Unionomics

I know that there are teachers who are lazy and take advantage of the time off they have, who are done when the bell rings, but that isn't the majority.
Teachers start about between 30-40k a year, after 15-20 years they then start to get paid in the 70k range. At that point they are probably about fairly compensated imo. Teachers are skilled labor and have the right to try and make sure they get what is due to them. I'm sure if the government made a deal with unions to support them on a broad scale, if the unions cracked down hard on abuses like the ones in the scenario described by the OP. That is fraud, the news shjould be talking about how fraud laws in the US are largely ignored and rarely prosecuted.


Teachers also, thanks to their unions have negotiated inflation indexing into their contracts. There's lots of inflation.

The real reason the government doesn't want unions is because they make wages significantly less sticky. Sticky wages are the driving force behind the short term growth generated by low interest rates and QE. Fed eases, prices go up, corps already have inputs paid for or hedged, they sell products at the new higher market prices (not caused by traders, MS increases), especially in an recession workers are glad to even have a job so it takes a while before they ask for a cost of living raise, so nominal profits go up for business, real costs go down, this means more profit the stim has worked. Over time workers demand wages in line with prices and the stim vanishes.

With strong unions wages are much less sticky, like teachers, if wages go up in lock step with rising prices then the rising prices have 0 positive effect, except for easing the burden of debtors.
 
Teachers unions are the worst thing there is for American public education. They keep the bad teachers, including criminal ones on the job.

Have you heard of the rubber room? Incompetent & criminal teachers in NY gets full pay while doing nothing for years costing the taxpayers tens of millions each year.

Teacher's Union Prays for N.J. Governor Christie's Death. Do u these people teaching your kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrjJ-Ti_CLU

Here is NJ's governor on the teachers unions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br_Q9s3XyZM
 
Public employees really have no business having unions. These unions bankroll politicians against taxpayer interest. It is an extortion against the public.

How to do the least work for the maximum benefits by getting the most corrupt politicians in office. That is the game of public employees unions.
 
I understand that there are abuses, and public unions cause issues because the govt can't just go bankrupt. The problem is, is that without unions workers would get taken advantage of and not be able to effectively negotiate their wages.

Without unions workers wouldn't get anything close to the product of their labor.

About teachers, they do make more than say a construction worker, but they also have a more important and difficult to find job than construction workers. Teachers have to go to school, get a masters to get pay increases, etc. All this extra school and continuing education needs to be compensated.

In economics everything is a trade-off, for example corporations are more profitable with lower labor costs. Reagan gets rid of Patco, the airline workers union. This kicks of a wholesale , "busting" of unions of the the next 30 years. This decline in wages is mirrored by a increase in corporate profits, as well as in increase in credit used by workers to make up the difference.

So, in eliminating a significant percentage of unions, which in the short term increased corporate profits, ended up, in the long run with negative consequences that far outweigh the benefits. Businesses began to compete based on lowering labor costs instead of based on improving products and/or service. Also, the credit expansion, that ended up blowing up the world economy was only needed to make up the difference between wages and what needs to be spent to keep the economy going.

If unions were as strong as they used to be, especially in the private sector the credit bubble never would have inflated, as the demand for credit just wouldn't have been there.

Unions are a indispensable aspect of the free market system. They are responsible for allowing individuals to level the playing field against large corporations who have the advantage when negotiating wage rates. Working together, workers in a union can negotiate more successfully.
 
Unions are just blackmailers. If a person believes his skills, knowledge or know hows is worth more than what he is current receiving then all he has to do is ask for more or move on to a new employer that will appreciated his abilities and be pay the appropriate amount.

There are no ball and chains to keep one around nor threat of physical violent. The only "crime" any employers can do is to offer a person wage and benefits. An employee can either accept or refuse. At all times the employees has all the power to choose including quitting and just not bother to show up. The exceptions are if he has signed some kind of employment contract or under special rules like the NFL.

However, if the free market system is not willing to pay his asking price it simply means whatever he is offering is not worth what he believed. Then it is up to the individual's responsibility to improve his skill set so he can complete better in the market. Instead of downing another six pack an bitch about it.

The mass strike by the union members is simply an admission of ones inabilities or unwillingness to compete in the market place. The only crime of the employers' are they hire a bunch of lazy and unmotivated asses.
 
Capital is mobile, information is mobile, people are "sticky" (esp during a housing downturn).

The problem is that people can't just quit and find a better job, lots of workers face the problem of, work at factory A, or don't work at all. On his own he can't negotiate a wage high enough to compensate him for his skills and labor, the employer has the upper hand, there are plenty of people who can ONLY work at factory A.

