The Lottery

[Loki]

There is something between allowing and forbid something. Regulate it. Set rules and limits.
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.

[Being]

It's the threat of a strike that allows them to act like a cartel.

In what way are striking union members reducing competition?

[Loki]

In what way are striking union members reducing competition?

Using force to prevent others from using their own property. Also, refusing to honor their contracts en masse.

[Hazir]

Using force to prevent others from using their own property. Also, refusing to honor their contracts en masse.

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.

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.

[Loki]

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.

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.

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.

[Hazir]

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.

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.

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.

[Loki]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A cartel isn't just a judicial construct. It's also a term from economics.

[Dreadnaught]

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.

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.

[Being]

Using force to prevent others from using their own property. Also, refusing to honor their contracts en masse.

Force of law? Head bashing went out of style once the companies determined the ROI of hiring thugs was negative.

[Lewkowski]

Who suggested that owning something is removing an individual's rights?

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

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.

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.

*You may be free to get together, but you aren't necessarily free to do whatever you want just because you're a group

[LittleFuzzy]

Force of law? Head bashing went out of style once the companies determined the ROI of hiring thugs was negative.

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."

[Being]

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."

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.

[Veldan Rath]

Nothing incoherent about it.

Some unions do act this way. (as I can attest, being on the receiving end, of their 'diplomacy')

[Being]

Nothing incoherent about it.

Your're right as long as you consider coherence to be nothing more than a continuous flow of words. Otherwise, not at all correct.

[earthJoker]

It's the threat of a strike that allows them to act like a cartel.

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.
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.

[Hazir]

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.



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.



A cartel isn't just a judicial construct. It's also a term from economics.

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.

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.

Which means, I won't talk about this issue with the two of you any longer.

[Aimless]

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?

[Dreadnaught]

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.

Which means, I won't talk about this issue with the two of you any longer.

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.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

[Aimless]

Dude, wtf







Re. unions and their heinous activities, there is one thing I've been wondering. It seems pretty clear that several of the American members of this board have major issues with the way unions attempt to raise the salaries of their members through eg. restricting the supply of labour, or by threatening to do so. But how do you guys feel about other union-activities such as encouraging/enabling further training of members, upholding standards, etc? Ie. those activities that may add value to the workers as opposed to those activities that mostly just add costs.

[earthJoker]

You aren't South Cali, you're not a skater, and you're not a pothead.

Bro, you forgot Aussie in your list

[Hazir]

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?

Unions in Holland are organisations of people who choose to be members. There is no legal or otherwise obligation to be a union member.

Unions engage in negotiations with employers or organisations of employers about general contracts which deal with pretty much every aspect of the relationship between employer and employed. In a typical negotiation that means that there are up to half a dozen of parties (or more) trying to strike a deal. These deals may or may not be sanctioned by the administration. If they are that means the agreement is binding for the entire sector.

Strikes are highly unusual in The Netherlands, to the point that they are almost non-existent.

Besides this core unions will offer specific services to their members, including representation in court in labour disputes.

I would consider those secundary services a business, but the core - negotiating on behalf of their members I do not see as an activity that could be in any way be described as for-profit enterprise. Which according to me is an essential part of the definition of business.

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.

I didn't consider you hostile (right there) . I just pointed out that it is appearantly useless to even try to talk about unions with Americans. I think Loki's idea that unions are evil (wrong he calls it) is ridiculous. I have stated over and over again that the way US unions appear to behave is like something from an alternate universe.

I think that in a debate with such extremes the middle ground has no place, and thus I move on to greener pastures.

[Loki]

Re. unions and their heinous activities, there is one thing I've been wondering. It seems pretty clear that several of the American members of this board have major issues with the way unions attempt to raise the salaries of their members through eg. restricting the supply of labour, or by threatening to do so. But how do you guys feel about other union-activities such as encouraging/enabling further training of members, upholding standards, etc? Ie. those activities that may add value to the workers as opposed to those activities that mostly just add costs.

I have no problem with unions doing that. This is little different to the actions of various pro-business groups.

I didn't consider you hostile (right there) . I just pointed out that it is appearantly useless to even try to talk about unions with Americans. I think Loki's idea that unions are evil (wrong he calls it) is ridiculous. I have stated over and over again that the way US unions appear to behave is like something from an alternate universe.

I think that in a debate with such extremes the middle ground has no place, and thus I move on to greener pastures.

