How are the unemployed relevant to the percentage of workers who negotiate their own contracts? :bored: Just admit you're wrong and move on. There's no need to prolong this discussion by an extra page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Printable View
How are the unemployed relevant to the percentage of workers who negotiate their own contracts? :bored: Just admit you're wrong and move on. There's no need to prolong this discussion by an extra page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
As I stated above, most workers do not negotiate a contract; they are hired under a take it or leave it policy. More people unemployed means more people hired under a take it or leave it policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well economic down turns of course creates a situation where more power is in the hands of the employer. Just as economic upturns causes more power to be in the hands of the employee. The employee can leave anytime they would like for other jobs. With few jobs of course that isn't always possible but depending on the skill set and talents the employee has they may have options.Quote:
With 18% actual unemployment (U-6, http://www.usdebtclock.org/) most workers have no relevant say in what they get paid.
There are something like 15 states that have a higher minimum wage because of living conditions. Several more states have conditions that can press minimum wages above federal, but happen to be inline at the moment. Not that I suspect it would increase the % drastically, but adding a limiting condition like by defaulting to only include federal minimum wage is poor form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You mean it's poor form to not spend an extra hour looking for a different source that would change the number from 3% to perhaps 3.5%, when the argument being refuted is about 50%?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
if you're not going to spend the time you look it up, you don't have any grounds to claim its only going to be .5% :noob:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
+
So 4.9% of hourly paid workers at or below the federal minimum wage, and I suppose that group increases by some unknown number if you go with state levels and also include those who aren't paid by the hour. Carry on.Quote:
The presence of a sizable number of workers with wages below the minimum does not necessarily indicate violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as there are exemptions to the minimum wage provisions of the law. The estimates of the numbers of minimum and subminimum wage workers presented in the accompanying tables pertain to workers paid at hourly rates; salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded. As such, the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum is undoubtedly understated. Research has shown that a relatively small number and share of salaried workers and others not paid by the hour have earnings that, when translated into hourly rates, are at or below the minimum wage. However, BLS does not routinely estimate hourly earnings for non-hourly workers because of data concerns that arise in producing these estimates.
So that's 4.9% of hourly paid workers paid at or below minimum wage. The percentage of salary workers is far lower, so the average of the two is still probably about 3%...
In the low-skill areas where unions actually make sense, labor is indeed abundant. Sorry to burst your bubble. And I already answered your question. You still seem to thrive on your idiotic notion that the market will magically fix all ailments. I'm sorry, Loki, but you're naive. Not everyone has this pie-in-the-sky option of switching jobs whenever he feels like. That's a braindead notion in itself. I'm honestly astounded how you ignore everything problematic with your utopian idea of free markets but freely point out the problems of mechanisms which aim to fix some of those selfsame market problems. You're the picture of an ivory-tower intellectual who never stepped out of his door to get a whiff of what the real world looks like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And you're comparing companies with a comparatively huge clout to individuals. Once again, companies are not people. Get that into your thick head.
You of all people should be very quiet when it comes to not answering questions, hypocrite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Do you have any intention of answering my question or not?
Now that is funny. :haha:
Companies are a group of people working together. Be they a small business, corporation or whatever. Owning something doesn't mean one should have fewer rights simply because someone else does not own something.Quote:
And you're comparing companies with a comparatively huge clout to individuals. Once again, companies are not people. Get that into your thick head.
Who suggested that owning something is removing an individual's rights? :bulb:
-----
Loki could use more practice with taking part in discussions he isn't able to dictate the direction of. His hardon to keep the discussion isolated and limited to a very narrow (and ultimately irrelevant) exchange puts us back into the jackassary that we wanted to end in D&D. Loki is trying to flamebait (now appears successful) at best, troll at worst.
Dreadnaught, from the Tea Party threads to the beach threads, and everywhere in between, you have a pretty shitty record of answering direct questions. Even when they are on topic. You're not helping here, in fact you're feeding the problem.
Repeating the same question 5 times demanding an answer is not constructive debating Loki, it is trolling. I think it's fairly widely frowned upon in this community to troll. Would you kindly either contribute to the discussion or quit posting in this topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I already answered the question, dimwit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Folks, this is what we were talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Hazir is being more constructive here. I think he's right; asking the same question several times isn't constructive. But not answering and resorting to petty insults (Khend) wastes space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Thanks for providing the link to the thread I was referring too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Now to recongize when polarized questions are presented and pressed, yet are of little subsistence to the discussion. The fact your jumped khen after Loki committed his sin twice, shows the concept isn't completely understood.
Oh, sorry, you lost your authority when you engaged in the same activity you're now accusing me of. Hypocrite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Sorry, Dread, but I hold moderators to a higher standard.
Check your PMs if you haven't already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Please don't switch to baiting a mod. You're becoming hostile out of proportion with what's going on. If the discussion is frustrating and you don't think they're getting your point, it's okay to just walk away. You too, Loki.
Can we end the disruptive meta discussion and get back to the actual subject? Here's the last thing said on-topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
There is something between allowing and forbid something. Regulate it. Set rules and limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
In Switzerland, unions are not allowed to go for a strike once the signed a general work contract (GAV).
