Some thoughts on unions

by JeffT 343 Replies latest members politics

• 

  drewcoul

  so the DDer think to himself: "But if i and some other DDs got together and told the boss we aint diggin' no ditches before he give us 10% more,problem solved!"

  Not necessarily. There are other workers (illegal immigrants for example) who would be willing to do the job for less. Additionally, the dd would not just be able to get together with some other ditch diggers, they must all unite. In which case the employer cannot afford to hire as many. This in turn displaces the unemployed workers to the non union ditch digging workforce. This creates a greater supply of non union dd's which drives the wages down for the non union dd's.
• 

  bohm

  drewcoul: ...so the DDs try to make the organized DD look more attractive to hire, they make an organization which give their members certain advantages (like medical care), they try to affect legislation such that higher standards of safety is put in effect, etc.

  i mean, its within their right to do these things. and its very natural they try to do it. so it follows straigh from SW's analysis of "what should i do to get paid more".

  which is why SW's post seem a bit hollow.
• 

  DaCheech

  so the DDer think to himself: "But if i and some other DDs got together and told the boss we aint diggin' no ditches before he give us 10% more,problem solved!"

  so it seem we have come in full circles.

  not problem solved, boss and other DDer digger will be out of business soon when company "b" with illegals (or non-union) takes over the bids and takes over ALL work. (workers that had jobs, now don't (see SK hand tools example)
• 

  Sam Whiskey

  Bohm - Yes, it's their right, I agree. But...ultimately their pricing themselves right out of the market.

  Drew - And yes, you're also right on the DD, that job cannot go offshore. I was using it as an illustration, it was not meant to be taken literally.
• 

  bohm

  not problem solved, boss and other DDer digger will be out of business soon when company "b" with illegals takes over the bids and takes over ALL work

  thats your hypothesis. it seem quite easy to test, because in that case all union workers should basically be out of job. but they are not, so your hypothesis seem to be wrong.
• 

  bohm

  Bohm - Yes, it's their right, I agree. But...ultimately their pricing themselves right out of the market.

  again, this is an emperical claim...

  where i come from we have had unions for 100 year and people still have jobs...
• 

  villabolo

  DaCheech:

  1. the goverment gotta start taxing: imports high-->30-40%,

  2. and get rid of state sales tax and enact a national sales tax of 20% or so (like europe)

  Protectionism? European style (federal) taxes? DaCheech. You surprise me. Try not to get in a fight with you know who.

  But, of course, no Eropean style Unions.

  Villabolo
• 

  drewcoul

  drewcoul: ...so the DDs try to make the organized DD look more attractive to hire, they make an organization which give their members certain advantages (like medical care), they try to affect legislation such that higher standards of safety is put in effect, etc.

  You are missing an important point, Bohm. Namely, when a union decides they are going to demand higher wages, and better healthcare than average, they inherrently put a greater burden on the employer. The result is less workers are hired through the union, and more unemployed workers are displaced to non union outfits which creates a greater supply of workers which drives down wages. The company then becomes less profitable, as it must compete with non union companies. Many times this causes the union employer to go out of business.

  This is what happened to GM. Union workers were demanding outlandish salaries, GM couldn't compete in the world market and eventually had to be taken over by the U.S. Government.
• 

  DaCheech

  there are alot of people avoiding paying sales tax these days. by enacting a national sales tax, it will be harder to avoid paying (internet sales and such)
• 

  Sam Whiskey

  Drew - Maybe Bohm is referring to a government subsidy under which condition a Union(s) could survive? However, in that case, it would be the taxpayer that is ultimately is providing the subsidy.

  Where are you from Bohm?