Union Busting in Wisconsin

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the way the owners of wealth in America have destroyed its manufacturing sector and exported the jobs oversees to where the workers can be better kept in line and fed scraps.

I sure hope so....the funny thing about the rah-rah united workers types is that they abandon such principles when the jobs go to workers in other states, provinces, or countries, whether they be organized or not.

Nobody owes them a job....never did.

[Pogo]

Your arguments are really not very important given the undeniable fact that everywhere there are no unions the workers have lousy working conditions, lousy pay, and lousy benefits compared to those jurisdictions where unions are strong. Nor is there any compensation in the form of lower unemployment.

You can spout philosophy about freedom and economic success all you want, but the facts are very clearly telling an entirely different story.

What a bogus argument, not to mention you contradict yourself by admitting that Union benefits are strong which you earlier denied. Make up your mind.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Pogo

[Pliny]

Increased production is the only thing that will produce improvements in wages, benefits and working conditions

So if an enterprise hires ten thousand workers, pays them a dollar a head, and makes a million dollar profit, those workers shouldn't consider that they should dare ask for two dollars a head. Is that what you're saying? Because profits don't belong to them. They belong to the owners of wealth.

No. I am saying what I said.

If I had ten thousand workers and paid them a dollar a head I would have X profit. Profit being what is left over after all costs are figured in. Let's say I made $10,000 profit.

If they unionized and demanded 2 dollars a head the next year and produced the same then I would have 0 profit.

If the next year they demanded $3 a head and produced the same then I would be $10,000 in debt.

And so on.....

It's quite simple. If costs increase then profits decrease. In order to cover the increased cost to production, either production has to increase or the price of the produced good to the consumer must increase. Competition will tend to keep the price to the consumer down. Going out of business or moving to a cheaper labour market are the means to keep the cost of labour down. Non-unionized labour may take a cut in pay to keep jobs or move to a different job altogether, that's their choices.

Unions will prefer to kill the job before taking a cut in wages and benefits and workers are left with no job and no choice but to look elsewhere - turning to the Union for a job doesn't help when there are none to be had.

If you are saying there should be no profit then there is no sense in taking the risks involved in running a business.

Most large corporations are publicly owned. You can take the risk of buying into the corporation and sharing in any profit if you like. If a corporation is privately owned then the owner can and should be able to do whatever he wants with the profits.

It's all rosy now but those jobs won't be there for the next generation.

There's no evidence I've seen that European companies are in any way less stable than American ones. And, frankly, establishing a corporate culture which says that if you can't get workers for virtually nothing you should, wherever possible, transfer those jobs overseas to third world countries is not exactly conducive to keeping ANY well-paying jobs in America. Even your software engineering and technology jobs are being shifted overseas now. Just what jobs do you think you'll be able to hang on to other than service industry jobs? Or do you believe the answer is for American and western workers to reduce their lifestyles to the same as that of third world denizens?

How do you measure the stability of companies? Generally, I would say it is their ability to remain competitive.

I don't know what your measure is, perhaps it is in the cost of their labour. If they can maintain the expected standard of living that their labour demands then they are stable, is that it?

The stability of the economy is what needs to be compared. Society is built upon an economy that produces wealth, and it benefits from that wealth. When the benefits extracted from the economy exceed the production of wealth, the economy, and subsequently society, collapses. I think that is quite obvious.

The ability of government to manufacture "money" distorts the ability to determine real wealth production and it is only a matter of time after they have declared this monopoly for themselves that the economy will collapse.

You can argue that money is flowing upward but it isn't that fact that makes everyone poorer. It is that the economy produces only so much real wealth. If the amount of money were taken out of the hands of those greedy rich people and redistributed to the general public the same amount of real wealth would exist and the fact there is more money in the hands of the general public doesn't mean there is automatically enough goods and services, or wealth, for everyone to buy. It means your "money" will lose purchasing power - in other words rising prices as a result of increased "money" available in the market. Essentially all that's occurred is you have made rich people poor and "money" worth less. You have gained nothing in the long run. The people who received the "money" from the rich early on, before all the good and services started to become in short supply, would have been better off and for a time it might look like it was a good idea to redistribute the wealth but in the long run everyone winds up holding a worthless dollar.

