You're blaming businesses because they couldn't make up for the increased cost of production due to a union by becoming even more efficient. But you do not blame the unions for adding to the cost of production? **** You're beginning to lose what little credibility you have left. Adding an obstacle in a company's production, and then blaming the company for not making up for it - that's beyond ridiculous. I guess if you kicked me in the nuts, it would be my fault because I didn't dodge. LMFAO If there were ways to produce more efficiently, they would come up with it with out without a union. Companies at all times attempt to run their operation as efficiently as possible. Competition requires it. With or without a union, they would ever be finding ways to increase they're efficiency. A company will always be producing at the highest right possible with its workforce. Unions always add to the cost of producing.
Ok, dude. Have it your way. Certainly, unions during the industrial revolution put a stop to child labor, at least in coal mining. Basically, they just prevented parents from sending their children to work in the coal mine. In the early industrial period, coal miners did not produce nearly as much as coal miners produce now. Due to technological advances and sophisticated machinery, coal mining is a much more efficient and safe occupation today. Back in the day, coal miners didn't produce much, relative today's world. Likewise, they didn't get paid as much. Being that they were struggling to make ends meet, many families sent they're children to work - reluctantly I'm sure. Most families would probably often go hungry if they hadn't. If I had to guess, coal miners today produce probably 20 times what they did in the late 1800s; likewise they are compensated 20 times more (again, this is an educated guess). On top of that, the price of food has dwindled. Actually, the price of everything has dwindled. For this reason, parents do not need to send their kids to work in the coal mine. At this point, child labor laws in the United States are a waste of paper.
Yes the culture changed, or the public mood changed, due to the efforts of a small group of influential people. They were up against the employers and their parliamentary friends. There were continual struggles until eventually the politicians had to agree to do something about it. That's how we humans operate, we'd live in (*)(*)(*)(*) with total equanimity until someone told us it was unhealthy and we should do something about it. We worship the status quo, whatever it might be and we need a lot of persuasion to overcome it. But that's beneficial too, because what were once radical changes become the status quo until there is a push for change and on it goes.
First point. Yes I am saying businesses are lazy if they simply pass on operating costs to the consumer. Second point. My credibility. I'm not fussed about it, I'll take criticism of my argument(s) and try to improve them. Third point. There is no obstacle put there by unions. If management is so clueless that they can't effectively negotiate with unions and in doing so improve their business efficiency then perhaps they should find another job. Jeez and I thought we had the world's dumbest managers.
You're getting annoying. Businesses always pass on any cost to the consumer. Every cost it takes to produce something will be factored into the price. This has nothing to do with laziness; it has everything to do with economics. Supply and demand is the first lesson taught in economics course, and it isn't a hard concept to understand. When it costs more to produce a product, it will cost more for consumers to buy it. This is a fact. Unions do create an obstacle. They earn higher wages than their non-unionized counterparts - you've stated this every time. Just like any cartel, they workers increase they're price above market value by collectivizing. They all act as one force. They're point is to have more power, and that is exactly what they have. I've already addressed your argument regarding efficiency with or without unions. You haven't provided a counter at all, except just restated your original thesis (if you could even call it that). There is absolutely nothing beneficial about have a union with regards to efficiency. Any "negotiations" that could be made with a union to increase efficiency, could be done without a union. So these (*)(*)(*)(*)ing "negotiations" that you're talking about are a fantasy - because the union wouldn't add anything to the equation. The only thing the union does is add to the labor costs; the increased efficiency could come about with or without them.
Since I've actually negotiated efficiencies during collective bargaining in a public sector union I can report that they are not fantasies. I'm sorry you don't understand my point about business and efficiency and the relationship between cost and price, but there's not much I can do about that. If a business wants to stay competitive then it will search for ways to reduce cost. That way it can set a competitive price. Tell me where I am wrong in this. If a business doesn't look to reduce costs and simply keeps passing on cost increases to the consumer then it will be knocked out of the running another business that can lower its costs, lower its prices and still make a profit because consumers will deal with that business rather than the other. If it doesn't work that way in the States then that explains a lot of things about your economy. Is this what you're on about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-plus_pricing
You are a fool. I've already addressed everything you said, and yet you keep repeating it. So......wtf? Businesses always reduce costs, whether there's a union there not - but the union will add to the costs because it makes labor more expensive. They can increase their efficiency elsewhere to make up for it, but that doesn't cover up the fact unions increase the cost of labor; without the union, the increase in efficiency would be even more. The increased efficiency would have been even more without the union. The union adds to the cost, even if the company becomes more efficient. I don't know how else to say this. Do you want me to tell you in Arabic? Smanish? French? Latin? Cantonese? It's just simple addition and subtraction. 15+2-2=15. If you get rid of the minus 2, it's 15+2=17. In this example, the increased efficiency is the +2, and the union is-2. The union decreases production - there's just no way around this. Dude, I don't know how else to explain it. Are you saying, if you kick me in the balls, that it would be my fault because I didn't react fast enough? Obviously it's ridiculous, but it's analagous to your argument.