Management pits these individuals together, forcing them to compete with each other for the jobs that are available. This isn't "un-fair" or anything like that, the factory has an advantage and they are pressing it. Why is it wrong for workers to find their own advantage and press that as well?

There are lots of misconceptions about Unions, I would suggest reading "What's Class Got to Do with It?" By Michael Zweig, as well as his other books. Unions may hurt the bottom line performance of individual businesses, and therefore GDP, but it is important to realize that a large and growing GDP is not necessarily indicative of a healthy economy.

A healthy economy needs to produce goods that can either be purchased by the workers who produce those goods, or be sold overseas. Workers need to be able to live and spend money from savings, which are generated by the product of their labor. If workers need credit, welfare, etc., to get by this indicates an unstable economy. It's simple if people do no earn a living wage, there is a serious problem. Welfare and other socialist policies are not the answer, not government bureaucrat or czar can correctly decide how much, to whom, and who from, wealth should be redistributed, nor should they.

Union's are just another way the free market adjusts itself back towards equilibrium. Corporations/capital become too powerful, too mobile, they use "divide and conquer", so their workers need to band together to maintain equilibrium. Much like a recession is good for the economy, causing bad businesses to die, and allowing new better ones to take their place is a short term negative for people, but is a long term positive. Unions are good for the economy, allowing for a more equitable and sustainable distribution of wealth, as well as acting as a stabilizing force in that it gives workers a way of trying for better working conditions. If workers have no recourse for too long they may decide to do something rash, aka proletariat revolution (aka not good at all).
 
To argued a worker (an individual) has no choice because this or that is more than just making excuses. It is also a way of looking down at another person's abilities. Ditto to say I have no choice is the same as looking down on myself.

Everyone have choices. We all make both good and bad choices everyday. The important thing is what one does when a bad choice is made. Are we going to cry and throw a tantrum until we get our way like when we were little or are we going to find ways to improve the situation? This is the different between unionism and individual empowerment.

I believed everyone has within himself the abilities to create both positive and negative changes. But much more effort may be needed to for the positive changes, much like the law of entropy.

Basically, union presents an opportunity for the workers to gain something for little or no effort on their parts, other than paying their dues.

If one wants something bad enough, he should apply the time and efforts necessary to achieve that goal. Hoping, wishing, and dreaming is not the answer. It is even worst when threatening others livelihood by strike.

Live is not worth living if one feels the need to depend on others generosity to survive.
 
Unions are facilitators of the poverty industry. The mind set is akin to a certain religious demographic. When the bargaining unit believes that bussiness conditions will never change and contracts are set in stone.They are in a sense saying the world is flat and there is no evolution. The global labor pool is much larger than most of the membership would like to aknowledge and that automation is the next step in the economic process. This places the current US situation in a position of A or B.

Akuma
 
It isn't weakness when a businessman decides to go public and gain additional capital in exchange for giving up some control over his business. He is teaming up with others to gain a better competitive advantage.

That's what a union is, but for workers. It is a FACT that most workers will never and can never run a biz for themselves as a simple function of there being more than one worker per job. Say you live in Detroit and know how to build cars. You don't have enough money to move to Japan to work in a factory there, or to retrain in another industry, so your good choices are limited to working at a auto factory. The factory knows this and decides to force overtime without time and a half. If you argue, you'll be fired. It isn't a failure of individualism to stand up for yourself and do what is neccissary to get ahead. In this case the only way to gain power over the factory is to unionize and bargain collectively.

Come on people, I'm a free market, libertarian, trader, just cause Fox News put unions in the "Liberal" box doesn't mean that they are commie bullshit.
 
Quote from pegasys1:

I know that there are teachers who are lazy and take advantage of the time off they have, who are done when the bell rings, but that isn't the majority.
Teachers start about between 30-40k a year, after 15-20 years they then start to get paid in the 70k range. At that point they are probably about fairly compensated imo. Teachers are skilled labor
More...

Many college grads will also find jobs in the corporate world starting at $30-$40K. Unlike gov't school teachers, most will be salaried and work very long hours with no overtime...and surely no summer vacation. Their benefits won't be comparable to teachers, either. And most likely they'll have earned a degree that required more rigor than Elementary Ed. Skilled labor...are you kidding?

Tenured teachers are also extremely hard to fire, though some a are completely incompetent. You won't find that kind of job security in the private sector. Clearly, this is your opinion as you state. You'd do better flaunting your poor grammatical and logical skills without even adding buzzwords you picked up from a mid-level college econ class (probably taught by a Robert Reich wannabe).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top