Unions, Lenin, and the American Way (Part II)
To compensate for the rigid limitations imposed by the unions, American corporations found a way to retain flexibility by hiring an army of temporary employees through specialized “temp” agencies. I used to be a temp and am describing only what I saw. The “temps” didn’t have the perks of their unionized co-workers, they worked more, and they could be fired without warning. For all intents and purposes they were the official second-class citizens of the corporate realm, whose work paid for the privileges of others.
I don’t mean to complain; I was grateful for the opportunity to have those jobs, as were most other “temps,” and the pay was fair. I felt like a deck boy sailing on luxury cruise ships of socialism that navigated capitalist waters under the protection of the battleships of trade unions. Unfortunately, there could be no protection against the icebergs of recession and financial crises. And when trouble struck, deck boys got thrown overboard without a life jacket. But capitalism is no more to blame for this than the Atlantic Ocean was to blame for the class divisions among the passengers on the Titanic.
These two unequal classes of employees seem to be a relatively recent byproduct of the policies of “economic equality and justice” — a compromise to avoid the death by strangulation as life is trying to wiggle itself out from under the morbid weight of absurd policies. How can such an idealistic intention as forced economic equality create inequality? When the results are the opposite of what is intended, it usually means that the intentions are based on a faulty premise. And since the premise here is “economic equality,” it must be an erroneous concept.
In the same way, on all levels of the economy, unionized socialism has created privileged classes of workers that exist at the expense of the underclass. As such, it has become a parasitic formation that is connected to the capitalist economy the way a parasite is connected to a healthy host body. It would then seem to be in the unions’ best interests not to immobilize the host body lest they die along with it.
The paradox of the union movement is that it succeeds as long as it fails to grow. A unionization of the entire country would not only end current exclusive privileges, but would make the economy so stagnant that the ensuing economic crisis would force the government to manage labor relations, restrict union powers, and revise labor contracts. Such a prospect is not so far-fetched, given some stated government aspirations to regulate paid vacations and sick leaves. This may seem friendly to the unions, but history indicates that when an intrusive government assumes union functions, friendship ends and a competition for power begins, in which the government of course prevails. Having fulfilled their historical mission of advancing a state-run economy, the unions will outlive their usefulness and succumb to the fate of their Soviet brothers as voiceless puppets of tyranny.
And since forced economic equality tends to result in forced inequality of the authoritarian state, unionized workers will end up being an underclass ruled by the powerful and corrupt state oligarchs, who are the only beneficiaries of a system that redistributes unearned privileges. If one day union activists wake up under such new management, they will only have themselves to blame.
Coming soon: “American Unions: A Study in Collective Greed and Selfishness.”
Oleg,Four pages today in Part Two. Maybe you Should Have Written a Book. Keep up the Good Work.
“This may seem friendly to the unions, but history indicates that when an intrusive government assumes union functions, friendship ends and a competition for power begins, in which the government of course prevails.”
Stalin and Hitler effectively shut down the unions. This is one of the very first actions carried out by both the Communists and Nazis. A thoroughly socialist economy cannot afford the cost of union mischief. It quickly outlaws them. The elites of such a social order contend the unions are no longer necessary because they are looking out for the interests of the union workers. A strike would therefore be considered traitorous activity and harshly dealt with.
I have learned more about the exceptional greatness of America’s founding principles from those who have lived under the tyranny of the Statists then escaped to tell their stories than I have as an American who was born and educated in America.
Oleg, I thank God brought you and your family to America! And doing so legally.
the labor/management struggle is a catch22.
When big industry had/has the power, the workers to better their conditions unionize and demand higher wages and benefits. Depending on how indispensible the product is or how much competition there is in the field,the employer can either raise prices or absorb the increased expenses. Of course this is self-perpetuating depending on who has the power at the moment. The employer walks the line of competition with non-union companies or foreign cheaper labor or the market finds less expensive alternatives.
When the government run employment services unionize, assuming they are essential, the government usually gives in since it is not their money. but when the budget hits the limit or they raise taxes or go bankrupt.
