Why are Unions considered Anti-Capitalistic?

[Olak]

Boycotts are voluntary.

In the states, strikes are usually forced on a business, where they have no other option but to negotiate with the union because hiring non union labor, would be illegal.

On 10 avenue, at 23rd street there is a building being constructed here in NYC. The pipe fitters union is striking it. However the building is still fitting pipes. Are you suggesting that the builder is doing something illegal?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

How is the balance constructed if legality is not involved.

My points are towards a neutral arena, you seem to be focusing on some sort of specter of governance, is this the root of the opinion that creates the idea that unions are socialistic?

Legal equality means that neither the union, nor the business, have more power over the other.

When you force a business to buy labor from a group, you have inherently gave one more legal power over the other.
That is not justice in a fair legal system.

Voluntary socialistic practices are not anti free market.

Why is their a gun? Why do you equate a strike with a gun?

I equate the power, derived by government force, as a gun.
In the end, the government enforces all of the laws with a gun.

Which was my point? Are you reading my post? That's why a labor union can't be forceful, their capital - labor - will rot, and they will go hungry.

Apparently they haven't.
Unions have strong reserves of cash, a lot of businesses carry some debt on top the need to meet the needs of the customers.
If they don't engage in business they will lose money quicker than the union.

I think this is the root of your argument, can you expound on it, and point to special privileges. Are these privileges any more gainful than the legal fruits that corporations pluck?

Corporations have their own set of problems, particularly them being considered persons.
Professional unions have morphed into a modern corporation as well though.
It's a very money oriented political power business.

Having legal monopoly power is huge.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

On 10 avenue, at 23rd street there is a building being constructed here in NYC. The pipe fitters union is striking it. However the building is still fitting pipes. Are you suggesting that the builder is doing something illegal?

Could be a craft union.

Where the workers are separately unionized based on skill level.
Which means that the owner hired a group, that is either more skilled or less skilled to install the pipes, from a separate union.

Or it could be a separate union that they retained on contract, with a no strike agreement.

 

[Olak]

Can you cite a field where it is illegal to hire non-union employees?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Can you cite a field where it is illegal to hire non-union employees?

It does seem that I am wrong but none the less, I stand by my point that the benefits that the union hold over the employer still exist.

Even if the employer were to hire strikebreakers, those new employees would have to become union members after a short period of time.
In the end, there is no wage competition on the long term.

 

[Olak]

It does seem that I am wrong but none the less, I stand by my point that the benefits that the union hold over the employer still exist.

Even if the employer were to hire strikebreakers, those new employees would have to become union members after a short period of time.
In the end, there is no wage competition on the long term.

Thank you for being honest. I still am confused why you harbor a resentment for people controlling their products though.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Thank you for being honest. I still am confused why you harbor a resentment for people controlling their products though.

It's not really their products, unless they purchased the materials and equipment.
They aren't bearing the majority of loss, in case the product fails to sell.

Edit:
As long as we are polite to each other, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.
Just a little kick to my ego.:mrgreen:

 

[Olak]

It's not really their products, unless they purchased the materials and equipment.
They aren't bearing the majority of loss, in case the product fails to sell.

If the product fails to sell they lose their jobs.

Are you arguing that labor is not a product?

And I like polite discussions My ego sometimes doesn't though

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Boycotts are voluntary.

In the states, strikes are usually forced on a business, where they have no other option but to negotiate with the union because hiring non union labor, would be illegal.

A company can also lock out it labour, hire scabs during a labour strike, and perhaps firing the entire workforce and replacing them with non union workers. Something similar to what Reagan did to the airtraffic controlers. Of course wth a company the problem is that often its labour force has specific skills that will not be found outside its labour force and any workers brought in may not be able to do the work.
.
THis is why unions generally are formed in areas where a higher level of skill is generally required. It helps prevent the hiring of scabs to do the work during strikes or lock outs. The only real exceptions are in the hotel industry and government employee's

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

It's not really their products, unless they purchased the materials and equipment.
They aren't bearing the majority of loss, in case the product fails to sell.

