If unionizing is bad why isn't incorporation?

[dismal]

U

Well fortunately I was forced to be in a union when I was young. In a minimum wage job. It's fun to pay mandatory union dues when you're making minimum wage.

How exactly were you forced to work at that job?

I wasnt forced to be in that job - I was forced to be in the union if I wanted that job.

However I remain reasonably convinced I could have landed that sweet minimum wage salary without the Union charging me to negotiate on my behalf.

 

[untermensche]

U

How exactly were you forced to work at that job?

I wasnt forced to be in that job - I was forced to be in the union if I wanted that job.

However I remain reasonably convinced I could have landed that sweet minimum wage salary without the Union charging me to negotiate on my behalf.

You wanted the job but nobody forced you to do anything.

 

[dismal]

U

I wasnt forced to be in that job - I was forced to be in the union if I wanted that job.

However I remain reasonably convinced I could have landed that sweet minimum wage salary without the Union charging me to negotiate on my behalf.

You wanted the job but nobody forced you to do anything.

Is that your general position on taking jobs? People take them because they want them?

 

[untermensche]

You wanted the job but nobody forced you to do anything.

Is that your general position on taking jobs? People take them because they want them?

My position is that a person usually must have a job, but they are never forced to take a union job.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not an answer.

If the auto workers get together and dictate terms to the auto makers we call that a union. If the auto makers get together and dictate terms to the workers we call that anti-trust and throw them in jail.

Yet it's the same action.

Unions don't dictate anything. They negotiate.

But dictates from management have nothing to do with negotiation.

A sufficiently powerful union does an awful lot of dictating.

Even if it's negotiating, the comparison would be with negotiating wages with all employers in a field--in other words, removing any ability to go elsewhere and get more pay.

 

[dismal]

Is that your general position on taking jobs? People take them because they want them?

My position is that a person usually must have a job, but they are never forced to take a union job.

I wasn't forced to take any job.

But my preferences weresomething like this:
Job > Job with Union > no job.

I was not allowed to obtain my preference since I was forced to join the union to get the job.

 

[laughing dog]

My position is that a person usually must have a job, but they are never forced to take a union job.

I wasn't forced to take any job.

But my preferences weresomething like this:
Job > Job with Union > no job.

I was not allowed to obtain my preference since I was forced to join the union to get the job.

Unless there was literally only one job opportunity, that is simply untrue.

 

[DBT]

Corporations and businesses in Australia have their own Union, Australian Federation of Employers & Industries, which suits the needs of Business, yet unionism in the workplace is often discouraged these days.

 

[untermensche]

My position is that a person usually must have a job, but they are never forced to take a union job.

I wasn't forced to take any job.

But my preferences weresomething like this:
Job > Job with Union > no job.

I was not allowed to obtain my preference since I was forced to join the union to get the job.

To a degree the artificial scarcities created by capitalism do force people to take a job.

If the choice is between starvation and taking a job that really isn't a choice.

But nobody is ever forced to take a union job.

And it is laughable that your criticism of unions is because of the efforts of the worst union in history that couldn't even negotiate a contract above minimum wage. A union that can't negotiate a contract above minimum wage is next to useless.

If your argument is that all unions are equally useless you are wrong. Our standard of living is directly related to the work of unions. It was the unions, not management, or any market, that created the US middle class.

And we see, as the unions have died the US middle class stagnates and declines. Very little advancement for the middle class is made without them.

 

[untermensche]

Unions don't dictate anything. They negotiate.

But dictates from management have nothing to do with negotiation.

A sufficiently powerful union does an awful lot of dictating.

Even if it's negotiating, the comparison would be with negotiating wages with all employers in a field--in other words, removing any ability to go elsewhere and get more pay.

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.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Bottom line: Consumers better served = good. Higher prices to consumers = bad

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?

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. This higher price is higher than the competitive price, which is always the best price for consumers. Whatever is bad for consumers is bad for the whole economy and for the nation.

On the other hand:

Capital banding together in the form of a corporation to sell a product = good. As long as the corporation operates legally, i.e., does not engage in anticompetitive behavior.

All anticompetitive behavior is bad for consumers = bad for all of society. Whether it's done by wage-earner producers or by capitalist-investor producers or by independent contractor producers.

The fundamental function of labor unions is collective bargaining = driving up the price of labor without improving the performance of the workers/sellers.

Anticompetitive methods of increasing one's price always hurt consumers, because some producers increase their price above what they would sell their product for if they did not engage in the anticompetitive method.

Whatever produces the lowest possible price for consumers, for the same production, is always the best price. No matter what the product is, including labor. All costs of production have to be kept at the lowest possible level in order to produce the lowest possible price for consumers.

 

[untermensche]

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?

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.

 

[Togo]

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?

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. This higher price is higher than the competitive price, which is always the best price for consumers. Whatever is bad for consumers is bad for the whole economy and for the nation.

Cite please.

Whatever produces the lowest possible price for consumers, for the same production, is always the best price. No matter what the product is, including labor. All costs of production have to be kept at the lowest possible level in order to produce the lowest possible price for consumers.

Cite please.

Or are you just presenting an ideological position?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Whatever produces the lowest possible price for consumers, for the same production, is always the best price.

Too bad consumers don't see it this way.

 

[dismal]

If the choice is between starvation and taking a job that really isn't a choice.

But nobody is ever forced to take a union job.

What if the choice is between starvation and taking a union job?

And it is laughable that your criticism of unions is because of the efforts of the worst union in history that couldn't even negotiate a contract above minimum wage.

This has nothing to do with my criticism of unions. I only brought it up because someone made a point about how people needed to be in a union to understand them.

But fortunately I did bring it up and look at all the bonus pedantry and word parsing we got out of it!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I only brought it up because someone made a point about how people needed to be in a union to understand them.

Once again the point was missed. The point was never you had to be in a union to understand them, the point that the descriptions of what unions are did not match reality. I'm sorry it was too complicated.

 

[dismal]

I only brought it up because someone made a point about how people needed to be in a union to understand them.

Once again the point was missed. The point was never you had to be in a union to understand them, the point that the descriptions of what unions are did not match reality. I'm sorry it was too complicated.

Awesome. Double bonus pedantry.

 

[untermensche]

What if the choice is between starvation and taking a union job?

And it is laughable that your criticism of unions is because of the efforts of the worst union in history that couldn't even negotiate a contract above minimum wage.

This has nothing to do with my criticism of unions. I only brought it up because someone made a point about how people needed to be in a union to understand them.

But fortunately I did bring it up and look at all the bonus pedantry and word parsing we got out of it!

What some call asking somebody to explain themselves and defend a position others call pedantry.

But you are right, you do have some experience with the worst union in history.

However dubious your claims about it are.

 

[ksen]

srsly, what union ever had workers making only minimum wage?

 

[lpetrich]

How would that be different from a labor union?

No special federal labor union protections.

As long as laws that hurt labor unions also disappear with them. Or do you want there to be such laws?

Just free association and mutually voluntary transactions.

And everybody will have unicorn ponies that poop rainbows and stardust, right?

More seriously, should property rights be voluntary? Respect for other people's personal freedoms and bodily integrity? Respect for other people's lives? dismal, you keep on saying over and over and over again that nothing is a virtue unless it is voluntary. So think about what that means for such things.