Either way it is a catch22.
excellent Oleg. thank you
Ditto #3 Syn.
You, Oleg, are the Joseph Conrad of political philosophy. Cite:
“life is trying to wiggle itself out from under the morbid weight of absurd policies”
Another good read Oleg. thanks
If folks doubt the effect of unionization on the economy, look at the prices up north compared to that of the south. While workers in the south earn half of what union workers do, they have no dues, (I’ve seen dues as high as $2600 a year) and you can buy a home in the south for 1/2 of what you pay up North.
At least, that is what I observed when I moved from the San Antonio Texas area up to Grand Rapids Michigan.
The era of Upton Sinclar’s industrial exploitations is over. Union officials are now like unneeded and fat government officials who live off the productivity of others while only protecting their own jobs.
A few weeks ago I confessed my bigotry to a friend. I said I didn’t trust eastern Europeans, and that includes my own people, the Poles. While aware that my broad brush paints good and bad alike with an unfair stigma, I have known enough cheats and swindlers from this group to be always wary. But is it bigotry to recognize that socialism corrupts the body politic? Absent the rule of law cheating becomes a rational strategy. Fifty years of soviet-style socialism have ruined the moral fiber of entire populations.
I went on to complain to my friend that capitalism only works when everyone plays fair. A nation prospers when the rewards of honest labor are fairly paid. I can see now from Oleg’s essay that America is already half way down the road to socialism. And it’s not just the unions at fault, but rather anyone who takes part in redistribution programs that rob Peter to pay for Paul’s indolence. My friend nodded and concluded that “eventually we’ll be just like the rest of the world.” A sad epitaph indeed for a once great nation.
Shortly after the last election an ideologue from the department of education arrived where I teach. I declare as a warning to readers that the purges have already begun. I barely survived the first round; some of my colleagues did not. It’s real and it’s here. I’m not indulging in rhetoric. I’m actively pursuing now a John Galt strategy. True story. I swear to it on the grave of my recently deceased father.
2. David Thomson: “Stalin and Hitler effectively shut down the unions. This is one of the very first actions carried out by both the Communists and Nazis.”
And people like Oleg, if they get the chance.
How much more better off would workers be if they didn’t have to pay union dues or deal with the harassment of union thugs? Doubtless productive workers would readily accept a one year pay freeze to get rid of the unions. After that, their own efforts will shine, and they will earn raises or promotions much faster than a union would allow them.
Thank you, Mr. Atbashian. A well-reasoned and clearly written analysis.
Dear Oleg,
It would appear that my observation of your previous article was in fact correct. As to this article I’ll use history and current events to disprove your position that the gains earned by union members come at the expense others. Your statment that union membership not only is harmful to non-union members but eventually harmful to union members is false. You also implied that the US workforce would be better off without unions is also false. The proof for both of these statements is Canada and Mexico. Concerning the positive effect of organized labor consider that over 1/3 of all Canadian workers are unionized. Canada has a market base economy, a very strong middle class and very little poverty. And by the way, unlike almost all other advanced economies, Canada hasn’t entered a recession. Concerning the belief that an absence of unions would improve the US economy, ask yourself why that hasn’t worked in Mexico. There is virtually no organized labor in Mexico, Mexico has the eleventh largest economy in the world and over half of all Mexican citizens live in poverty. Your positions concerning unions are disproven not just by scientific analysis but also by current events.
“2. David Thomson: “Stalin and Hitler effectively shut down the unions. This is one of the very first actions carried out by both the Communists and Nazis.”
And people like Oleg, if they get the chance.”
Oleg may very well want unions to disappear. I know that I do! The difference is that it should be accomplished by persuasion—and not by state mandate. Unions are increasingly being eliminated because people no longer think they make any sense.
Actually, Mr. Independent, every point in your post is false.
Unions are parasites on the workforce; they produce nothing, and because they function as corporations whose only income is the wages of the workers..they MUST increase these wages to increase their union profits. This drives the cost of goods up beyond market capacity. So, costs are higher for goods and services in Canada..and wages are lower.