Edit:
As long as we are polite to each other, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.
Just a little kick to my ego.:mrgreen:

The union members product is the labour they sell to the company. If the company's product fails, the companies demand for the product of the union member also drops. Depending on the nature of the contract that might mean layoff for quite a few union members (provided the companies management was not stupid in signing poor contracts)

 

[PeteEU]

union's are considered anti-capitalistic because the business owners see them as a threat, hence they are labelled in such a fashion. In reality, they are no different than the company themselves. But what a Union does is to level the playing field between the company and the worker, and stop the total possible exploitation of the worker by the company. It is a crude explanation, but a valid one.

 

[Renae]

Unions put power in the hands of the worker. There is power in numbers. The Elite are a minority and fear it. They want the ability to exploit workers.

This is the LIE of the union. "Ability to exploit the workers!"

And people like you cannot fathom why so many US Jobs moved overseas.

:shake:

 

[Johnny]

This is the LIE of the union. "Ability to exploit the workers!"

And people like you cannot fathom why so many US Jobs moved overseas.

:shake:

And those workers are exploited.

If it weren't for unions you'd have no safety gear on the job and other safeguards.

I agree unions are not perfect. But tge union is no different then a corporation.

 

[Olak]

This is the LIE of the union. "Ability to exploit the workers!"

And people like you cannot fathom why so many US Jobs moved overseas.

:shake:

Ok so how does a worker protect his capital?

And is it that a corporation is the only entity that gets to protect "it's" (excuse me Justice Scalia) - "his or her" interest?

 

[Renae]

I live in TEXAS, we don't have much "Union" infection, and guess what, we're doing so much better then "union states".

Do you know why? Because Unions grow from being useful, changing a business that isn't treating it's employees properly, into a monster that destroys the business it works for.... like a parasite really.

Why do you think GM, Ford, Chrysler have had such hard times? Because of UNIONS.

Olak, we have these things called "Laws" to protect workers, and this thing called "Freedom" that allows workers to choose NOT to work for a company that isn't meeting their needs.

Strange concept for you I'm sure.

 

[Olak]

Excuse me, but the Right to Assemble is pretty much codified in our laws. Or do you find that disagreeable?

And Texas ain't all that hot compared to other "union" states. Texas ranks in at a whopping #27 on the list of highest incomes. Big time bragging rights there.

 

[Renae]

Excuse me, but the Right to Assemble is pretty much codified in our laws. Or do you find that disagreeable?

You also have the right to stand on the street corner in a frilly dress and your head shaved trying to get people to convert to your new religion... doesn't mean it's a GOOD IDEA.

And Texas ain't all that hot compared to other "union" states. Texas ranks in at a whopping #27 on the list of highest incomes. Big time bragging rights there.

Income... I note you ignore "Cost of Living".

Texas Cost Cost of Living

Living in Texas is dirt cheap and for all of you living in Texas I don't even need to say another word.
The cost of quality real estate in Texas is to the say the least a viable option for those folks looking for a low cost retirement.
One thing I will say though is Texas is not just for retirement, living in Texas like a king is not quite a pipe dream if you have a decent paying job.
The cost of living in texas is much lower than almost every state in the nation. The same job that would generally only cover the cost of apartment living is the same cost ratio as the cost of home living. Whether you are looking to live in Austin, Houston, Dallas or San Antonio, Finding an affordable home to living in is not a stretch of the old imagination .......Continue

Texas Cost Of Living

Higher income doesn't always equal higher standard of living bub.

 

[Johnny]

That thing called freedom is what gives people tge right to form unions if they want to.

In Texas tge need for unions is probably less as they seem more honorable than people in other regions. In my dealings with people that's a trend I see. IMHO.

 

[Renae]

That thing called freedom is what gives people tge right to form unions if they want to.