It's the threat of a strike that allows them to act like a cartel.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
In what way are striking union members reducing competition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Using force to prevent others from using their own property. Also, refusing to honor their contracts en masse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I would like to point out that you appear quite consistently to ignore the simple fact that they are using a constitutional right. Whatever indignant and hardly relevant argument you dig up about people forming cartels dwindles in the face of that little truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Forming a union is using a constitutional right. Forming a cartel is violating legislation Congress constitutionally could impose on the country because it has the mandate to regulate trade.
You are not just comparing apples to pears, you're trying to sell turnips as lemons.
:bored: We're talking about why it's wrong, not whether it's legal. I know workers have the right to form unions in the US and all Western countries. How is this relevant to the question of whether unions act like cartels? There is a reason why there are laws in place making unions exempt from these kind of violations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No, you are trying to make unions look wrong by comparing theim to illegal cartels. Cartels are illegal because they violate legislation that regulates trade. They are not wrong because they are a a group of businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Since a union is not a business, it can't be judged on the basis of rules that were intended for businesses. Your attempts to tar them as 'as bad as' cartels because they 'behave like cartels' is as ridiculous as saying a marine is a serial killer because he behaved like one by shooting a number of enemy combattants.
Also, if you don't want this to be about the legality of something then you should refrain from using notions of things being wrong that are not morally wrong but wrong on the basis of a judicial construct.
No, cartels are bad because they lead to gross inefficiency. Laws are in place to prevent this inefficiency. Unions create the same gross inefficiency. They get exemptions under anti-trust laws to allow them to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Capital and labor are two sides of the same coin. I fail to see why it's legitimate to limit the actions of the capital side of the ledger but not the labor side.Quote:
Since a union is not a business, it can't be judged on the basis of rules that were intended for businesses. Your attempts to tar them as 'as bad as' cartels because they 'behave like cartels' is as ridiculous as saying a marine is a serial killer because he behaved like one by shooting a number of enemy combattants.
A cartel isn't just a judicial construct. It's also a term from economics. :bored:Quote:
Also, if you don't want this to be about the legality of something then you should refrain from using notions of things being wrong that are not morally wrong but wrong on the basis of a judicial construct.
At least here, I would characterize a union as very much a business. They may be philosophically anti-business in many ways, but they are incorporated entities with cash flow, obligations and they actively promote an agenda to help them grow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Force of law? Head bashing went out of style once the companies determined the ROI of hiring thugs was negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If individuals can not come together and use their resources to fix prices for goods then why is it OK for individuals to come together and use their resources to fix prices for their goods (ie labor)? What makes price fixing anymore acceptable for organized labor then for organized business? If you don't like one, well OK then but be consistent and condemn both.Quote:
Who suggested that owning something is removing an individual's rights?
Uh, no. Assembly is a constitutional right, and we recognize an implicit right of association. Collaboration* (in the sense of collusion but not secret) is not a constitutional right, and is the bare minimum activity unions engage in. Union activity falls just as much under Congress' authority to regulate trade as anything businesses get up to. Labor is and always has been considered commerce by the US legal system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
*You may be free to get together, but you aren't necessarily free to do whatever you want just because you're a group
Uh, unions *well, technically union members who just happen to make very regrettable but understandable personal decisions along with groups of their friends who also just happen to be in the union* are still quite willing to engage in physical intimidation, of their own, of workers outside of the union, and particularly of "scabs." But you don't know anyone who lives in or once lived in mining country, do you? Nor do you pay the least bit of attention to my personal favorite union, the California Correctional Peace Officers' Association. No, no, I'm sure you're right, I'm positive we live in the utopian society you imagine where no organization, and particularly not UNIONS, would EVER resort to things like death threats, or stalking people's children, or sending people to the hospital in "accidents" or "bar-room brawls."Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Count your quotation marks -- and maybe give up on the asterisk since you don't use it in a consistant manner. Other than that, I can't really respond to such incohrerent blather.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Nothing incoherent about it.
Some unions do act this way. (as I can attest, being on the receiving end, of their 'diplomacy')
Your're right as long as you consider coherence to be nothing more than a continuous flow of words. Otherwise, not at all correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Unions only partially can work as a cartel in Switzerland. Well they can but then it has to be approved eiter by a cantonal or the federal government. And as I said, as soon they have an approvement they are not allowed to go on strike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There is a reason that we have fewer strikes than our neighbours.
Still the unions do have an important task to improve the workers conditions, especially in the low salary segment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I feel it is impossible to even talk about this issue with people who have as their core believe that unions are some sort of evil. Your representation of what a union is, is a ridiculous distortion. Maybe partly based in the US experience, but even so too far off to have any fruitfull discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Which means, I won't talk about this issue with the two of you any longer.
Out of curiosity, what are Dutch unions like? What are their core activities? What functions do they have apart from eg. threatening to strike in order to drive up salaries?
And, er, in which ways are unions very different from businesses? Do you mean that they are not businesses by definition, or am I missing something important about businesses and unions?
Dude, I was simply bringing up what you pointed out before in this thread: that in the US experience with unions is in many ways different than the Dutch experience. I wasn't trying to make a hostile point. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I was going to put this on your wall, but you don't seem to have one...
Dude, find a new word that you haven't overused in such a limited and derogatory manner. You aren't South Cali, you're not a skater, and you're not a pothead.
Don't take this as an attack, I've mentioned it before to others, but now maybe you'll start noticing it too.