There is NO investor class in Canada, because the taxes and cost of living are so high that people cannot earn enough to invest in big business, in research and development, in foundations. All of that has to be done by the govt, and is obviously insufficient- which is why Canada has such an insignificant research output, doesn’t develop big business, relies on franchises from the US, and has no private foundations to fund research.
Canada most certainly IS in recession and the Canadian govt has been working hard to deal with this including going into a deficit.
The disastrous effect of unions in Canada has led to the collapse of the auto industry in Ontario. Its unionized workforce drove the cost of the goods beyond market capacity. It has also led to a rapid rise in municipal taxes, driving people out of the big cities, because they cannot afford its costs.
As for Mexico – surely you are joking. Mexico has offloaded its impoverished class to the US, where these people COST the US taxpayer billions every year in education, health care and other costs..while these same people send billions back to support their impoverished relatives in Mexico.
ETAB,
Unfortunately the points in your post are completely false. My previous statements are based on facts as stated by the Canadian Revenue Agency and confirmed by the Heritage Foundation. Despite your beliefs Canadians only pay about 8% more in taxes than they would in the US. The cost of living is actually lower in Canada than in the US. The auto industry in Canada is failing, but Canadian auto workers account for less than 10% of all Canadian union workers. Investment in Canada is widespread which is partly why Canada has such a strong middle-class and very little poverty. And currently Canada has not entered a recession. As to your comment on Mexico I see you didn’t address my point at all but simply changed the subject. By doing so you actually strengthen my point. If you truly believe that an absence of unions would be good for Mexico why then are so many Mexicans leaving their country to come here?
@7. Anonymous:
If folks doubt the effect of unionization on the economy, look at the prices up north compared to that of the south. While workers in the south earn half of what union workers do, they have no dues, (I’ve seen dues as high as $2600 a year) and you can buy a home in the south for 1/2 of what you pay up North.
Let’s see. So the average income in the south is what, $40,000? That would make the union wages $80,000. That $2600 a year sounds like a bargain! That net benefit of $37,000 sounds pretty attractive.
As for home prices – the reason they are low in the south is a function of supply and demand. Nobody wants to live in the south. That’s economics 101.
Peace.
DS
Many of our unions are out dated and serve no purpose. However it is not workers that created the unions, it was poor management and big greed by big business.
Also, even those that enjoy good employment, with health care and a decent wage owes that to union people everywhere. The unions made our country great and built an industrial might second to none.
Also, unions get a bad wrap for causing recessions and depressons. If you study history and know the facts you will quickly realize it was unbridled greed and bad financial regulation that brought economic doom upon our country, past and present. If successive administrations had listened to unions, many of these economic bad times and unemployment could have been avoided. So if you have freedom and a good standard of living, thank a union worker !!
Mr. Independent – again, your points, every one, are false.
The Canadian Revenue Agency and Heritage Foundation do not define whether or not unions create or do not create a robust economic climate.
You haven’t addressed my points. The high cost of labour,with, in particular, pension and other add-on benefits, has led to the collapse of the auto-industry in both Canada and the US. Your statement that this industry in Canada only accounts for less than 10% of Cdn union workers is a red herring.
The fact is, that it is the key industry in Ontario.
And the massive union power in the public service – which includes the civil service, health care, education etc..makes for very wealthy oorporate unions..and very high costs to the taxpayer.
Did you know that union wages are not competitive in the private market, with taxpayer funded unionists getting double the wage increases of the private sector plus outrageous benefits. These render the ‘middle class’..a ‘lower middle class’ and means that Canada has no Investor Class. Address that point!
Investment in Canada is ‘widespread’ is a meaningless statement. Explain.
Again, Canada does not have an Investor Class because high taxes – which are not only income taxes,but housing, energy, etc – mean that people cannot develop surplus to invest. Address that point! Explain why Canada doesn’t deveop its own major industries and must rely on franchises from the US.
Canada IS in recession. (see Bloomberg discussion). It cannot escape the world economy. It certainly moved into recession later than did the US, and it’s been a shorter one, which it is now just gradually starting to come out of…but..this recession has been real.
