American business question...no more unions...

[dd74]

What would happen to American business if unions ceased to exist?

Would the jobs that went overseas come back? And if so, could the American worker stand to make less money than they did when they were part of a union?

Is it fair to say most American corporations who sent their jobs overseas were forced to do so because of the continual strain (financial and otherwise) unions have placed on their businesses model?

Just wondering what you guys think...

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Unions need to exist for the purpose of collective BARGAINING.

Not STRANGLING.

OTOH, I have a long list of "people who should be staked out in the street and shot" and it's mostly CEOs and golden-parachute types.

[gaijindabe]

You have got to mention public unions. The strongest and fastest growing part of that movement. Those jobs aint going overseas.

You can choose not to by a GM car, try not paying your taxes!

[widebody911]

Originally posted by dd74
Is it fair to say most American corporations who sent their jobs overseas were forced to do so because of the continual strain (financial and otherwise) unions have placed on their businesses model?


I don't know that forced is the correct word. A lot of jobs have gone overseas that were not union, and the companies that sent jobs overseas were making money before they sent the jobs, it's just they made a lot more after sending them. The cost 'savings' went into CEO pockets. What companies have been finding out is that you can only outsource (or lay off) only so much. Once the short-term gains are in the bank, you have to come up with something else to keep profits up.

Efficient capitalism requires low-cost labor. American manufacturers would love to return to the days of wage slaves toiling in the factories for 16 hours a day for pennies starting at the age of 8 - that's why they're moving to Asia where they can get that.

[tabs]

I don't think jobs disappearing is a Union caused problem...it's more complex than that...

Unions today act like a large corporation whose product is providing labor...orginally the Union Leadership came from th e floor..and represented the indivdual....today the Union Leadership represents the Pension and Health and Welfare Benfits...

[widebody911]

Originally posted by tabs
Unions today act like a large corporation whose product is providing labor...

I like that analogy.

[tabs]

Wide... and U don't think your a wage slave....can you quit your job today and never have to work again? How much DEBT do U have....

So don't tell me you don't trade in your hours for a handfull of dimes... your just a fking slave as far as I'm concerned...Now get back to work boy and stop weasting your time on this OT Board...

[Superman]

I'll try to stay out of this discussion as much as practical, but you guys know I'm mouthy. Just a couple of suggested considerations:

* If wages fell, then the buying power of those workers falls too. It's like when the Ford CEO was bragging to the union rep about the new robots and the fact that they don't strike for higher wages. The union rep said "Sure, but try selling your cars to these robots." Lowering wages might sound like a clever idea initially, but in the long run it may be a bit like pissing in your bath.

* Unions exist because of a certain kind of social pressure. Lords and Kings would like to ignore the peasants, but they do not....and there is a reason for that. Especially in a so-called "democracy." So, if you take away a specific set of protections for working people, are you thinking those protections will not be replaced from another source (wage laws, etc).

[skipdup]

Originally posted by Superman
* If wages fell, then the buying power of those workers falls too. It's like when the Ford CEO was bragging to the union rep about the new robots and the fact that they don't strike for higher wages. The union rep said "Sure, but try selling your cars to these robots." Lowering wages might sound like a clever idea initially, but in the long run it may be a bit like pissing in your bath.

Sounds like a sound argument for tax cuts.

[tabs]

The rise of Unions led to the rising of all boats with regards to wages....If your working on the floor why would you want to take on more responsibility by becoming management unless you were paid more money....It was the rise of the Unions that led to the rise of the Middle Class in America...where almost everybody could afford the good life...

[EdT82SC]

Unions in government help prevent political cronyism. My wife is a Deputy District Attorney for the county we live in. Two years after she was hired a new D.A. was elected who quickly tried to get rid of existing employees so that he could hire political friends, and children of prominent campaign contributors. The union was the only thing that prevented many capable, experienced prosecutors from being fired.

