Printable View
Big labor has proven over the years to be just as vulnerable (if not more) to corruption and illegal behavior. Further, the changes they have demanded and achieved have proven to be just as damaging (if not more) to the industries they are involved in. Yet, the body of law applied to them to create "ethical boundaries" is miniscule compared to the body of law applied to corporations for virtually the same actions.
Ever hear of the Rico act?
Yes! Do you know of any cases where RICO was applied to unions? But, I'm right with you there. What they do pretty much is right in line with what the people who RICO has been applied to have done. :D
Dude Hoffa was convicted in 1964
Is that the most relevant case you can bring up?
He never got back into the union, He was whacked.
Here is a little anti trust story From the 60's as well
http://www.moldea.com/ReaganGJ.html
And your right maybe SAG as well as MCA should have had the book thrown at them as well as the President of SAG at the time.
I don't think you get the point Frets. Hoffa was an example of the type of corruption your "brief history of labor" link left out. The fact remains, regardless of that, that unions can engage in extortion without penalty and corporations cannot. Both activities are equally harmful to our economy and to the lives of every day americans. It's not difficult to understand how it works. It's not unlike a pyramid scheme. People in the union just say, "It helped me make more cash and I don't mind being on slow-down anyway."
Your SAG/Reagan thing seems pretty obtuse to me. So, there were questions asked about SAG during a time when Reagan was president. That has a bearing on whether or not unions should have "ethical boundaries" because....?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547476.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
http://www.allbusiness.com/transport...4219845-1.html
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index...romItemId/2332
It would seem not to be the case.
Why? Because you found three links? One of them was a union imposed fine (not federal or state) and another was Australian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
Maybe I should have said "in most cases" instead of implying all cases of extortion. But, it took an entire city's transportation services being shut down for a fine to be brought against them. There are countless examples of more subtle (but still damaging) union actions that go unpunished.
"You give us what we want or we take the entire company down with us!"
Does that sound like "bargaining" to you? Maybe if "we will make them an offer they can't refuse" is also a valid form of "bargaining."
I only quoted 3 because I spent a minute on google, and they were the first 3.
Maybe its because I have witnessed what happens when matriarchal businesses close down due to outsourcing, and how that effects the local economy and the workforce, not just in their pockets but in their feelings of no worth, that I tend to champion the working guy. I understand progress and businesses need to generate maximum wealth for the shareholders, but one massive asset which doesn't appear on the balance sheet is a loyal workforce, moreoften they are considered a liability.
I don't think that is true at all. A happy, loyal workforce tends also to be a productive one. Furthermore, since corporations are not allowed legally to hold monopolies, they must compete with other companies to keep the best labor.
I understand your sentiments for the working guy. But, this isn't a working guy vs non-working guy issue. The shareholders are the working guy too. The citizens paying the cost of union manipulations are also the working guy.
PS: The results of union efforts are often what create the situations that make outsourcing appealing to businesses.
That was true in the day when everything from your razor to your staff wasn't considered throw-away. These days every one wants the job doing at the best price, which we all know in the real world rarely means the best quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
If what you are saying it affects us all, then you have answered your own arguement, in that all sides need to be considered, union and employer.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Think about that. You're basically saying that people should be paid (by force) to make something for which there isn't as much of a demand as for something else. This is ultimately where union arguments end up in my experience. It's wagon-makers wanting to get paid the same rate as auto-makers. If what the world wants most are inexpensive items (and there is good reason for people to want that if they are the poor, working guy), isn't it in the interest of the world for the companies to deliver those items as inexpensively as they can?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
I'm saying that what unions do has hurt the working guy more than helped them. So, yes, in consideration of the working guy, I do not support unions. By and large, they're a scourge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
PS: More expensive labor costs don't lead to better quality products anyway. More often, they lead to lower budgets for quality materials and extra-production research and development that might improve what the high cost laborers make.
NO its the fact that overseas workers will work in conditions unacceptable in this country, without many of the rights afforded us in law, uk and European, all of which obvoiusly come at a cost to the employer. I will remind you that many of these benefits including decent policy over sickness, holidays, berevement, childbirth, maternity, accident proceedures and adequate training. Plus hours of work that give people a chance to spend time with their families, were all never given freely or willingly, they all had to be fought for. So you see it is at the very core of democracy that a man shall have his voice, regardless of his point of view or standing in society. Unions have always been seen as the protective mechanism whereby those whos skills did not include elequent delivery could have a credible voice. Do union leaders ever become corupt with their power? of course, just like any other power, however please remember that unions have a democratic framework, and leaders can be removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
There have been some cases where people have been exploited here and in other countries and that is wrong. However, even if you were to buy into the ludicrous notion that the only reason labor costs less elsewhere is because the laborers are always working in sub-standard conditions, there are still the substantial costs of developing facilities elsewhere and paying for additional shipping and tariffs. The costs versus productivity have to be pretty bad at home before a company will go through such great lengths to open shop somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
I don't think it's necessary to go into platitudes over Democracy. If all the unions were doing were hiring eloquent people to voice peoples position, I wouldn't have a problem. However, that isn't near the case. Extortion and market manipulation are about as undemocratic as it gets. With regard to health, safety, etc. I don't have a problem with unions. However, what is going on these days is 99% exploitation in the reverse direction and 1% democracy.
Oh really, the other week we were discussing how China was excelling at taking on the Worlds production.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Good because thats what goes on every day in courts around the World, we hire people to do our talking for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Thats like saying Im glad we won the war, but I dont like soldiers. Im sure you are happy to enjoy the benefits of labour laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying? I think it should be expected that any country converting to more capitalist mechanisms with a population and history like China is going to provide a booming labor force. Nothing wrong with that, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
If the soldiers took advantage of their situation and proceeded to loot citizens homes after the war, I would not like them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
I own and operate a company. So, I don't enjoy any benefits of labor laws.
Ah now if you had stated your standpoint earlier, I would have been more understanding, however, I employ a large number of people, and I follow a model used by a good friend of mine, John Cauldwell, founder of Phones4U, which he recently sold for an obscene amount of money. His model was simple, always recruit at your level and above, and look for leaders who will be self motivated. Of course there are individuals who will take advantage of benefits, but I understand that without my staff I have nothing, so their welfare is of my prime concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Yeah. I think that model has proven itself successful in many industries. Though, I'm sure some companies live up to it more than others and the larger the company, the more difficult it is to implement such principles company-wide.
It's just not good business to neglect employees. Which is why I don't believe we need unions to force companies to give raises, etc. If they give them, they keep their employees. If they don't, they risk losing them. Nobody knows whether or not they can afford that risk better than those that are responsible for the success of the company.
The challenge that I face is not that they have rights, its that in this crazy pc world, i have to be very careful how I handle inter-employee issues.
I remember someone saying to me that 1000's were starting a new job on Monday, waiting to see if the job was any good, he told me that it was up to me to show that I was good enough for the job, I doubt I would feel comfortable saying such a thing today.