Even if money were "gold", which it isn't, and it were redistributed it still can't buy what is not there. If money were a commodity then it would have a value that could be used to more accurately reflect value in the economy and the measure of real wealth.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

No. I am saying what I said.

If I had ten thousand workers and paid them a dollar a head I would have X profit. Profit being what is left over after all costs are figured in. Let's say I made $10,000 profit.

If they unionized and demanded 2 dollars a head the next year and produced the same then I would have 0 profit.

If the next year they demanded $3 a head and produced the same then I would be $10,000 in debt.

And so on.....

If you make $10,000 profit, why does it make sense to pay them 1 dollar a head ? Why not fifty cents ? You could argue that there isn't enough economic benefit in staying, and threaten to leave.

What is the right amount of profit Pliny ?

[Pliny]

What a bogus argument, not to mention you contradict yourself by admitting that Union benefits are strong which you earlier denied. Make up your mind.

I think his argument was in the use of the word "amazing" as in "amazing wages and benefits". The wages and benefits in Union vs. non-union places are just better.

Anyway, if I am correct on that, then it is a rather specious argument and the contradiction glaringly obvious. Perhaps he has an explanation?

[blueblood]

If you make $10,000 profit, why does it make sense to pay them 1 dollar a head ? Why not fifty cents ? You could argue that there isn't enough economic benefit in staying, and threaten to leave.

What is the right amount of profit Pliny ?

The right amount of profit is unfortunately paying employees as little as possible to the point where they will go work for the other firm down the road.

This works the other way in a hot economy where workers are scarce, hence the 18 dollar an hour tim hortons pay.

[Shady]

New e-mails released by Walker’s office show that the governor has negotiated on key aspects of his union reforms, but the fleebaggers walked away.

Madison — Gov. Scott Walker's office released documents Tuesday showing he's willing to give on some points of his union bargaining bill to break the Capitol standoff and bring Senate Democrats back from Illinois.

The e-mails showed ideas and counteroffers - panned Tuesday by state labor leaders and some Democrats - that were made by the Republican governor's aides and two Democrats as they sought some resolution that would allow Democrats to come back to Wisconsin. Senate Democrats have been holed up in Illinois since Feb. 17, when they left the state to block a vote on Walker's budget-repair bill.

Link

[Bonam]

If you make $10,000 profit, why does it make sense to pay them 1 dollar a head ? Why not fifty cents ? You could argue that there isn't enough economic benefit in staying, and threaten to leave.

What is the right amount of profit Pliny ?

Umm, the right amount of profit is as much as you can make, given the market and economic circumstances. Profits are determined by a wide range of things, and the wage component of the expenditures side of the equation is only one of them. You have to pay enough to attract the appropriate level of talent that your company needs to produce the product/service at the quality that is required for your business to be successful. In bad economic times when everyone is looking for a job and there is plenty of talent around, wages are pushed down. In times of economic growth where companies are expanding and competing for employees, wages go up.

In fact, there is no reason that there should be or needs to be a direct relationship between the value of goods/services sold by a company and the total wages paid to its employees. In a service industry, the vast majority of the revenues may go to paying the employees because those are the primary expenses of the company, while in a highly automated manufacturing industry, only a small fraction of revenues might be spent on paying employees, with the rest going to the acquisition and maintenance of large facilities and expensive equipment, costs of fuels, energy, components, and raw materials, etc.

Back to profits, most large, established, and successful corporations work at profit margin percentages in the single digits or the low double digits. Smaller companies in the phase of rapid growth might be working at much higher profit margins and using a big chunk of their profits to invest in the growth of the company, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. Stagnant companies earn almost no profit or actually take a loss from year to year. In such cases, they often have to find ways to cut costs, and saving on employee wages is certainly one of the options available. Again, though, if other companies in the field are doing better, cutting wages means the employees might start quitting and going elsewhere, often starting with the ones that have the most drive and initiative, which is something a company does not want to happen.

Sorry for injecting some elementary economic reality into the discussion...