No, I didn’t change the subject. You were commenting that Mexico didn’t have unions and attempting to explain this lack as CAUSAL of its poverty. This is invalid. Have you ever heard that ‘correlation does not mean causation’? It’s invalid to try to claim that correlation means causation.
You haven’t dealt with the benefits to the Mexican economy of its offloading an entire class of people to the US, and their sending of billions back to support that class…which relieves the govt of doing so. Address that point.
Because Mexico does not have unions does not explain its poverty. You have absolutely no evidence for that, nor can you provide evidence that IF you have a unionized economy, THEN, you will have a robust economy. The US has far fewer unions than most nation,and its economy has, for this century, powered the world. You can’t define the mortgage bust as having anything to do with the ‘lack of unions’.
People are leaving Mexico because its corrupt govt is not providing an economic infrastructure that includes a ‘low level middle class’. The govt, rather than building the infrastructure of schools, hospitals, roads, waste and water treatments, communications systems..for these area, has neglected this class and offloaded them to the US. That’s why they leave the country! Not because there are no unions..but because there are no schools, hospitals, roads, housing!
Unions are corporations, massive corporaions that are parasitic on the worker. Taking their wages as ‘dues, driving up the costs of goods..and creating an elite class of workers. (see Friedman’s discussion on this).
unions had there place when there was a lack of laws to protect workers safety during an era of serfdom.
we in the west are well past that.
today unions do little good for anyone and lots of damage to most everybody
ETAB has it mostly right regarding canada and mexico. canada has lost many jobs due to unions. there is virtually no longshore jobs left in vancouver due to cost ..they now almost all go to seattle.
the big three auto makers are all in decline as they cannot compete with the non-unionised manufacturers ..this incidently BLOWS a big hole into the cries from liberals who say that it is a lack of health care that hurts the american auto makers vis-a-vi the off-shore manufactures who have govenment run health care. in canada they have gov. health care and still cannot compete.
canada didn’t buy into the freddy and fanny sub-prime so that limited the damage to the economy, and in canada they aren’t spending on partisan projects that do nothing but buy democrat votes.
Poor Citizen – unions played a functional role in the 19th c, but have now become corporations, with their own greed and desire for power.
Modern day labor is now largely regulated by the govt and therefore, there is no need for unions. As such, Unions have switched from working for better labor condition, to acting as their own corporations.
A key problem is that unions don’t invent, develop, create a service or product. So, their income comes only from parastic ‘dues’ from the workers. Their agenda is to increase this income by expanding the numbers of workers unionized (that’s the agenda now of US unions and their ‘card’ suggestion)…and by increasing wages..so they can increase their dues.
The fact that this drives up the cost of goods and services, ..seems to be a point quite irrelevant to these new Corporations called Unions. Eventually, the market can’t deal with these costs..and it goes into bankruptcy (if it’s a public civil service..eg..California)..or private bankruptcy (auto).
And I disagree with your claim that unions have provided freedom and a good standard of living. There’s absolutely no evidence for that conclusion.
The focus on independence, freedom of movt, freedom to innovate and develop, and private enterprise, keeping the results of your hard work…that’s what was the foundation of the US economy.