Is your argument that unions should be abolished because they're stopping companies making more money if unions weren't present?
I haven't even offered an opinion with regards to unions - not yet. But anyway, that's not even the only ill-effect of unions. I've went through most of them - and they aren't complicated. You need to look no further than supply and demand. Unions not only harm businesses, but also consumers and potential employees that aren't hired due to a restricted employment field. Here are the facts: 1. Unions decrease employment 2. Unions increase production costs 2b. The increased production costs forces businesses to charge higher prices than they normally would 2c. Businesses sell fewer products than they normally would 2d. Businesses don't make as much money as they normally would (business could be a corporation, which has many stockholders accross all classes - poor and middle class included) 3. Unions help employees that remain hired receive more pay and better benefits. You union advocates only seem to notice number 3, but ignore the other effects. If you recognize these the drawbacks and are still in favor of unions - that's understandable. I would disagree, but at least you came to a rational decision. You on the other hand, and pretending that unions are a silver bullet for the middle class and the poor. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not the case. Unions have their drawbacks - they help some, and hurt others, and not all the people that are hurt are rich business owners.
Rather than simply contradict you - which is neither polite nor informative - I'd simply ask for some evidence of points 1,2,2b (which would follow from 2 I think)2c (ditto), 2d (ditto). I'm interested in that because it really isn't my own experience that those actually happen. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just wondering how this can happen. i attended a collective bargaining course in the States some years ago and one of the points mentioned in the course was about financial disclosure and reasonableness of claims to ensure the employer wasn't forced out of business.
How about with an example? Let's say there's a company that makes widgets, Company A. There's a fixed capital cost to make widgets of $2,000 per day. Labor costs $10/hour per employee and Company A hires 100 employees. Each employee produces 1 widget per hour. With this conviguration, Company A produces 800 widgets per day costing $10,000; each widget costs $12.50 to produce. Pretend for a moment, that workers get fed up with their measely $10 per hour and decide to start a cartel. The union negotiates a wage increase of $5 per hour; each employee now makes $15/hour. If nothing else changes, Company A will produce 800 widgets per day costing $14000; each widget would now cost $17.50 to produce. Company A could increase it's productivity, but this would cost more in capital. There's no magic wand, productivity increases cost money. If there were a magic wand, why would they need the formation of a union to wave it? Let's go to supply and demand, shall we? The equilibrium price, which is the perfect price a company can charge, will ideally be set at where supply and demand intersect. This will result in no surplus or shortage. This price happens to allow the most profit companies. Because of the increased production costs, the above scenario will cause the supply to move left: Combine this with the demand curve: From the above diagram, you should be able to see that Company A cannot keep the same price with the same amount of production; something's got to give. Where the new supply curve S intercects the demand curve at point E, the price P is higher than the original price, and the quantity Q is lower than the original quanity. In other words, the new equlibrium price will be higher and at a lower production. If company A kept the original price, they would produce even less than they would if the price wasn't increased - on top of that, they would experience a shortage. To summarize, Company A will raise its price of widgets, as well as produce less. Producing less requires less employees. Another less direct facet to this situation is the balance between capital and labor investments. When the price of labor increases, companies have more of an incentive to invest in capital. Increased investment in capital automation, will decrease the amount of labor needed in production. I think I covered items 1,2,2a,2b,2c.