This has nothing to do with unions being good or evil. It has everything to do with unions acting like cartels, which is highly inefficient and goes against numerous other principles that are applied to every other similar entity. The reason cartels are generally illegal is because they inflate prices and lower supply, through the threat of an embargo. Unions do the same.

[']['ear]

Our courts have sustained that some public sector unions can't do certain things, EG firefighters, police and subway workers can't strike in NY state. Government workers (such as those in the military) do have certain rights of assembly abrogated after all.

This is in the case of the public welfare. When rights collide, one must be chosen over the other (for example, that of the mother over the fetus.) I have no problem with this.

Most unions to do not hold public safety in their hands. This includes most government employees.

Government employee unions are essentially self-dealers; they elect their own bosses and the terms of their employment are dictated as such. Furthermore, their pensions are subject to the full faith and credit of the state. And the mandatory union fee taken out of every unionized state worker's paycheck is funneled right back into the campaigns of state (and federal) legislators. They are simply different from you and me. If you think otherwise, go ask a tenured, unionized public employee and I imagine they will confirm that.

They have no more or less inherent political power than any other organization.

Agreed, mandatory fees and membership should be made illegal. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Can I take it you also believe in the freedom of corporations to get together to fix prices and monopolize capital?

Corporations aren't people.

I have no problems with unions lobbying. I have a problem with unions negotiating contracts on behalf of multiple workers and striking (or similar acts) if they don't get their way. That's the kind of behavior that's analogous to monopolies/cartels.

Again you're equating citizens with companies or corporations.

[Loki]

Unions are no more people than corporations...And individual workers are no less people than individual employers.

[']['ear]

The individual components of a union are citizens. The individual components of of a cartel are corporations. It's a BS comparison and you know it.

If a union negotiates for a raise, or benefits, it does so on behalf of Joe Shmoe and other individuals. If a cartel does so (say, the RIAA), it does so on behalf of Atlantic records and other corporations.

[Loki]

The individual components of a union are citizens. The individual components of of a cartel are corporations. It's a BS comparison and you know it.

If a union negotiates for a raise, or benefits, it does so on behalf of Joe Shmoe and other individuals. If a cartel does so (say, the RIAA), it does so on behalf of Atlantic records and other corporations.

Erm, you could have a cartel of small business owners...In fact, that was the context in which they were mentioned by Adam Smith.

Or a cartel does so on behalf of small business owners. I don't see why you people keep on trying to create these false distinctions. Either entities should be allowed to fix prices or they should not. It's irrelevant whether those entities are individuals or not.

[LittleFuzzy]

Your're right as long as you consider coherence to be nothing more than a continuous flow of words. Otherwise, not at all correct.

There was a misplaced quotation mark, which should have been an asterisk *and no, I will not stop using asterisks for my asides. At least one of interfaces I write through uses parentheses to call up functions. The asterisk is the only good key for marking asides I'm aware of that is not used by any of the interfaces I write through to call up functions* You seem to have worked through it anyway, and beyond that, it's not hard to read. You're just looking for any excuse to ignore my contributions.

• Unions most certainly do engage in physical intimidation
• They do it within the union, to non-union workers in "their" plants, and particularly to "scabs."
• Officially this activity is only done by a few bad apples, or by reasonable people who reacted badly to an unreasonable situation and the union had nothing to do with it or creating a culture permissive of it. The official line is bullshit.
• Anyone who so much as knew a person from mine country would know this
• Another excellent example of force is the California prison guard union

You have to be. . . quite sheltered to think teachers protesting pink slips is the most force used by any union in contemporary times. Your personal bubble does not encompass all of reality, even in a relatively modern and safe place like the US. I'm not particularly anti-union in this regard, and corporations can and will also engage in force like physical intimidation. I recognize that the use of force is certainly not run-of-the-mill. But to declare that it flat out doesn't happen anymore is just ignorant. If you work in a blue collar union environment, it's likely you're going to witness or be made aware of at least a few times where the gloves come off.

[LittleFuzzy]

I didn't consider you hostile (right there) . I just pointed out that it is appearantly useless to even try to talk about unions with Americans. I think Loki's idea that unions are evil (wrong he calls it) is ridiculous. I have stated over and over again that the way US unions appear to behave is like something from an alternate universe.

And I suppose French Labor would find it entirely unrecognizable as well? Taking that rosy picture you paint at face value, Netherlands is an even worse "sample" than the US.