ETAB,
Once again you’re completely wrong. To start I never stated that I’ve read the CRA or the HF stating “whether or not unions create or do not create a robust economic climate”. What I did state is that both organizations state that Canadians only pay about 8% in overall taxes verses what they would in the US, that the cost of living is lower in Canada than in the US, and that Canadian auto workers make up less than 10% of the unionized workforce. Those were my statements not that “the CRA and the HF have stated whether or not unions create or do not create a robust economic climate”. You probably think your being clever by just making up that quote except all someone has to do to prove that you’re being dishonest is to read my post. Now my actual statements have been stated by both the CRA and the HF. If you have credible information disputing those statements then tell me where I can specifically read them. Now on to your point on the unionization of public servants, I’d agree with you that governmental employee union power is wrong. The benefit of organized labor comes from the unionization of the private workforce not the public servants who are supposed to work for all of us. When I stated that investment in Canada is widespread I was referring to the CRA’s assertion that almost 50% of Canada’s workforce over the age of 30 own stocks in publicly traded companies. As to the issue of Canada being in a recession, Webster’s Dictionary defines a recession as “a recession is a general slowdown in economic activity over a long period of time”. In 2008 Canada’s economy grew by 3.8 percent. I’d like to know when specifically you say Bloomberg Television stated that Canada is in a recession. Concerning your comments on Mexico specifically that I was stating “correlation means causation” could be correct, except you seem to forget that Mexico has the 11th largest economy in the world. None of the top ten economies have a 50% poverty rate. So if Mexico has such a large economy and virtually no organized labor why are over half of it’s citizens poor? More importantly when Canada has such a strong economy, very little poverty and 1/3 of their workers are unionized it would stand to reason that unionization doesn’t automatically create prosperity but contrary to your position, unions do not create poverty or ruin capitalism either. Finally if you know of at least two credible organizations that dispute my position (or those of the CRA and the HF) tell where I can personally see that information for myself. Somehow I don’t think you’ll be providing me with that information but I’d love to be proven wrong.
Unions cost more then most people realize. Not only in the disgusting over payment of the workers who do less work for that pay but also the other costs of graft, police time when the sabotage non-union jobs, hospital time when their victims of union violence go there, and others. As one who had had to call the police to get union thugs off my property and asked for escorts to see my workers home after threats….. Well you get the point. Unions have ruined America.
Mr. Atbashian, from what you explain, I think “Redistribution of wealth” is only a euphemism for theft, and community organizing is the corresponding euphemism for its legitimization. Robin Hood was very good at it in his days.
Had he been literate, he could theoretically have written the book on community organizing, but I guess he had “better” things to do!
The outcome of this kind of zeal (communism, socialism, etc…) can destroy an existing social order, but it cannot create a durable one out of savagery, because crime is not possible in the absence of civilization, so the ultimate outcome of these redistributionists utopian system necessarily a return of savagery.
Can free manage to avoid it? We may find out soon, one way or the other.
#16 David S. That was my post made this morning you comment on.
You are inferring numbers (salary) that I did not state. But here is some facts based on my experience. My brick house payment was $650/month in the south, it was $1100/month for a similar wood sided ranch style home square footage in Michigan. Now add on top of that the state and city income tax along with the property tax that Michiganders enjoy. Food also ran about 5% higher, the $48,000 I made in Michigan in 2000 just didn’t quite go as far as the $42,000 I made in Texas in 1999. Texas has no state income tax, but does have higher property taxes and the sales tax was a bit higher also. So my money went a bit further down south. (While I maybe made a poor choice from an economic standpoint, I don’t regret the move to Michigan. The people of Michigan are excellent folks. I only moved because my plant was shut down.)
If no one wants to live in the south, how come Texas is 2nd in population only to California? Florida is just over 100 grand lower than the state of New York and sits at fourth. Likewise, how many times has a President won the election without carrying the South? Seems your personal opinion just doesn’t mesh well with reality.
If I may make another suggestion, don’t attack an area of the country and then finish your post with peace. It really undermines the already weak points you are trying to make.
Well wishes for you and yours,
Reiux
Mr. Independent – I continue to reject your argument. You are trying to prove the value of unions and your comments don’t prove such a conclusion.
That includes your statement that unionized autoworkers only make up 10% of the workforce. How is that relevant? What is relevant is the result of that unionization is the destruction of the auto indusry in Ontario.
Again, the cost of living in Canada is higher than the US. Most certainly it is cheaper to live in some small village than in the big cities, but, the cost of living in medium to large cities in Canada is higher than that of the US. This is because of taxes, the fact that you can’t deduct mrgage interest from taxes, high energy costs, high health costs etc.
Who cares if, as you say, almost 50% of the workforce own stocks? Having $500 in a mutual fund is irrelevant. My point was that the taxes and costs in Canada are so high that it hasn’t developed an Investor Class. Do you know what an Investor Class means?
Webster’s definition of recession is so vague as to be without meaning. What does ‘general slowdown’ mean in specific measureable terms? What does ‘long period of time’ mean in specific measurable terms?