The widget company. As you pointed out, if nothing else changes. That's my whole point. Other things must change. There could be a more efficient way of producing widgets but that could require a change in work practices and perhaps more training and a higher skill level. Those things could be negotiated between the company and the union to have an outcome where productivity is increased, cost per widget is either reduced due to better manufacturing processes or output is increased and cost per widget is reduced accordingly. The benefits are shared between the company and the workforce. On the supply and demand example you pointed out that Company A will raise its price of widgets, as well as produce less. Producing less requires less employees. Company A will raise its price of widgets, as well as produce less. Producing less requires less employees. And it is entirely possible that that will happen. but the example you've given, no doubt theoretically correct, doesn't allow for my central point concerning negotiation for productivity. Now back to your position expressed here: 1. Unions decrease employment 2. Unions increase production costs 2b. The increased production costs forces businesses to charge higher prices than they normally would 2c. Businesses sell fewer products than they normally would 2d. Businesses don't make as much money as they normally would (business could be a corporation, which has many stockholders accross all classes - poor and middle class included) 3.Unions help employees that remain hired receive more pay and better benefits. 4.Unions help employees that remain hired receive more pay and better benefits. Now don't be impatient with me, I'm not educated in economics. The problem I have with your points is that they ignore the point I was making about negotiated productivity. I think possibly the economic modelling is getting in the way of understanding reality. You've stated that unions decrease employment. I think you are suggesting this is because unions demand higher wages for their members and this means that fewer workers will be hired because of that increased wage rate. But there are many causes of unemployment. And besides you've not taken into account my argument concerning productivity. Your claim is that unions increase production costs. Presumably that's because of the higher wages they get for their members. Again you've overlooked the point about productivity. If a union is getting higher wages for its members without productivity then the company will eventually go under and someone's not doing their job properly. That's not economic theory, that's common sense. It seems to me that you've explained the theoretical models fully. But it also seems to me that you've ignored the point I have been trying to make, that the variable is productivity and that is the key to ensuring that workers gain benefits while the company stays in business and thrives.
Is Company A supposed to waive it's magic wand increase its efficiency? If it had such a magic wand, why wouldn't they have waived it before the union came along? What makes you think Company A wasn't producing as efficiently as possible without a union? Why couldn't Company A implement these changes without a union to increase its efficiency even more? Either way you slice it, unions make production less efficient. There could be a more efficient way to produce widgets - or there could not be. It's entirely possible that Company A was producing as efficiently as possible without the union. And, on top of that, a union is not necessary to change work practices. If the company could do it with a union, it could do it without one. Yes, but your central point concerning negotiations is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid. It doesn't make sense - as I've pointed out already. Whatever changes in productivity could be implemented without a union - and there's nothing about a union that could possibly make workers more productive. It's just inconsistent with reality. You're just searching for something to make it work.
A magic wand would be good eh? But unfortunately no, there isn't one. You've asked me a series of questions in that paragraph which are premised on the non-existence of unions. If I read your questions correctly then my answer is that Company A could do all of those things in the absence of unions. But it can also do all those things with unions in its workforce. So it seems that the existence of unions isn't going to hinder the efficiency of Company A. Unions aren't predicated on the efficiency of a company, they're there to protect and extend the interests of workers and they can do so without damaging the operations of the company. However they can also make it easier for the company to become more efficient as they may well stimulate cooperation from a workforce that without a union may be docile or even obstructive (passively I mean) due to a lack of self-interest in the outcomes that increased efficiencies produce. No, unions don't make production less efficient and I've just shown you why. There is another point which is not exactly on the line of economic argument that you're using but it's germane to the point regarding unions. A union represents an organised workforce. It's usually the case where there is a union and a collective bargaining agreement for there to be in place dispute resolution processes which are part of the agreed contract. Where there is disputation in the workplace it can be dealt with expeditiously and in a transparent manner. True, many North American companies use HRM processes in order to resolve disputes without union involvement, how effective they are isn't known to me. But the point again is that the union does not have a detrimental effect on the company's operations and that it can be a positive force in such dispute resolution. Absent the union there could be all sorts of low level, unresolved disputation that could be very troubling for a company. The potential for this exists all the time. Even when a union is in the workplace there is always the possibilty of "wildcat" actions from disaffected workers. All in all an organised workforce is a more stable workforce.
Sounds like you're not a fan of the workplace choice that unionisation has created. Prefer a situation of monopoly power that maximises exploitation and discourages a worker 'voice'?
As much as I do not particularly like unions, they are still far preferable to all these poor minorities the republicans have let in to crush the unions.
Unions force jobs overseas. It makes more sense to invest in China than America. That must be pretty tough to take.
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). When a Union gets in and turn a place union they remove choice. Those who don't want to be a member of the union are (*)(*)(*)(*)ed unless they are in a right to work state. And even then non-union members are subject to constant harassment from union members for not belonging to their masses. I know I was in that situation myself. Unions remove choice from the equation.
This is just an anti-union attack which continues to hide from the gains of unionisation: a worker voice effect that can be used to minimise the costs of x-inefficiency (i.e. managerial uselessness)
This is just gobbledegook to make the poster feel smart and those who read it think he said something important when it's just crap.
Its economic analysis for an economics topic. To effectively attack unionisation you'd have to assume that there is no such thing as managerial slack and, on a par with the socialist planner, the manager of the complex hierarchy is able to circumvent problems associated with distributed knowledge. That's taking utopianism properly to one's heart!
