Another victory for the unions!

[bush_cheney2004]

For those of you who have problems with unions - the drive to mediocrity, and so on - if you could suggest something else perhaps others could see a third way.

We don't have to suggest something else, as labour has found other solutions while leaving the baggage of labour unions behind.

For example, seniority is a way to ensure that people aren't pushed out the door as soon as they get older. Collective bargaining can get better wages for workers.

Seniority is one of the most insidious aspects of union labour. Divorced from merit and accountability, it creates a death spiral when times are bad.

If you don't have anything else to offer then I guess unionization - including the problems you have with it - will be the only other option.

see "Right To Work" concepts at a Google query near you.

[Michael Hardner]

The alternative is no unions and every worker negotiates his/her own pay and benefits for his/her self.

How about some kind of agreed-upon standard arrangement for industrial work, with a separate minimum wage and provisions for increases performance bonuses ?

[Guest]

Wrong. Unions have nothing to do with that. Its management that allows lazy and unproductive workers to work alongside and earn the same pay as harder workers. Unions cannot sack or discipline employees. Thats managements job.

Maybe in some kind of fantasy world. Anyone who has actually worked in a union environment knows that what I said is the truth. In order to sack or discipline employees they company has to fight the union, who do not care how hard a member works.

[Wilber]

All this wonderful growth in developing countries of course depends on the planets ability to sustain unlimited growth, otherwise the middle class will just keep moving. Chinese miners want to come here because we have better pay and conditions than they have at home. It would seem that some here can't wait till Canadians are lining up for jobs in Chinese coal mines.

BTW, Southwest, the airline Westjet is modeled after is 87 percent unionized according to that company. Good management and developing a good relationship with employees is far more important than whether or not they are unionized.

[cybercoma]

Wrong. Unions have nothing to do with that. Its management that allows lazy and unproductive workers to work alongside and earn the same pay as harder workers. Unions cannot sack or discipline employees. Thats managements job.

If your argument is true, then the least lazy, most productive labourers ought to make the most money and be the ones that get promoted through the ranks. There should be a relationship between their productivity and what they make.

This isn't actually true and besides, MH and others are discussing aggregate statistics. So individual characteristics of employees and what they make is irrelevant.

[dre]

How about some kind of agreed-upon standard arrangement for industrial work, with a separate minimum wage and provisions for increases performance bonuses ?

So no comment at all on my attempt to provide a real alternative?

[TimG]

So no comment at all on my attempt to provide a real alternative?

Except the model does not work without government subsidies (in the form of government backed loans). It may work out in rare circumstances but it is not a general model that can be used to define a new government policy.

[dre]

Except the model does not work without government subsidies (in the form of government backed loans). It may work out in rare circumstances but it is not a general model that can be used to define a new government policy.

Well thats a fluff opinion piece from someone with absolutely no knowledge of whats involved. Zero value. Thanx alot!

And there no need for government subsidies for this model to work.

Edited November 24, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

And there no need for government subsidies for this model to work.

Then explain where does the capital come from? Money does not grow on trees and workers don't necessarily want to tie up their savings in a company that may or may not succeed.

I do acknowledge that a few defunct companies could be turned around with this model and it has its place. But only in rare exceptions - it is not some wonderful new policy that can be applied anywhere.

Edited November 24, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

So no comment at all on my attempt to provide a real alternative?

Thanks for the post. That is indeed a positive alternative. If they manage their affairs smartly and conservatively, I'm sure they'll stick around.

[Pliny]

People don't seem to understand the history of social welfare. What you posted here is absolutely correct. Bismarck didn't start social assistance policies in the 19th century out of benevolence. It was to keep socialism in check.

Ahaha......Duh! Wha?

Actually Kaiser Wilhelm promoted social welfare against the wishes of Bismarck, a small point. But really, how does the institution of social welfare keep socialism in check? It's like saying the growth of the State keeps the growth of the State in check.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Wrong. Unions have nothing to do with that. Its management that allows lazy and unproductive workers to work alongside and earn the same pay as harder workers. Unions cannot sack or discipline employees. Thats managements job.