[Michael Hardner]

Umm, the right amount of profit is as much as you can make, given the market and economic circumstances.

Right. But this rule doesn't apply to people who work for a living.

In fact, there is no reason that there should be or needs to be a direct relationship between the value of goods/services sold by a company and the total wages paid to its employees. In a service industry, the vast majority of the revenues may go to paying the employees because those are the primary expenses of the company, while in a highly automated manufacturing industry, only a small fraction of revenues might be spent on paying employees, with the rest going to the acquisition and maintenance of large facilities and expensive equipment, costs of fuels, energy, components, and raw materials, etc.

So the invisible hand doesn't give out as much as it possibly can, but we knew this.

Sorry for injecting some elementary economic reality into the discussion...

No that's fine. We should know these things. It also explains why companies will cry poor in every circumstance. They are supposed to make money, and the workers are supposed to be glad to be paid.

This attitude also explains the relative economic gains of the wealthiest earners over the past 30 years or so.

[Shady]

They are supposed to make money, and the workers are supposed to be glad to be paid.

You're forgetting that there's also an element of supply and demand as well regarding the type of job in question. It's all about how much a particular job is in demand, and how many workers are in supply to do that job. It's again, basic economics.

[Michael Hardner]

You're forgetting that there's also an element of supply and demand as well regarding the type of job in question. It's all about how much a particular job is in demand, and how many workers are in supply to do that job. It's again, basic economics.

Basic economics also explains combines, collusion and anti-competitive practices, where they make sense.

[Shady]

Basic economics also explains combines, collusion and anti-competitive practices, where they make sense.

How about collusion and anti-competitive practices regarding public sector unions?

[Michael Hardner]

How about collusion and anti-competitive practices regarding public sector unions?

Yes, how about them ? Organized labour provides a check against the natural economic power of the employer to protect against unfair practices (such as reneging on an agreement such as a pension) and has been effective in creating a middle class in America.

There are other examples:

Salary caps in professional sports

Monopolies for large utilities

Public health care

Those are a few that I would vote for.

[Shady]

Yes, how about them ? Organized labour provides a check against the natural economic power of the employer to protect against unfair practices (such as reneging on an agreement such as a pension) and has been effective in creating a middle class in America.

There are other examples:

Salary caps in professional sports

Monopolies for large utilities

Public health care

Those are a few that I would vote for.

I would agree, in terms of private sector unions. But there isn't the same natural economic power of the employers when it comes to taxpayer funded government jobs. And in terms of the creating a middle class, public sector unions haven't been creating any middle class of the last several years. They've been taking from the middle class in the form of higher property taxes, and higher state income taxes. For the purposes of full health benefits they barely, if at all contribute to, as well as their defined benefit pension pyramid schemes.

Do you not yet know the problem with defined benefit pension plans? Do you not yet know why they've been abandoned in favour of defined contribution and 401k plans? Abandoned by all except public sector unions. If you don't know why, I suggest you inform yourself on this subject before you continue posting.

[pinko]

I would agree, in terms of private sector unions. But there isn't the same natural economic power of the employers when it comes to taxpayer funded government jobs. And in terms of the creating a middle class, public sector unions haven't been creating any middle class of the last several years. They've been taking from the middle class in the form of higher property taxes, and higher state income taxes. For the purposes of full health benefits they barely, if at all contribute to, as well as their defined benefit pension pyramid schemes.

Do you not yet know the problem with defined benefit pension plans? Do you not yet know why they've been abandoned in favour of defined contribution and 401k plans? Abandoned by all except public sector unions. If you don't know why, I suggest you inform yourself on this subject before you continue posting.

Enlighten us, hotshot.

[punked]

Looks like Walker and the Republicans are calling themselves and Shady liars. Tonight they plan to vote on just the Union provisions and pass them saying they are non budgetary. Which means they were lying to the voters for the last 3 weeks in saying there were budgetary money measures. They must just hate the voters to lie to them like that.

[Shady]

Looks like Walker and the Republicans are calling themselves and Shady liars. Tonight they plan to vote on just the Union provisions and pass them saying they are non budgetary. Which means they were lying to the voters for the last 3 weeks in saying there were budgetary money measures. They must just hate the voters to lie to them like that.