Google Canada Bloomberg recession, and you’ll find a Sept 21/09 statement from PM Harper about Canada’s being in a recession, even as the economy is picking up. And, a May20/09 comment by Bloomberg on Canada’s recession, as the deepest since the depression, and also, the shortest.
Remember, correlation does not mean causation. And having a union does not mean a robust economy.
A key reason for Mexican poverty is its recent industrialization, with a great deal of the population remaining in a subsistence style of local agriculture. Then, the govt, as I said, has deliberately not developed these rural areas..and instead, Mexico exported its impoverished, and has relied on importing their remittances from the US..to support those people.
As to your new statement that ‘unions don’t create poverty or ruin capitalism’- this is meaningless because it is too ‘universal’ or general. Unions DO harm the economy because they set up an elite class of workers, within a company that rapidly moves from a focus on providing goods and services, to providing a spa-workplace of those unionites.
That is, they increase the costs of goods and services,reduce innovation and independence in the workforce..and, as I said, are corporations in themselves, functioning as parasites.
I suggest you read Milton Friedman on Unions. As he says, the unions ‘simply make high pay still higher’ and ‘the gains that strong unions win for their members are primarily at the expense of other workers’ (p. 232-3)..and ‘higher wages to one group of workers (the unionized) must come primarily fromother workers’ (234)etc.
Oh, and the Heritage Fdtn has an article by James Sherk, May 2009, that unions harm the economy…and cause job losses. There’s lots more.
Again, unions are parasites; they feed off the wages of the workers. They do NOTHING for the worker. They are corporations in themselves but produce no goods and no services.
Union abuses at public convention halls are notoriously wide-spread. The victim is almost always not local (and so can’t vote for the politician who empowers the union), the unions are always very powerful in such circumstances, and if the victims *do* complain, what are the victims going to do? Get their convention transferred to another city, where the abuses may be as bad or worse? With a constant stream of new victims arriving every week, the convention center can require everyone to pay to plug in lights and other things like that in the name of safety, and there’s essentially no heat for the politicians involved. After all, who would speak out against unions, workplace safety, or employment in a good job with a high wage, when the victim is some out-of-town conventioneer…customers of the local prostitutes, strip clubs, and bars, stereotypically drunk and out of control?
Mexico is impoverished because of the rampant corruption, both within the government and in the form of organized crime. If Mexico were to unionize, this corruption would only increase. After all, unions are a great racket for organized crime, whom the unions hire for muscle.
@24. Reiuxcat:
You are inferring numbers (salary) that I did not state. But here is some facts based on my experience.
I infer well.
Here is what you wrote above:
So based on your salary in the south ($42,000), you earned half of what union workers do ($84,000).
I’ll grant you might spend $6k more on housing, and $3k on union dues, plus maybe $1k more on food. Maybe $10k in taxes (higher bracket) – still, you are more than $20k ahead for the year in the union job.
If no one wants to live in the south, how come Texas is 2nd in population only to California?
Texans are very good at breeding. Texas also happens to be very large.
Just take a look at history. Income distribution gets more fair when unions are strong – and the poor get poorer when unions are in decline. It’s not rocket science.
Peace.
DS
ETAB,
For once you’re right, but only in that I am proving the value of unions. And I’m doing that not just by mentioning what they have done but also what they haven’t done. As to why what percentage of Canadians are unionized auto workers is relevant, I mentioned that in response to your comment “the disastrous effects of unions in Canada has led to the collapse of the auto industry in Ontario”, to illustrate that while the auto industry in Canada is suffering, the rest of that countries’ economy is not. So if the existence of unions are so terrible in Canada why are those terrible effects only impacting such a small segment of the unionized workforce. Could it be because the auto industry is collapsing all on it’s own. After all, all auto companies (even those non-union foreign auto makers) are struggling.
Once again, the cost of living in Canada is not higher than the US. If you have credible information that home prices (or rent), food, and utilities are more expensive in Canada’s big cities versus the five largest cities in the US tell me where I can review this information.
