Labor Unions

[Stephen]

My personal view has always been that unions are good at first, but end up taking to much in the end, hurting everyone else in process. I completely agree with Bob here that being in a union should be an option, but it should ultimately be your choice, not union's or government's choice.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/pre...-on-labor-day/

September 1, 2008 4:46 pm EST

Atlanta, GA - “America protects the right of workers to join unions and to not join unions,” observes Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “The government should not put its hand on the balance scale."

Barr says that if a union collects cards from 30 percent of the workers, an election is held, and unions win a majority of the elections. "But organized labor isn’t happy because the overall percentage of workers joining unions continues to shrink—except among government employees,” explains Barr.

“Thus, labor unions are hoping to rig the system," says Barr. Since only 7.5 percent of private sector workers are members, the union officials are pushing to do away with union elections.

The unions want to be certified if a majority of workers simply sign a card. Today, workers who feel intimidated by union organizers can vote 'no' in a secret ballot election monitored by the Department of Labor. "The so-called card check bill would strip them of that protection, rewarding unions for threatening workers who refused to sign,” warns Barr.

“The right to belong to a union is basic to a free society," says Barr. "But so is the right not to join. The government already has created a regulatory system often manipulated to promote forced unionism. Getting rid of representation elections would bias the entire system in favor of Big Labor,” says Barr.

Barr says that America should be moving in the other direction, "deregulating the labor-management relationship."

“With continuing dramatic economic transformation likely in the 21st century, labor law should emphasize flexibility and freedom," says Barr, adding the U.S. needs better and closer cooperation among workers and employers; cooperation which Barr says needs to develop "as part of a vibrant and changing marketplace."

"Government should not mandate any particular form of employee representation," Barr emphasizes. "Both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain represent the past on labor issues. As president, I would both use my legal authority and propose legislation to Congress to free our economy to meet the inevitable challenges in the years ahead."

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

[The Truth]

unions had a role 100 years ago to counter the monopolistic powers of corporations.

Today, however, corporations compete with each other over the labour force and nowhere does a corporation have a monopoly on labour. If I don't like it working at one corporation I can leave and work at another, or even start my own business if I prefer.


I don't even understand why if the majority of the workers want a union, everyone has to be part of it. Give everyone a choice. If the majority of my coworkers want to join a union but I don't, let the coworkers join but keep me out of it.

[Swirvin' Birds]

Monopolistic corporations 100 years ago? I did not realize WAL-MART and such have been around that long....

Yes, Monopolistic corporations are still around and are becoming more prolific. Now I am not a huge fan of Labor Unions but they do have a role to play.

If it was per individual basis then the Corporation would just fire you and hire a non-union member.

A corporation is going to give you as few benefits and the lowest wages they can.

[The Truth]

"I did not realize WAL-MART and such have been around that long...."

Dude, if I don't want to work at wal-mart I can work at mcdonalds, burgerking or many other large corporations. How is that a monopoly?


"If it was per individual basis then the Corporation would just fire you and hire a non-union member."

And that is bad why?


"A corporation is going to give you as few benefits and the lowest wages they can."

Again, this is bad why?

[martian]

""A corporation is going to give you as few benefits and the lowest wages they can."
Again, this is bad why?"

could write hundreds of pages in order to fully address this question but I'm not gonna bother because it boils down to sociology vs economics.


better question is why are corporations allowed to break the law by hiring illegal labor.

another better question is why do we have an asymetric trading environment where we have little trade protection but allowed other countries to do the opposite thus undermining our selves.

at the end of the day, if enough people feel that the system screws them over too much or are beeing treaty inequitably then sociology trumps economics. You cannot run a country like the wild west.

A good question is why do we have increasing levels corruption?
Why are there no go areas in many major cities?
Why does organized crime have the influence that it does?

que bono?

[Swirvin' Birds]

Dude, if I don't want to work at wal-mart I can work at mcdonalds, burgerking or many other large corporations. How is that a monopoly?

Dude. Do you even know what a Monopoly is? WAL-Mart and fast food Joints are not in competition with each other.

And that is bad why?

So lower wages for workers and less benefits is a good thing in your opinion?

[freemehul]

lol monopoly is not a worry when it comes to the labour market

what you do have to worry about is monopsony and there's only one thing that can combat that and that is unions.

[freemehul]

and please notice the difference between monopoly and monopsony

[Swirvin' Birds]

You are correct Freemehul. Labor Unions and a Monopoly Do not have anything to do with each other. I was responding to his post about monopolistic corporations 100 years ago part. I was not trying to tie the 2 together.

