Where is the US economy headed?

@kuvasz,

Nonsense. I run a company (and have run others) that contract extensively with the federal government and some state governments. In all of these contracts the various governments reserve the right to terminate them at will and without cause or explanation. This is an element of the law and the inherent sovereign powers of government, that applies to all contracts - with individuals, companies or labor unions. It really doesn't matter whether you or I like it or not, and I have not made this up.

Labor unions seek monopoly power over all the current and potential employees of a company or industry. This is something that is prohibited by law for other businesses in every state. I have lots of experience in dealing with such unions, and have overseen the negotiation of several collective bargaining agreements.

Running a labor union is a great racket. You don't even have to invoice your clients - the employer is required to prededuct the union dues from wages (so the duped workers don't see their costs) and electronically deposit them immediately in the union's account. Organizing new companies is difficult, but if the unions and the Democrats get their way "card check" will replace the secret ballots currently required. Here's how that works .... the pitch is something like, "Do you want to sign this card I have , or do you want to talk to Otto here?"

Union managers generally get special benefit packages that are far richer than those negotiated for their members, and, if they rise to high office, often get salaries (and pensions) from both their local union and the national union. There are lots of retired union bosses in the Bay area, and I know many of them well. They are generally better off than all the parasites except perhaps the divorce & tort lawyers.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I do find it to be rather delicious that you don't see the parallels between the 'union bosses' you despise and the management of American corporations, who accomplish the exact same result - just with different means.

I think K's only real error was in referring to you as a 'lackey.' In reality, you just argue for your own interests. Right?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Unions are no longer necessary, and have been grossly corrupted since the days when they were.

Labor laws enacted in each of the 50 states have eliminated the need for Unions.

Union leaders are simply power brokers who favor Democrats.

Corporate leaders may be power brokers who favor Republicans (which is a canard btw), but at least they also run organizations that produce products and services and contribute to the US economy.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Actually I like some of these guys very much. Individuals are individuals, whether they are lawyers, union bosses, bankers or managers. I do see the parallels (where they exist) between the hypocritical elements of what they all have done in their professional lives. However, that's not whay we are friends.

It seems to me that most of us tend to believe that our own interests are universal. Certainly Nanci Pelosi appears to believe that her conception of wise social and economic policy will be good for us all - even though very little of it will touch her existence up there on Pacific Heights.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Unions are no longer necessary, have been grossly corrupted since the days when they were.

They were far more corrupt in their beginnings, but then again, so were Corporations. I am not a big fan of unions, but I do believe they are a necessary evil to offset Corporation power - very much still needed. A Democracy stands whole only as long as opposing powers offset the corruption of the other (read, Dem v Repub hear also).

3 Replies

@BillW,

Good points, BillW. Before unions, workers had no power to change anything concerning pay or working conditions. As I recall from Econ 101, unions also helped non-union workers with their pay and working conditions. It's the natural outcome of supply and demand; if one company doesn't live up to what others are paying, they naturally lose their workers.

However, having said that, it's also incumbent on both parties to be realistic about pay and work issues. What has happened in this Great Recession is that government workers end up with sweetheart deals on pay, benefit, and pensions that taxpayers must pay for. Most government employee pension funds are underfunded, and union workers are unwilling to take pay cuts or benefit cuts when many Americans are losing their jobs and homes. Many government services are being cut back because of the huge drop in tax revenues that impacts everybody. Union workers are not interested in other's suffering. That's an imbalance that cannot be sustained for very long.

1 Reply

@BillW,

The new place for unions to mine for members is government. There are now more union members that are government employees than in the private sector, which I believe is a very negative trend. It is the taxpayers that should be running the government, not unions. This is also where a large amount of the Democratic Party political power resides, among bureaucrats that are also often union members. I think it is a very bad combination, and personally I object to unions trying to have their say with the government that we the people are supposed to be running.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
"More public sector employees (7.9 million) belonged to a
union than did private sector employees (7.4 million),
despite there being 5 times more wage and salary workers
in the private sector."

2 Replies

@okie,

Unions have lost vast amounts of power over the past 20 years or so okie, can't remember the reasons why though. One maybe be what Finn mentioned earlier - they are not as necessary today. Labor union pay is great, work place is much safer, conditions are better.

Also, the points ci makes above.

1 Reply

@okie,

The taxpayers should run the government? LOL
Why do we bother to elect our government through our votes?

We do run the government by our votes. If you don't like what they're doing, vote them out.

You have no common sense or logic.

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Unions have lost vast amounts of power over the past 20 years or so okie, can't remember the reasons why though. One maybe be what Finn mentioned earlier - they are not as necessary today. Labor union pay is great, work place is much safer, conditions are better.

Also, the points ci makes above.

I think government safety regs antiquate part of the need for unions, Bill. Don't forget too how unions have had a hand in breaking up successful industries after the execs caved to their demands. Examples, the auto industry, steel, and other manufacturing industries. And I do not care for the NEA (National Education Association) union having much sway with how our schools are run. That should be the responsibility of school boards, as locally determined by taxpayers electing the school boards and making suggestions to them. That is how it was done when I was in school, and it worked well. Poor teachers were found out and laid off by the superintendent after consultation with the school board.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Good points, BillW. Before unions, workers had no power to change anything concerning pay or working conditions. As I recall from Econ 101, unions also helped non-union workers with their pay and working conditions. It's the natural outcome of supply and demand; if one company doesn't live up to what others are paying, they naturally lose their workers.

Did you notice that your last sentence here directly contradicted the opening point? I tend to agree that as workers became scarce pay got better and working conditions improved - with or without union intervention.