Maybe they learned from Obama? You know, the health care mandate isn't a tax, but then when arguing in court, saying it is a tax!

Regardless, the votes are there to pass the Wisconsin reform plan. It's about time they passed it.

[Shady]

Enlighten us, hotshot.

How is it that you've been posting all this time, and not know about defined benefit pension plans vs defined contribution plans? It's one of the most important aspects of this issue, and American public sector unions in general.

[Pliny]

If you make $10,000 profit, why does it make sense to pay them 1 dollar a head ? Why not fifty cents ? You could argue that there isn't enough economic benefit in staying, and threaten to leave.

Yes. I could if I wanted to throw away the profit.

What is the right amount of profit Pliny ?

How much would you like to invest and what is the right amount of risk you would like to take?

What is the right amount of profit is kind of a silly question. It is not something that is predetermined it is a risk, the efforts could result in a loss, breaking even or making a profit. A big profit means there won't be a shortage of people who feel they were cheated.

[Shady]

What is the right amount of profit Pliny ?

That question doesn't make any sense. That's like asking what is the right amount of private property.

[Michael Hardner]

What is the right amount of profit is kind of a silly question.

Of course it is. It's natural to think of the owner having a right to unlimited profits, right ? There isn't any reason to think that the owner would think otherwise, unless his profits were threatened, right ?

[pinko]

How is it that you've been posting all this time, and not know about defined benefit pension plans vs defined contribution plans? It's one of the most important aspects of this issue, and American public sector unions in general.

It is quite likely I know much more than you do about defined benefit pension plans. By the way in Canada we don't have what has been referred to as 401k accounts. It appears you are attempting to compare defined benefit and defined contribution plans.

Edited March 10, 2011 by pinko

[Michael Hardner]

I would agree, in terms of private sector unions. But there isn't the same natural economic power of the employers when it comes to taxpayer funded government jobs.

Fair enough, but there are different challenges to taxpayer funded jobs too - as we're seeing now.

[Bonam]

Right. But this rule doesn't apply to people who work for a living.

Of course it does. Just like businesses, individuals, too, should be looking to maximize their profit. In the case of someone who works for a living, they should be looking for the best available reward for their work (that reward can come in the form of salary, benefits, vacation time, work environment, etc). When someone is looking for a job, the salary they are offered is certainly a significant consideration for most people, just like costs and profits are a significant consideration for a person running a business.

So the invisible hand doesn't give out as much as it possibly can, but we knew this.

The "invisible hand" is not in the business of giving. It is in the business of trading, value for value. Your work, in exchange for the compensation that your work is worth to your employer. That can vary based on what you do, your talent, the employer's profitability, the economic climate, and other factors.

No that's fine. We should know these things. It also explains why companies will cry poor in every circumstance. They are supposed to make money, and the workers are supposed to be glad to be paid.

You better hope the companies make money, because if they don't, then they have to start downsizing and laying off workers. That means people losing jobs. On the other hand, profitable companies tend to invest a substantial portion of their profits into business expansion, which means more profits in the future, but more importantly for people wanting jobs, it means job creation. Workers can be glad or not glad to have a job, that is their choice. If they are unsatisfied with their job, they can look for another job elsewhere or upgrade their skills to get a different/better type of job.

This attitude also explains the relative economic gains of the wealthiest earners over the past 30 years or so.

Not really. The relative stagnation of wages in Western countries for workers over the last few decades is a result of globalization, not the "attitude" of corporations. As Western workers come into competition with workers in other parts of the world where labor is much cheaper, it is impractical for our wages to increase when they are already many many times higher. That's just globalization in action, and it should please any true leftist: it decreases inequality on a global scale.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Not really. The relative stagnation of wages in Western countries for workers over the last few decades is a result of globalization, not the "attitude" of corporations. As Western workers come into competition with workers in other parts of the world where labor is much cheaper, it is impractical for our wages to increase when they are already many many times higher. That's just globalization in action, and it should please any true leftist: it decreases inequality on a global scale.

Outstanding clarity...I don't know why this point is so easily lost on them.