Now if Canada has no investor class as you say, how is it that (according to the CRA) 70% of Canada’s workforce is employed by small business. That’s virtually identical to the US by the way. I think the question you should ask yourself is if you know what an investor class is.
Now I did research the statement PM Harper made in 9/09, and it’s to bad you didn’t read the actual article because if you had you should have noticed that PM Harper was speaking about the US recession. Opps, I guess that’s what happens when you get into the bad habit of repeating something you only heard versus actually learning what someone said.
On your comments on Mexico you are once again completely wrong. According to the Mexican Ministry of the Economy, the Mexican economy first began it’s mass industrial programs in the 1930’s and ¾ of the population live in or near Mexico city. Your positions are wrong because you’re basing those positions on fantasies and not facts.
To your comments on Milton Friedman and James Sherk they as you appear to be oblivious to the existence of own neighbors Canada and Mexico. If the absence of unions should remove the ’parasites’ of the economy why hasn’t that happened in Mexico? And why has the existence of unions in Canada not caused the collapse of the economy in Canada?
In closing I would like to point out that unions are beneficial to an economy and it’s workers for the same reason that a legislature is beneficial to a democracy and it’s citizens. Unions like democracies elect their leaders and chose their agendas. Now ETBA you and the other readers of this post are not advocating repealing Article One of the US Constitution are you?
Unions are widespread throughout Japan. To offset the increased cost of union-negotiated wages, Japanese firms are increasingly outsourcing to China and other lower-wage countries. They are also ending lifelong employment (unsustainable, thanks to unions’ costs and increased competition) and turning increasingly to the hiring of temps. Japan keeps the R&D domestic, but if you’re a dolt who thinks you deserve the equivalent of roughly $45K to push a button, your days are numbered.
I’ve had a couple friends move to TX specifically for jobs and better weather. They left the unionized Rust Belt.
DS, ever been to Gary, Indiana? Home of Michael Jackson and former murder capital of the US? It’s a union town, like most of the Chicago ‘burbs to the south and east. No jobs now the mills are largely still (thanks to unions), but it keeps voting DNC as programmed and keeps staying poor: an infinite loop.
Mr. Independant (ant?) – Are you a former Radio Moscow “news” reader? Your posts are tedious, doctrinaire, and 95% content free. Try getting to the point without all the posturing.
To David S, @28,
Yeah, tell that to the folks living in the city of Detroit. They’re really doing well there. (rolls eyes)
Again, you choose the salary numbers. The actual hourly salaries where I worked was closer to 60,000 with overtime. Not everyone in Michigan works for $30/hour in the auto industry. You forgot to add the additional cost of fuel, heating, power, clothing, medical care, parking, entertainment, etc. Everything is more expensive. Pull your pants up David, your disingenousness is showing…again!
well wishes for you and yours
Dear ITF,
Scientific research is often tedious but is necessary in order to determine if something is true or false. Anyone can make any point they want but without evidence it‘s just someone‘s opinion. That’s why my positions rely on a combination of advocacy, governmental, and research organizations. As to your position that my statements are doctrinal, that is simply not true. My statements have all be based on current events, history, and the analysis of various sources. That being said, I noticed that when you stated that my posts were “tedious, doctrinal, and 95% content free” you didn’t point to any of my statements specifically. Was that an oversight? Perhaps you’d like to point out to me what specifically you were referring to.
Mr. Independent – again, I reject your view. You provide no reasons for the existence of unions as beneficial to the economy.
And as usual, you divert to red herring tactics.
It is utterly irrelevant that the executive of unions is elected; it has nothing to do with the 1st amendent and nothing to do with the economy.
Equally, the analysis of Friedman and Sherk is not about Mexico or Canada but about unions within the economy. Any economy. And both conclude that they are harmful to the economy.
Again, Canada has no investor class and it is yet another of your irrelevant points about small business. Small businesses are NOT the Investor Class!!! That’s the point! Canadians do not make enough money to develop their own large private businesses and develop large continuing surpluses. Whew.
