It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are unions inherently evil?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Hmm. Good question I suppose. In theory I would think that unions can be a good thing. Consider that many businesses are solely out for profit. Making money is the most important thing. For these types of organizations, they will save money by doing whatever they can get away with basically. So if wages are extremely low, especially if they are not even enough to live on, then a unified group of workers has power. An individual worker can complain about certain things, but the business is not worried about them, because they are a single worker. But when the majority of employees unite, the employers are faced with a big problem.

So potentially unions can be a way to enforce businesses to alter their motivation for profit. It also depends on the business. Take a business like Wal-Mart, which makes so much money every year, or one of the large oil companies. After they pay all their expenses, and all their employees, they have so much money left over it is unreal. If I were running such a company, I would feel that I could use some of that money to increase wages, thus creating happier and more motivated employees, which is better for business. But money-driven people don't think that way. Those who own the companies are absorbing much of that money into their personal accounts, despite that fact that NOBODY needs that much money. And they simply use it to make even more.

Some might say that they are just good businesspeople, but these fail to realize that they are only making so much money because they're taking advantage of people. For instance, take the gas prices. They tell us that the price of gas must be this high because of this or that, but they are making 300 million dollars in profits per year. If they were adjusting prices because of increased costs or something, yet their profits continue to remain astronomical. They are screwing people, who must buy gas, and they have no oversight.

So that is just an example of how they take advantage of people. So in a company that is doing something similar to the workers, which Wal-Mart does, a union could force them to raise their wages, give benefits, or whatever else, which they could afford and still make a large profit.

But unions have also been corrupt. For instance, the workers form a union and strike, so the company hires others to take their place. So the union goes in and intimidates, beats up, or kills some of these new employees to keep them from taking their jobs. Nowadays things like that don't happen that I know of, but there is probably other corruption in some instance.

But knowing that large corporations are a greater evil, I would support certain unions, within certain companies. Smaller businesses are less able to absorb the costs of increased wages and benefits, because their profits are smaller, so unions may not be the best thing. The number of employees also would make a difference imo. So I don't have a clear answer to be honest. Interesting to think about though for sure.




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


I think public worker unions are the bane of society and taxpayers who openly support them baffle me. Talk about biting off your nose simply to spite your face.

I also believe every state should be a "right to work" state, meaning that the myriad of union-friendly states that have passed laws protecting unions and allowing mandatory union shops must go. If I own a plant that manufactures widgets and I can employ perfectly qualified widget makers who are willing to work for $10 an hour, what a huge pile of crap it is to have laws that force me to use the union workers (same qualifications) at $20 an hour. Furthermore, it is a MASSIVE conflict of interest existing between the union dues paid to union chiefs ponzi scheme and the union dues funding political campaigns of union supporting politicans.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Cyberspy

JohnnyCanuck

Cyberspy
I'm in management now and no fan unions. Once upon I time they were needed. Not any more.
Again, nonsense. I was a chief steward and was very busy winning grievances.


Who was doing the work you were getting paid for and not doing while you were doing this?
Making it up with working breaks and lunch hours...staying late...whatever it took. Thanks for asking, though.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Don't you lie to us, you no good evil unionist provocateur! You paid for the time off to commit your nefarious schemes by killing babies for profit, didn't you!

That's right, KILLING BABIES.

FOR PROFIT.

But remember, like they told me the first time I got involved with a union, it only takes an hour a week! You have that much time, don't you?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   

JiggyPotamus
Consider that many businesses are solely out for profit. Making money is the most important thing.


So, from your post I'm getting:
"I shouldn't have to work for less than top dollar, but those greedy SOBs in business are turds for expecting a maximum return on their business."

Is this disconnect hidden and you're having trouble seeing it, or are you intentionally ignoring inconvenient hypocrisies?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   

JohnnyCanuck

Making it up with working breaks and lunch hours...staying late...


Knowing what I know about unions. I find that very had to believe. "Working breaks", give me a break. More then likely someone else had to work harder because you weren't doing your job and they were paying you and your mobbed up buddies for it.

Been there, calling BS.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

WhiteAlice

greencmp

WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp
 


I wasn't talking about any specific union in particular but unions in general. How is employee representation within corporate governance a bad thing? Boards for corporations are meant to represent the various interests of the stakeholders of a corporation. Shareholders are also represented within the board of a corporation and, typically, the CEO is also a member of that board. Why is it bad to have someone who represents the non-executive workers within that board as well?

P.S. You didn't quite answer my question as to whether that hierarchy of power is correct or not.
edit on 16/4/14 by WhiteAlice because: (no reason given)


You were reacting to comments made regarding public sector unions.


No, actually, it was a general question stimulated by many of your statements in regards to unions, which you still haven't answered. Nor did you answer the new ones either.


This is what you asked.


individual < union < corporation < corporate lobby/special interest

Is that true? If it isn't true, why not?


No, that does not describe public sector unions unless you and me are an evil corporation.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

greencmp

No, that does not describe public sector unions unless you and me are an evil corporation.



Wellll, if you were to ask my wife......



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Cyberspy
Been there, calling BS.
Call it what you like...talk is cheap. You're making up my circumstances and trying to flail me with your imaginings. That's kinda lame, eh?

Quick edit to add that in the Queen's English, which is a different dialect from that which Americans speak...we refer to the foundation of your argument as having been 'rectally sourced'.
edit on 17-4-2014 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because!



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   

JiggyPotamus
Consider that many businesses are solely out for profit.

Hello? That's the whole point of being in business. Profit.
And there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit.
What's wrong is when there is an unfair practice in getting that profit.
But expecting a full day of work for a full day of pay is not unfair.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

burdman30ott6

JiggyPotamus
Consider that many businesses are solely out for profit. Making money is the most important thing.