[The Truth]

"Dude. Do you even know what a Monopoly is? WAL-Mart and fast food Joints are not in competition with each other."

Of course they are in competition with each other (for cheap labour, duh, otherwise many of the large corporations wouldn't offer jobs above the minimum wage, which they do). And even if they weren't in competition with each other, that would be an oligopoly, not a monopoly, duh.


"So lower wages for workers and less benefits is a good thing in your opinion?"

I couldn't care less what the wages and benefits are; but a price floor is a bad thing in my opinion, and that's what the minimum wage is (a price floor).


"Labor Unions and a Monopoly Do not have anything to do with each other."

Yes they do. A labour union is a monopoly on labour.


"and please notice the difference between monopoly and monopsony"

They are essentially the same thing.

[Swirvin' Birds]

Your right in using duh. Cause you just got it wrong.

In Economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

A monopoly should be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods.

Now go say duh again please.

A labor union is controlled through voting. How can that be a monopoly on labor.

[RAKIdaRHINO]

The unions want to be certified if a majority of workers simply sign a card. Today, workers who feel intimidated by union organizers can vote 'no' in a secret ballot election monitored by the Department of Labor. "The so-called card check bill would strip them of that protection, rewarding unions for threatening workers who refused to sign,” warns Barr.

And here i was thinking that the ones threatening workers forcing them not to sign was the companies. oh my oh my. Who is more likely to act for the good of the worker. The union who is there to protect and serve the workers or the company who is there to exploit and consume the worker.

Tricky question huh?

[RAKIdaRHINO]

The truth

And that is bad why?
Because it strips you of whatever little say you have as a worker. Instead you become a commodity to be consumed by the company. By reducing the power of the union (by firing union members and hiring non-union workers) you shift power from the workers to the employer ultimately leading to a work place where the owner basically does whatever he wishes with the employees cause theres always someone else willing to take the ****ty ass job for the ****ty ass pay if someone opens his mouth and complains.

So, unless you dislike having a say about your situation as a worker its bad.
As long as there is an abundance of cheap labor dying for a job companies wont have to compete over them by offering higher wages. No big surprise there though.

Fidel Rhino.

[The Truth]

"Because it strips you of whatever little say you have as a worker."

The worker has plenty of say. The worker can either work for the company and accept their pay or quit and find another job if the pay is insufficient.


"cause theres always someone else willing to take the ****ty ass job for the ****ty ass pay"

Incorrect. If the pay is insufficient then the employer may find themselves with not enough workers. As the employers compete with other employers for work, the wage will be the result of the equilibrium price in the demand and supply in the market for labour.


"unless you dislike having a say about your situation as a worker its bad."

I dislike other people having a say about my situation or their own situations. Unions drive up wages in their own sectors, which makes goods more expensive for consumers like me. If every work place was unionized and we all had higher wages, do you think that we would be better off? Of course not because prices would rise as well not to mention unions would stifle innovation and cause economic inefficiency.


"As long as there is an abundance of cheap labor dying for a job companies wont have to compete over them by offering higher wages."

So you would rather have unemployment or wage inequality? If there is an abundance of cheap labour then you should use it, not waste it.


"A labor union is controlled through voting. How can that be a monopoly on labor."

Because the union still controls the supply of labour to that company and thus they have a monopoly over the supply of labour. It doesn't matter how the union/corporation is controlled. If a corporation is the only supplier of a certain resource and they just happen to be controlled by voting, that doesn't mean they aren't a monopoly. And yes, corporations are often controlled by voting (ex. shareholders vote for control).


"a monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

The labour union has sufficient control over the supply of labour to determine significantly the terms on which the corporation that has been unionized shall have access to it. Thus it is a monopoly.

[Swirvin' Birds]

The worker has plenty of say. The worker can either work for the company and accept their pay or quit and find another job if the pay is insufficient.

And just how many *good* paying jobs are there out there? Lots of low paying crap jobs but good ol' blue collar jobs are few and far between.

Incorrect. If the pay is insufficient then the employer may find themselves with not enough workers. As the employers compete with other employers for work, the wage will be the result of the equilibrium price in the demand and supply in the market for labour.

You don't think corporations engage in wage manipulation? They don't *try* to keep wages as low as possible.

So you would rather have unemployment or wage inequality? If there is an abundance of cheap labour then you should use it, not waste it.

Might as well go back to slavery then with that line of thinking. That is how they do things in China and Mexico. I thought we lived by different standards here in this country.