-
Features
If unionizing is bad why isn't incorporation?
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
One gives more money to rich people and one does not.
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
Workers get uppity and become TAKERS with Obamaphones and WELFARE LOBSTER and ABORTIONS in SCHOOL.
No special federal labor union protections.
Just free association and mutually voluntary transactions.
Corporations have federal protections too, which is kind of the point of incorporation.
Why trade one set of federal protections for another?
Why are labor union protections bad but incorporation protections are fine?
Why trade one set of federal protections for another?
Why are labor union protections bad but incorporation protections are fine?
The point was not about "federal protections" in the generic.
Do you inhabit a world where either all federal protections must be good or all federal protections must be bad?
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,514
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Judging each union and each corporation on its own merits = bad
Broadbrushing = good
Why?
One huge difference between corporations and unions is that corporations only have investors that willingly become so. Unions only need a certain number of employees to vote for the union, often these are allowed to be "salters" who will come join the company, vote in the union, and then leave the company right after. And then the union is forced ALL workers and all workers are forced to pay union dues and alter their relationship with the employer based on union rules.
Another, is that Investors can also usually sell their shares pretty easily. Getting rid of a union from your shop, even when all workers want to, can often be difficult and take some time.
Another, is that Investors can also usually sell their shares pretty easily. Getting rid of a union from your shop, even when all workers want to, can often be difficult and take some time.
arkirk
Veteran Member
That can be the case with sweetheart unions who sell their members out. But I ask you, isn't an employer a dictator without some labor capacity to modify the employer's actions, to defend workers from unsafe work conditions and to bargain for a FAIR WAGE? Without unions, how can this be accomplished? Corporations are always lobbying for labor laws that would restore more control to management and also lessen corporate responsibility. They are seeking to insure investor satisfaction. That is understandable. But what about the worker? Richard Wolff has done a lot of talks on collectives and worker owned businesses and they do show some promise. Also, some of the German corporate structures seem somewhat less unfair than ones in this country.
Where I think where we go wrong is in the blind labeling of these things. There are factions in the corporate industrial sector that do indeed seek to weaken labor at every turn to the point where a worker's employment no longer supports him/her. They do this with lobbying and reconstructing labor law. On the other hand, there are unions that work mainly for the union leadership and their members get little consideration for their participation. So is one always bad and one always good? Hell no!
How much influence over the use of their investment does an individual stockholder have, once they have purchased the stock? An investment in a corporation does not entitle the stockholder to a say in management. If a person happens to own a majority of the stock, they are for practical purposes, the owner of the company. It may take less than 50% to control the board of directors, which is the true power. Other stockholders do not matter.
As for being required to join a union, no one is required to take a job and is free to leave it, anytime they choose. An individual union member is more likely to have more influence over union policies than a stockholder has over corporate policies. A union has a basically democratic structure, while a corporation is more like a feudal kingdom.
There are a lot of people who truly fear having to face an informed and educated workforce. A lot of specious arguments are made and aspirations are cast on the masculinity of men who need to form a gang to speak to their boss. If every employer was a sole proprietor, employment would be a one on one relationship. That is not realistic. A corporation has great economic power and a union is a counterbalance to that power.
because ur post is dumb
Good, then as long as we're talking about specific protections...
If workers formed corporations to sell their labor they'd get the same Federal protections as other corporations.
untermensche
Contributor
The reason unions are bad is because they give workers more negotiating power when dealing with collected capital.
And that is the only reason.
And that is the only reason.
They don't. Again I stress the word "voluntary".
If workers want to voluntarily form corporations (with all the awesome legal privileges that entails) and sell their labor in voluntary transactions that is fine by me.
arkirk
Veteran Member
Well, you see what we have, don't you? Can you think of a better alternative? Actually a cooperative could work and have SOME of the same protections of a regular corporation, but it perhaps could not provide politicians with the same level of perks as the investor controlled corporations. Almost regardless of what might be tried, there are barriers in the way. We do have thousands of cooperative operations in the country already, but they obviously are not making flashy results.