash handling and bagging technician.

Something doesn't work right here. It was a summer job. Three months?

Every union I've been involved in didn't require joining the union during the probationary period, most being 90 days. This gives the employer the right to fire a poor hire without interference from the union.

Can you explain a little further because the above, plus your claim you only made minimum wage, makes your case appears to be quite unique?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Well Corporations (are supposed to) pay taxes.

Also, Unions aren't people:

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/06/21/corporations-are-people-i-guess-unions-arent

(in case the sarcasm isn't apparent, I'm pro-union)

aa

I canimagine why, the ASA and technical unions in general place barriers to entry in the profession, raising wages of the members by about 15%.

1) Credentialing organizations are not unions - Barriers to entry into the Actuarial field are no different than the barriers to becoming a doctor or lawyer or accountant: You study and take tests.

2) Source for the 15%

aa

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only way that can be true is if the money is infinite.

This is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

If you do not need to concern yourself with whether a source has enough supply then the supply must be effectively infinite.

Your side takes it as a given that the supply is great enough.