Shoutbox debate on unions

Labor unions have sought higher wages and better working conditions for their members. They have trained apprentices in their trade and helped many Americans retain their jobs.

Labor unions have also coordinated strikes, disrupting the supply of goods and services. Their demands for higher wages have led to reduced profits for companies, who then cannot expand and hire more workers. Their strength has also been accused of preventing industrial progress.

How good or bad are labor unions, in your opinion, and what data do you have to support it?

Labour unions are simply a way for employees to band together so as to have more bargaining power against the corporations. Generally the only bargaining power they have is to disrupt the business by striking or working to rule or other types of industrial action.

If you had more worker-friendly labour laws in the US, then labour unions probably wouldn't be as prevalent or necessary.

But Lanthanide, that sounds like communism!

No, it's called being civilized and treating people like humans, not interchangeable automatons whose only purpose is to maximize industrial output.

We'll do that to workers who are able to offer labor that isn't on the level of automatons.

If you have a useful skill, great, you won't be working a minimum-wage job. If you don't... sucks to be you.

Except plenty of people who do have useful skills would be paid the minimum wage if it weren't for unions. That's kind of the entire point.

Labor unions are money-sucking backstabbing useless shits. They take your money and do nothing for you. Hell, corporations probably pay the union leaders to keep the union members under their feet. Its ridiculous.

No, people with useful skills would be offered as much money as the companies are willing to pay for them. If your skill isn't worth more than the minimum wage to them, that's your fault. Plenty of non-unionized members of the workforce make significantly higher wages than the minimum, because they have skills that are in demand.

Not really. The world needs janitors, garbage collectors, other "low-paid" positions. How long do you think hospitals could keep running if all the cleaners refused to work? Their job is "worth" plenty to the hospitals, they just refuse to pay them what they're truly worth, because there is a large supply of people willing to do the job.

Offering higher pay gets you much more motivated employees, which increases productivity, reducing staff turnover and ultimately increasing profitability, although obviously this is a dynamic equation that needs to be maximised.

I take issue with that example, janitors are fairly well paid

As are garbage collectors, plumbers, etc.

I see you don't really understand what you are talking about, Lanthanide.

I never said "plumber", did I? Plumber is a skilled trade.

http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-janitor

"Garbage collector" on the same site shows 43k, which I'm guessing must be a different role from what I am thinking: someone who drives a truck and grabs people's garbage that they put out on the curb. Such jobs in NZ don't get paid much more than minimum wage.

Found this: http://www.ehow.com/info_7736611_average-garbage-man-salary.html


Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 6 2012, 7:55 am by Lanthanide.

Janitors are very poorly paid with terrible benefits and bad hours.

Employers love to abuse low-skill positions. They generally expect absurd levels of motivation and performance for minimal reciprocation under the premise that they're "paying you". This attitude promotes a high turnover rate that does not discriminate between the genuinely hard-working and the truly lazy. The levels of stress in such jobs are exceedingly high as well, exacerbated further by a pay far too low to live well.

I would like to see their jobs replaced with machines, Aristocrat. But these workers cannot simply be left out in the cold under the premise of, "well sucks to be you". Which is all too easy to say when one is not a member of the group. They are entitled to person rights.

If we do displace them, we are all too aware of the consequences. I refuse to commit an atrocity in the name of progress.

---

Further, I increasingly find the level of effort put into promoting education to be frighteningly lacking. And this is from a country that is attempting to undermine its own scientific curriculum. Entering the work force after high school is hardly an option anymore. Even mechanic positions are requiring trade skills and certifications now. Our foundational education must be rebuilt to accommodate a virtually mandatory level of education beyond our current state.

Remember, the people that fail to do well in our current schools are hardly useless... Well, to quote Einstein: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 6 2012, 4:01 pm by Sacrieur.

You can't look at garbage men as a wage, you should look at it hourly, because they're not spending 40 hours a week collecting garbage.
The protests where I live (Madison, Wisconsin) have made me fucking hate unions.

Guys Guys! Only 10% of all union members actually were the ones who voted for the creation of the unions at their beginnings!!

P = price
Q = quantity
S = supply of janitors
D = demand for janitors

From what I understand about economics (correct me if I'm wrong):

The quantity of janitors hired will naturally meet the quantity demanded so long as there are janitors willing to work for the given wage. Janitors will be paid (on average) what the market thinks they're worth. A minimum wage increases the quantity of janitors, but does not affect the demand for janitors. In fact, there will be a surplus of people willing to work as janitors since employers are unable or unwilling to hire a larger quantity of janitors at the higher wage.

This method of thinking can be applied to any good, service, or occupation.

@ray: It gets a little more complicated than that when you're talking about unionized labor in a firm. Even when labor is not unionized, what determines the supply of labor is fairly complex.

EDIT: Under your very simplified model, this occurs:


Which is to say, labor unions cause a decrease in employment. However, the actual effects are more complicated. See this link and scroll down to "Unions" for an introductory-level explanation.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Feb 7 2012, 2:12 am by Aristocrat.

Yes, I'm aware how the market prices things.

The point is that "the market" pays what people are worth to the market, but not what they're worth to society as a whole. In other words, because someone is a cleaner in a hospital, the market deems they are less worthwhile to society than a wall st bankster, despite the fact that they're both human beings and in fact the cleaner's work is probably a lot more vital to the health of the community than the wall st banker is.

Society is the market. The market is people. People decide they value a quality banker taking care of their money more than someone who cleans their school's toilets.

Western (developed) society, yes, I don't disagree with on you that it is. I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be.