Gould 0738 wrote:

I have yet to see a lib who is anti union. Coincidence?

So exactly why are you such a strong union supporter Chuck? Because you are
a lib?

Because I believe stongly in reaching agreement through negotiation.
Negotiation is only meaningful between two parties with equal power. If the
average worker were sent to report,, individually, to a comittee of suits and
explain why he thought he deserved a certain income, there would be no equity
in power. The management would be in a position to influence the worker far
more than an individual worker could ever influence the management.

A valid concept. But like power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely, such is the same in the union world. Where unions were once
the savior of the worker, they are now the cancer of industry. There
are many stories of industries (like steel) which have closed down
thanks to the unions strangling unreasonable salaries and benefits from
management, and preventing them from competing in the global economy.
What good is it to be saying that you USED to be a $30/hr steelworker,
who is BTW, unemployed now.


And just how have the unions improved the lives of workers in the 21st
century?

Puhleeze. The 21st century is two years old already. Let's look at the 20th,
and compare the average worker's workweek, health benefits, standard of living,
etc in 1900 vs. 1999.

There is a big difference if you split the last century in half. The
first half of the century saw the union in its most favorable light.
Equality for workers, and the establishment of labor standards which
were eventually written into federal law.
By the end of the second half of the century the union has pretty much
outlived its original purpose, and its usefulness as well. Today, the
union is nothing more than a bloated beaurocracy in itself. It preaches
uniformity in work. Those who strive to do better, are "encouraged" to
not "make the other guys look bad". Al the while the whole process of
grievances, union stewards, and the like, do little more than allow the
union to prevent the company from firing a worker who is unproductive.
This is little more than a microcosm of socialism, which dos little more
than foster an air of mediocrity.

Today the union is little more than the bastion of unskilled labor. They
are the last remnants of the industrial age, which has all but gone from
this country (and people wonder why?). In the professional skilled
trades, there is little need for a union, as the demand for skilled jobs
usually exceeds the supply of qualified candidates. Companies actually
compete with attractive salary and benefit packages in order to attract
the brightest and best candidates.


Why should all union workers get the same pay increases despite their
contributions to
the company? Why should slackers get the same as the go-getters?

It's called the principle of collective bargaining. All the workers, together,
negotiate more powerfully. The majority of workers voluntarily agree to accept
a common pay rate. The go-getters are rewarded more than the slackers.

And how is that exactly? You said it yourself, it's a "collective"
bargaining unit. No stars are rewarded, and no slackers are punished.
They all get a "common" (your words) pay grade.


The
go-getters are more likely to be promoted into management, (where they will be
free of the union influence.) :-)

It used to be a common joke among union workers, that the best way for a
company to get rid of someone, was to promote them to management ;-).


Management has done the same thing for
decades, with "Associations." A group of steel mills, mining companies,
shipping companies, etc. band together to try to keep wages suppressed.

Actually they just try to stifle competition, in oprder to keep prices
up. Sort of like OPEC.


When
all the employers in an industry make a common wage offer to the employees, is
that "leftism", or just "good business"?

That depends on which side of the table that you're on. I tend to look
at it as "dirty pool". Competition is one of the key pieces of a free
market economy.


Dave