• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Unions

DodgerDeac

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
In the interest of full disclosure, I really don't see the need for unions any more. I believe their leadership is generally self serving and they exist only to perpetuate themselves, not primarily act in the interests of their constituents. I'm really not trying to incite, however would like to understand the other side's view on this and why they're still important.
 
Still very necessary. If unions go the way of the blacksmith, so will many benefits.
 
Labor Unions were necessary in 1911, but not now in 2011. A business owner should be able to run his/her company anyway they see fit without breaking local, state, or federal laws. Laws were not in place to protect workers back in the day. Plenty of laws are in place to protect workers now. Cartels should not be legalized to tell a business owner how to run his/her business. If a worker does not like the current benefits offered, they can go work elsewhere.
 
Unions suck and serve virtually no worthwhile purpose. Paging the chick who works as a union attorney to tell us how the unions sponsor a large amount of ancillary crap, without realizing that the "union sponsorship" is simply funds re-routed from the employer/government that is coming out of the workers' or taxpayers' pockets.
 
If you don't have unions at many places the pay and benefits will dramatically suffer. The only people who will benefit by the end of unions are the owners of businesses.

What's odd is EU countries have far more unions than the US and are extremely competitive. Why aren't our coporations able to equal the EU's management abilities?
 
They would be able to, if they didn't have the most oppressive corporate tax system in the world combined with unions. There are only so many third parties you can pay with your dollar of revenue before it begins to eat away at the underlying production quality.
 
unions-suck-pi_mg-2_PI340.jpg
 
The concept of "opporessive corporate taxes" is proven not to be so when we see companies like GE and EXXONMobil making billions in profits in the US and not paying any federal income taxes.

How many Fortune 500 companies in the US make more than 8% pretax profit from their sales? At 8% they only pay about 2.8% of sales in taxes.

There's no way that can be considered oppressive. This becomes more evident if you include the fact that US companies have more writeoffs than foreign companies have. Also, there are far less barriers to enter US markers than to sell products in China, India, Japan, the EU and other places.
 
Most companies carve out union benefits to make them richer than the general population at a pretty high cost for extra administration and coverage. Not having a union would mean all employees would have the same benefit options. Probably a better plan offering for all as a result of the savings for not having to negotiate/administer artificially rich benefits. Also, if the union members want to buy better benefits they can pay for them just like non union employees.

If you don't have unions at many places the pay and benefits will dramatically suffer. The only people who will benefit by the end of unions are the owners of businesses.

What's odd is EU countries have far more unions than the US and are extremely competitive. Why aren't our coporations able to equal the EU's management abilities?
 
You also have have to think about the fact that non-union employees at union companies benefit from what the union negotiates. They get better benefits and pay due to what their fellow employees get.

Also having unions keep management from putting all the burden of turning companies around on the employees. You don't see too many CEO and VPs taking the same cuts in pay and benefits they demand rank and file employees to take.
 
The ones overseeing the trades provide very solid apprenticeship programs, I'll give them that. I worked summers in an electricians' shop in high school in Texas, one of the least unionized states in the country, but the competition to get into the local IBEW's apprenticeship program rivaled admission to some colleges and for good reason. Our best journeymen came out of it.

My distaste comes being in a teachers' union. What a joke.
 
Doesn't work that way in the real world. The core plan takes a hit from Union expenditures. If wages were more competitive and based on free market for the rank and file, union types, there would be more job availability. It's harder for a company to "turn around" when they don't have the luxury of hiring employees at market value and with benefits that aren't ridiculously expensive. Ask any former manufacturer in the Rust Belt.
 
Doesn't work that way in the real world. The core plan takes a hit from Union expenditures. If wages were more competitive and based on free market for the rank and file, union types, there would be more job availability. It's harder for a company to "turn around" when they don't have the luxury of hiring employees at market value and with benefits that aren't ridiculously expensive. Ask any former manufacturer in the Rust Belt.

Manufacturers in the rust belt lost out to two major things. first the steel manufacturers lost to countries that subisidized prices and profits.

As to things like textiles and other manufacturing show me an American who can live on $20/week like employees make in China and Viet Nam.

Americnan companies will never be able to "hire at market value" if we compete with third world countries.
 
The concept of "opporessive corporate taxes" is proven not to be so when we see companies like GE and EXXONMobil making billions in profits in the US and not paying any federal income taxes.

How many Fortune 500 companies in the US make more than 8% pretax profit from their sales? At 8% they only pay about 2.8% of sales in taxes.

There's no way that can be considered oppressive. This becomes more evident if you include the fact that US companies have more writeoffs than foreign companies have. Also, there are far less barriers to enter US markers than to sell products in China, India, Japan, the EU and other places.

Since when are income taxes calculated on gross sales? If the system did that, you would put every single manufacturing company out of business immediately. Looking at gross sales is completely irrelevant for any worthwhile discussion (primarily because margins vary so wildly across industries).

And if US corporate taxes are not any more oppressive than other countries, why are so many US companies moving to other countries precisely to avoid the US tax burden? See the following recent article from 60 Minutes, hardly the voice for big corporations:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/25/60minutes/main20046867.shtml
 
Manufacturers in the rust belt lost out to two major things. first the steel manufacturers lost to countries that subisidized prices and profits.

As to things like textiles and other manufacturing show me an American who can live on $20/week like employees make in China and Viet Nam.

Americnan companies will never be able to "hire at market value" if we compete with third world countries.

I'll show you more Americans who can live on $20/week than can live on $0/week.
 
This may be the case for commodities, however when you look at automobiles and other, more involved products companies have suffered by being saddled with union negotiated benefits. It has taken a toll. It is true that our workforce is transitioning to more skilled and knowledge based positions. This would further eliminate the need for unions.

Agreed, we can't compete with 3rd world markets for many manufacturing inputs.

Still really haven't heard a compelling argument for the existence of unions.

Manufacturers in the rust belt lost out to two major things. first the steel manufacturers lost to countries that subisidized prices and profits.

As to things like textiles and other manufacturing show me an American who can live on $20/week like employees make in China and Viet Nam.

Americnan companies will never be able to "hire at market value" if we compete with third world countries.
 
What's real here is there is nothing anyone can say to dent what you guys think. You came to this thread with your decision made.

There's no point continuing.

Easpecially when Johnny the nutty statement that $20/wk is better than $0. at $20/week you are still homeless and hungry in America.
 
Fair enough. I just have a hard time when I see hard working people being represented by a seemingly corrupt system. Many don't know any better. I'm all for protecting workers rights but there is so much transparency these days. It's hard for me to fathom workers being oppressed and paying so much for these organizations while at the same time cannibalizing their own positions. And for what ROI????

What's real here is there is nothing anyone can say to dent what you guys think. You came to this thread with your decision made.

There's no point continuing.

Easpecially when Johnny the nutty statement that $20/wk is better than $0. at $20/week you are still homeless and hungry in America.
 
Back
Top