Yes. Management has total control over the lives of Union members who have nothing to do with their jobs whatsoever besides there being a job description to follow and a minimum standard of production to be met. Some Union employees work harder ensuring they and others don't go above the minimum standard than anything else.

It is often not worth the effort to sack unproductive workers, in some cases you are talking about years to "sack" an employee and "discipline" is turned into harassment.

[Pliny]

Thanks for the post. That is indeed a positive alternative. If they manage their affairs smartly and conservatively, I'm sure they'll stick around.

You mean....if they become...gulp..."capitalists" or "investors" themselves, they will be able to stick around?

[cybercoma]

Ahaha......Duh! Wha?

Actually Kaiser Wilhelm promoted social welfare against the wishes of Bismarck, a small point. But really, how does the institution of social welfare keep socialism in check? It's like saying the growth of the State keeps the growth of the State in check.

It's better to have conservatives making compromised decisions about social welfare than having a democratic socialist government that will confiscate property and the means of production. It seems you have a problem seeing things in degrees. These aren't ideas that can be reduced to binaries.

[Michael Hardner]

You mean....if they become...gulp..."capitalists" or "investors" themselves, they will be able to stick around?

What do you mean "if" ? They have done it.

[Pliny]

It's better to have conservatives making compromised decisions about social welfare than having a democratic socialist government that will confiscate property and the means of production. It seems you have a problem seeing things in degrees. These aren't ideas that can be reduced to binaries.

The dangers of State growth are not limited to or by the left or the right. If you do not see the progressive growth of the State then it is not I that has a probelm with seeing things in degrees. And what is making the rich pay their fair share about other than confiscating property and the means of production?

[Pliny]

What do you mean "if" ? They have done it.

Well, Shut the front door! Next thing you know they won't be "people" and will be voting for tax cuts for the rich!

[cybercoma]

The dangers of State growth are not limited to or by the left or the right. If you do not see the progressive growth of the State then it is not I that has a probelm with seeing things in degrees. And what is making the rich pay their fair share about other than confiscating property and the means of production?

It's about contributing to society. We don't operate in a vacuum as individuals. There are things that we must do collectively and those things need to be funded. There's a vast difference between that and saying that it is illegal to own property or charge interest. Between that and making all banks and industry publicly owned.

[CPCFTW]

So do we collectively need to protect people from making poor investments? From not saving for retirement? From not living a healthy life and being unable to afford health care? From not getting fired/laid off? From not being able to support oneself in case of losing a job? From not using a condom when having sex? Etc.

We're way beyond what we must do collectively.

Edited November 24, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Michael Hardner]

Well, Shut the front door! Next thing you know they won't be "people" and will be voting for tax cuts for the rich!

Maybe... but they'll also be workers who definitely are people.

[cybercoma]

So do we collectively need to protect people from making poor investments? From not saving for retirement? From not living a healthy life and being unable to afford health care? From not getting fired/laid off? From not being able to support oneself in case of losing a job? From not using a condom when having sex? Etc.

We're way beyond what we must do collectively.

And what exactly do you think happens when people lose everything from poor investments, have no money to retire, can't pay for health care, go through their savings when they lose their job, or are forced to have a child when they can't afford it?

Where do you suppose they go? Just disappear?

[bush_cheney2004]

They become "poor", like most of the people in the rest in the world. They survive on government programs and/or the underground economy (legal and illegal).

[Shady]

So do we collectively need to protect people from making poor investments? From not saving for retirement? From not living a healthy life and being unable to afford health care? From not getting fired/laid off? From not being able to support oneself in case of losing a job? From not using a condom when having sex? Etc.

We're way beyond what we must do collectively.

Exactly. Individual freedom and responsibility are being erroded, little by little by the left. That's why society gets less and less of it. And of course, the only cure, is more government, and less and less freedom and responsibility. You know, for the greater good.

[CPCFTW]

And what exactly do you think happens when people lose everything from poor investments, have no money to retire, can't pay for health care, go through their savings when they lose their job, or are forced to have a child when they can't afford it?

Where do you suppose they go? Just disappear?

They learn responsibility and hopefully bounce back.

Edited November 24, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Shady]

The "forced to have a child when they can't afford it" concerns me. Who's out there forcing people to have sex and what do we do about it!?