In the private sector companies need to do a good job at their business or they will go out of business eventually. In government that is not the case. The latest elected official is best off giving favors to those that helped him get into power. That means giving jobs to unqualified people who have no incentive to do their job is the best thing for the elected official.

[tabs]

EDT...What your talking about is Civil Service and not Public Employee Unions..Civil Service was implemented to stop croynism..the Union was formed for collective bargaining...

[88BlueTSiQuest]

My branch of the industry isn't currently union-ated, but SPEEA does have a branch dedicated to my line of work. I see Unions as both a good and bad thing. The good is in wages, insurance, pay increases and work environment. The bad is in the quality of work you get from some of the protected members.

IMHO, Unions would be fine if they helped weed out the bad apples, and only rewarded the true hard working individuals. But until this happens, never, I will always consider Unions a bad thing. As it sits, my present job doesn't pay too bad, and has insurance on par with the prices and coverage that Boeing employees get. So the only real thing a Union could provide me is the ability to work slower, and put less effort into my work with a slighter higher increase in wage.

[Superman]

Originally posted by skipdup
Sounds like a sound argument for tax cuts.

I read an interesting article in the Sunday paper regarding the impact of Dubya's tax cuts. Apparently, rich folks are doing better, but so are people of moderate incomes. The truly breathtaking impact has been on the hyper-rich. Sure, their wealth always grows faster than that of the rest of us but apparently in the last several years their (the hyper-rich) proportion of the nation's wealth has SKYROCKETED.

[skipdup]

Originally posted by Superman
I read an interesting article in the Sunday paper regarding the impact of Dubya's tax cuts. Apparently, rich folks are doing better, but so are people of moderate incomes. The truly breathtaking impact has been on the hyper-rich. Sure, their wealth always grows faster than that of the rest of us but apparently in the last several years their (the hyper-rich) proportion of the nation's wealth has SKYROCKETED.

Good. That means more tax revenues to fund our Imperialistic ventures across the globe.

- Skip

[dd74]

This, I believe, is the article Jim refers too.

http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2005/06/05/national/class/index.html

Skip, don't yuck it up so fast. You're as much a tool of the hyper rich as are the majority of other common Americans.

[skipdup]

Originally posted by dd74
Skip, don't yuck it up so fast. You're as much a tool of the hyper rich as are the majority of other common Americans.

How is that?

[dd74]

Originally posted by skipdup
Good. That means more tax revenues to fund our Imperialistic ventures across the globe.

- Skip

Your pithy comments are off-course as usual. "Imperialistic ventures.."

Did you read the article?

There's no "our" or "us" in the designs of the people featured in the story I posted. "It" is all about them.

[skipdup]

Originally posted by dd74
Your pithy comments are off-course as usual. "Imperialistic ventures.."

I'm sorry. It was just an attempt at humor. In the future I'll try and keep my comments more pleasing to you.

Or, maybe I should make sure all your posts adhere to a strict "on topic" rule?

Relax.

Did you read the article?

Nope. Requires a log on.

- Skip

[NOH20]

The UAW is part of the problem. You still have old school guys on the line that refuse to work a minute over their scheduled time and they play politics constantly at work. I was in a plant recently that had to cut back production due to high inventory levels. The workers on the line were pissed because they would not be getting the overtime they have become acustomed to so they decided to start dropping screws into the units they were building. Once the plant was back running at full steam the screw problem disappeared.

Also, GM for instance is shutting down their Cadillac plant for a week due to weak sales. I was talking to one of the line workers today and they told me they "enjoy the vacation, we still get 95% of our pay whether we are at work or not." Isn't this a problem?

I deal with the UAW a lot and I must say it is putting a major strain on the US automakers. The transplants don't have the same probles for a couple of reasons: 1. younger work force and 2. they want to work.

This isn't a slam on the UAW as I know there are plenty of good workers in the union however, I have seen things happen at several assembly plants that are just absurd when they don't get their own way. Most of them are out for themselves and really don't care about their work or the quality of car thay build.