So, from your post I'm getting:
"I shouldn't have to work for less than top dollar, but those greedy SOBs in business are turds for expecting a maximum return on their business."

Is this disconnect hidden and you're having trouble seeing it, or are you intentionally ignoring inconvenient hypocrisies?

Is it not reasonable to believe that society should endeavor to maximize the welfare of the most people? Bill Gates was quoted a few years back in the WSJ:



"It's clear that those who become wealthy did not do it alone. The people owe something back to society that enables them to create that wealth.


Wal-mart for example, employs somewhere around 1% of the working people in America. The children of Sam Walton are worth more than the combined wealth of the bottom 42%. In fact, the bottom half of the economic scale in this country owns only about 2.5% of the assets.

So clearly there is a disconnect somewhere if anyone can truly believe that figures like these are indicative of a healthy society or that the state of affairs is the fault of the working class. Conservatives are fond of denouncing the evils of wealth redistribution but blithely ignore the fact that wealth is constantly being redistributed from (sucked out of) the bottom to the top. It's no coincidence that there exists a close association between the percentage of unionized jobs and the size of the middle class.
edit on 2014-4-17 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


There's also a clear connection between those union rates and the mass exodus of production jobs overseas to non-union Asian labor markets. Oh hey, that can also be directly connected to the ever increasing rate of workers on the public dole.

Unions = a bad idea.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Thats a good question. How did moving against unions work out for the average American? Did the wealth trickle down already?

I don't mean to gloat, but as an European there was a certain satisfaction in seeing jobs that went from Europe to America going someplace where people are willing to do even more for even less. Maybe we can all work 14 hours/day for half a loaf of bred someday.


originally posted by: burdman30ott6
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


There's also a clear connection between those union rates and the mass exodus of production jobs overseas to non-union Asian labor markets. Oh hey, that can also be directly connected to the ever increasing rate of workers on the public dole.

Unions = a bad idea.


Yes because the problem is not production employing the take the job or starve approach, but people banding together to negotiate a fair deal. So y'all were willing to work with less vacation than an European, do need none of that socialized medicine either (well did not need it) and were generally on the side of the people whom hold the cash and did the employing to do more cash. After undercutting Europe, except where you did not have the marbles or dexterity to do so, your former employers found themselves in Asia a workforce with even less rights, less aspiration and costing less money and all the luv declarations to the captains of industry did not help none.

Glad to see the system is working itself out. How does it taste

edit on 17-4-2014 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2014 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Well, you have to consider what types of people are naturally attracted to unions. Typically, liberals. Not only that but people who are members of unions have a vested interest in voting for Democrats regardless of whether or not Democrats are doing bad things to everyone else. I despise the political left and no one will ever convince me these people are benevolent and good people.

I believe a union is one of those things that sounds better in theory than it is in practice.
edit on 17-4-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Merinda

Yes because the problem is not production employing the take the job or starve approach, but people banding together to negotiate a fair deal.


Your approach here is far too simplistic...

If you want a real boogeyman, go after the globalist UN and WTO and their GATT which pushes import tariffs to almost negligible numbers. This is a bipartisan mass screwing of the American people, by the way, with Reagan, GW Bush, Bill Clinton, and Obama all having their turn lambasting "protectionism" and refusing to raise tariffs (hell, Clinton's NAFTA is probably the single largest violator here.) You simply CANNOT have strong union policies in absence of a protectionist policy of tariffs that balance the difference between either paying an American a high dollar to manufacture or paying a Korean pennies to manufacture. The two are impossible to reconcile.

The difference in mindset here, of course, is that you're blaming the businesses for simply operating within the framework in a very inteligent manner. Truth be told, the American consumers are just as much to blame if you want to take that route. Most goods sold have a "Made in America" alternate, why isn't the consumer ripped for choosing their wallet over the "good of society" just as you're ripping the businessman for doing exactly the same. *Inhale* I smell it, oh yes I do.
Far wiser (but deflected from the average American's controlled viewpoint by their political overlords) is the thought that global free trade is the path of great loss for America. Eliminate it, give the WTO (and the UN, hell and the world) double barreled finger salutes, and tax the hell out of all imports. Walmart may suffer, but they'll either adapt or they will die. THAT is capitalism. You either adapt... or you die.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6



who are willing to work for $10 an hour


I think you mean desperate enough to work for 10/hr. You would be exploiting that desperation. A starving person would lick your boot for a bite to eat, most would consider that cruel.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

I think you mean desperate enough to work for 10/hr. You would be exploiting that desperation. A starving person would lick your boot for a bite to eat, most would consider that cruel.



...enough folks seem perfectly willing to sit on their ass doing nothing to get the equivalent of $10/hr from working tax payers.

ETA: And let's not be so ridiculous as to compare a $10 an hour job to "licking someone's boot." That is beyond assinine and a complete insult to working Americans.
edit on 17-4-2014 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Maybe where you are 10/hr is perfectly fine. Many places in the country it's not. What do things cost where you live? Where I live a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk and gas are each over 4$.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Yes unions can abuse their power but we would be in a world of trouble without them. A union has kept a roof over my head and food on my dinner table my entire life. The whole reason for unions in the first place was and is corporate greed. Do you really think a large company would pay you a good wage if they didn't have to? Of corse they wouldn't, they'd pay you in corporate tokens and force you to shop at the corporate store like they did before unions existed. Large companies abused workers and forced their hand. The workers pushed back and formed a union. I am a union man and I I ask for is a fair wage for an honest days work. Large corporations and government would lead you to believe unions are the problem. That's just not the case.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bdh25
I am a union man and I I ask for is a fair wage for an honest days work. Large corporations and government would lead you to believe unions are the problem. That's just not the case.
Well said, Brother...




new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join