In Texas tge need for unions is probably less as they seem more honorable than people in other regions. In my dealings with people that's a trend I see. IMHO.

I don't recall saying people weren't free to join unions, well at least until "Card Check" get's rammed through... oye that's gonna make life hell.

Unions are bad things, that start good and end horrible.

 

[Olak]

You also have the right to stand on the street corner in a frilly dress and your head shaved trying to get people to convert to your new religion... doesn't mean it's a GOOD IDEA.

You equated laws into the function. Unions are a very lawful thing, and have helped save our democracy.

Income... I note you ignore "Cost of Living".

Texas Cost Cost of Living

Living in Texas is dirt cheap and for all of you living in Texas I don't even need to say another word.
The cost of quality real estate in Texas is to the say the least a viable option for those folks looking for a low cost retirement.
One thing I will say though is Texas is not just for retirement, living in Texas like a king is not quite a pipe dream if you have a decent paying job.
The cost of living in texas is much lower than almost every state in the nation. The same job that would generally only cover the cost of apartment living is the same cost ratio as the cost of home living. Whether you are looking to live in Austin, Houston, Dallas or San Antonio, Finding an affordable home to living in is not a stretch of the old imagination .......Continue
Texas Cost Of Living

Higher income doesn't always equal higher standard of living bub.

Cost Of Living By State

That list Mississippi as #10...

The lowest income state in the nation, with the lowest education, health care, and well..you name it, it has the lowest.

Cost of living would be lower if people made less! I mean come on, Cambodia has a low cost of living too! lol


That's a joke right? You posted that as a joke..right?

 

[Renae]

You equated laws into the function. Unions are a very lawful thing, and have helped save our democracy.



Cost Of Living By State

That list Mississippi as #10...

The lowest income state in the nation, with the lowest education, health care, and well..you name it, it has the lowest.

Cost of living would be lower if people made less! I mean come on, Cambodia has a low cost of living too! lol


That's a joke right? You posted that as a joke..right?

Do you realize... probably you don't, that cost of living matters more then income levels?

 

[Olak]

It's relative, not exclusive as you suggest. If the income is more than the living, you do better, if the income is very low and the living low you do worse.

However with higher cost of living comes better schools, less crime, and better roads. This is why Mississippi is at the rock bottom - but high on the "low cost of living".

And this is a total hi-jack it has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Renae]

It's relative, not exclusive as you suggest. If the income is more than the living, you do better, if the income is very low and the living low you do worse.

However with higher cost of living comes better schools, less crime, and better roads. This is why Mississippi is at the rock bottom - but high on the "low cost of living".

And this is a total hi-jack it has nothing to do with the topic.

Whatever, I mention Texas, you go off to Mississippi cause you got your ass handed to you.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

If the product fails to sell they lose their jobs.

Are you arguing that labor is not a product?

And I like polite discussions My ego sometimes doesn't though

Yep but not before they get paid.
They have secured their benefit from the employer.

Labor is a service but I guess for this discussion, we can call it a product as well.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The union members product is the labour they sell to the company. If the company's product fails, the companies demand for the product of the union member also drops. Depending on the nature of the contract that might mean layoff for quite a few union members (provided the companies management was not stupid in signing poor contracts)

True but even then the labor has been bought and is paid for.
Not true with the end product.

A company can also lock out it labour, hire scabs during a labour strike, and perhaps firing the entire workforce and replacing them with non union workers. Something similar to what Reagan did to the airtraffic controlers. Of course wth a company the problem is that often its labour force has specific skills that will not be found outside its labour force and any workers brought in may not be able to do the work.
.
THis is why unions generally are formed in areas where a higher level of skill is generally required. It helps prevent the hiring of scabs to do the work during strikes or lock outs. The only real exceptions are in the hotel industry and government employee's

That's true but as long as they're under the labor contract, those scabs will eventually have to become union members as well.

I'm not against union, as long as they don't retain a monopoly on labor with a business and people are not forced to join.