The United Mineworkers hadn't done much to prevent the recent mine disasters we saw. My experience has been that unions use "safety" and "working conditions" mostly as a bludgeon with which to extract goodies like extra paid shop stewards (doing union business on company time), more time off from the employer and as a tool to to drum up worker interest as the renegotiations of CBAs approach.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I disagree. From the Economic Policy Institute:

Quote:

Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper
1660 L Street, NW • Suite 1200 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • http://epinet.org
HOW UNIONS HELP ALL WORKERS

Also, as for working conditions and safety of workers, they are covered by labor laws - both federal and state.

The US Department of Labor also has OSHA laws that protect the safety of workers.

As a CEO of a company, I'm surprised you are not privy to this information.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Do you know anything about the esteemed "Economic Policy Institute" ?
Laughing

You could start by looking at its web site. Check out the Board of Directors - It includes the presidents of every major labor union in the country including the Presidents of the AFT, AFL/CIO, SEIU, AFSCME, Workers United , a couple of labor consultants, and a handful of left wing Democrat legislators and Robert Reich. Not a single Member of the Board has any association with any business or corporation - all Labor Bosses, Democrat Pols, and a few academics.

I do know the difference between propaganda and real analysis.

One quality of a discerning mind is the habit of evaluating his sources.

If the shoe was on the other foot I suspect you would label me as credulous and stupid.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob, You're doing it again; you're attacking the messenger and not the content. However, if you've kept up with unions in the US, there has been a dramatic drop in union membership in the private sector while the government sector increased.

I took my belief in "unions helped non-union workers" from Samuelson's Econ 101 textbook when I was in college many decades ago. That may have changed, but the initial understanding of the union's impact on nonunion workers does not change.

Here's a chart from about five years ago on unions in different industrialized countries:

Quote:

Private Sector Union Density
in Selected Countries, 2005
Country Union Density (%)
Australia 22.1
Canada 29.9
Finland 72.4
France 8.0
Germany 21.6
Italy 33.8
Japan 18.8
Korea 9.9
Netherlands 21.0
Sweden 76.5
United Kingdom 28.8
United States 12.0
Source: OECD (www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/42/39891561.xls).

Here's the pay structure of different countries based on union wages:

Quote:

Union Density and Share of Employees Whose Wages
Are Set by Collective Bargaining
Country Union Density Collective Bargaining
(%) (%)
France 8.0 93
United States 12.0 15
Japan 18.8 20
Germany 21.6 67
Australia 22.1 80
United Kingdom 28.8 36
Canada 29.9 32
Italy 33.8 90

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That the number of Unionized workers in the U.S. private sector has declined a great deal over the past few decades is hardly news. Most of the U.S. industries they dominated, particularly steelmaking, textiles and the UAW controlled elements of the auto industry have either left the country or have contracted enormously - mostly because the unions resisted automation and productivity improvements that otherwise might have saved their jobs.

Working people aren't stupid and most have voted against recent union efforts to organize them. That's why the unions and their paid Democrat lackeys are so eager do do away with secret ballots and majority voting and switch to "card check" in which the union attempting to organize the workers simply collects signatures by intimidation and forgery.

More to the point though, I notice that you keep changing the subject here. As soon as I disagree with or demolish one point, you switch to another, avoiding unpleasant (to you) conclusions wherever you can. You chided me for "not knowing" some screed you posted produced by a paid union controlled mouthpiece, and, when that was exposed, you give me some shopworn and obvious stuff about relative union membership among nations - something that we weren't discussing at all. That of course is your right, but it makes a dialogue with you pointless, uninformative and uninteresting.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Sorry you missed the reasons I posted the chart on countries with percent of unions.

What it tells me is that most of the developed countries with unions and or union influenced wages are doing quite well contrary to US performance.

It's not a change of subject; it's spot on!

If I'm wrong in my conclusions, I'd like to hear from others (but not okie) on this matter.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Yaknow, I always enjoyed my time working in the union back when I was a construction worker during summers in College. Never had anything but good experiences with our Local, had nice wages (the work certainly was hot and hard), and training programs to advance your knowledge were cheap and easily available. I knew a lot of guys who made a good living doing construction work, in large part assisted by our union.

I think you should admit that unions are just like Corporations, their management and everyone else in life - some are much better than others, some serve a purpose and others don't, some are venal cheats and liars and others work hard for their membership. I never see you present a balanced view of unions, ever; just a constant stream of derisive hate. That's not convincing.

Quote:

More to the point though, I notice that you keep changing the subject here. As soon as I disagree with or demolish one point, you switch to another, avoiding unpleasant (to you) conclusions wherever you can.

Wow, talk about not seeing the mote in your own eye. You regularly drop points after I show that you are incorrect. I mean, on a daily basis, you engage in this behavior.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Quote:
Unions are no longer necessary, have been grossly corrupted since the days when they were.

They were far more corrupt in their beginnings, but then again, so were Corporations. I am not a big fan of unions, but I do believe they are a necessary evil to offset Corporation power - very much still needed. A Democracy stands whole only as long as opposing powers offset the corruption of the other (read, Dem v Repub hear also).

I think the threat of unions is sufficient to provide whatever benefit unions once provided. I don't see a need for them today. So long as the right to unionize isn't taken away from the worker, then the unions have served their purpose and can/should(?) be eliminated.

2 Replies

@JPB,

Another point of fact is that our government sort of got involved in US worker protections that includes a minimum wage and worker safety. States are still "free" to set their own minimum wage so long as it is above the fed's minimum. State OSHA protects most workers; dangerous jobs pay higher workers comp premiums to offset their cost. Training employees to practice safety is paramount for any company. This all happened because of unions; not in spite of them.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

So long as the right to unionize isn't taken away from the worker, then the unions have served their purpose and can/should(?) be eliminated.

Is this serious? How do you eliminate unions while retaining the right to unionize??!?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know