Mexico did not industrialize its rural areas; it offloaded this population to theUS and relied on the billions sent ‘home’ to support this population. I suggest you do some research on this.
Umions did cause the collapse of the auto industry im the US and Canada, and your attempt to deny this has no data. Your attempt to say that non-unionized auto companies are strugglingand this shows that having a union does not cause harm is false. After all, using this reasoning, if both types of auto industry (with and without a union) are ‘struggling’..then..what good is a union?
Unions in Canada – because there are few large private businesses that are unionized, are found in the public sector..which relies on mssive increases in local taxes to endlesly support their demands..
And re-read the Bloomberg article; it talks about Canada’s recession. Got that? Canada’s recession. And talks about the Bank of Canada’s dating of the Canadian recession. Try again, Mr. Independent.
Now – explain how unions benefit the economy, rather than harm it. You have’t done that.
DEAR Mr. INDEPENDaNT, as promised:
I REPOST MY LAST MAIL TO YOU, WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWERS
Remember? Quotes and links, dear, quotes and links
(Marina, the rational you gave in your response as proof that the former USSR was a socialist country and not a communist country was simply in it’s name. Forgetting the absurdity of that position consider this; the official name of North Korea is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. By your standard just because North Korea’s leadership says that their country is a democratic republic then it is. So I’ll ask you, do you think North Korea is a democratic republic? Of course not. By the same token the former USSR was not a socialist country.)
You would have been absolutely right, if it had been my ONLY argument. “Democratic” in a name doesn’t make you a real democrat. The best exapmle is the s.c. DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE USA, promoting marxist state-dictatorship.
(…Your final point concerning my information sources is also false. The justifications for my statements are not based on an article in the Wikipedia or a comedy show but are based on the writings of the two men who invented the modern concepts)
You mean Laurel and Hardy? You cannot be serious calling the concepts of Marx-n-Engels “modern”, can you? The monsters lived in the 19th (!!!!!!!!!!!) century. We live in the 21st, if you need to be reminded. “Back to the future”? Rather “Forwards to the past”. “Modern”. Don’t be ridiculous!
(If you’re interested in learning for yourself what these concepts refer to I suggest reading the Manifesto of the Communist Party. And if you do find an instance where Marx or Engels actually do define communism and socialism as you do, please state the page number of where that is on this website.)
You’re kidding me. Is the Manifesto the only thing you’ve read from your gurus? The monsters suffered from verbal diarrhea. The concepts are not from the Manifesto. They’re from “Die deutsche Ideologie” by Marx. Here’s the original text:
“Nun aber besteht eines der wesentlichsten Prinzipien des Kommunismus, wodurch er sich von jedem reaktionären Sozialismus unterscheidet, in der auf die Natur des Menschen begründeten empirischen Ansicht, daß die Unterschiede des Kopfes und der intellektuellen Fähigkeiten überhaupt keine Unterschiede des Magens und der physischen Bedürfnisse bedingen; daß mithin der falsche, auf unsre bestehenden Verhältnisse begründete Satz: »Jedem nach seinen Fähigkeiten«, sofern er sich auf den Genuß im engeren Sinne bezieht, umgewandelt werden muß in den Satz: Jedem nach Bedürfnis; daß, mit andern Worten, die Verschiedenheit in der Tätigkeit, in den Arbeiten, keine Ungleichheit, kein Vorrecht des Besitzes und Genusses begründet”.
http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Marx,+Karl/Die+deutsche+Ideologie
I’m sure you’re able to find the English text yourself. This is the foundation of both s.c. PRINCIPLES, that of COMMUNISM (“to everyone according to his needs”) and that of SOCIALISM (“to everyone according to his abilities”).
That is the main difference between Socialism and Communism, NOT A WORD ABOUT DEMOCRACY.
Now to DEMOCRACY. (You say: On your second point that the differences between communism and socialism are economic and not political, that is also false. In both instances the government controls the means of production, distribution, and finance. The only difference is the political mechanism that is used to achieve that. In the case of communism it’s a dictatorship and in the case of socialism it’s democracy.) REALLY? Did “The Manifesto” tell you that? Or was it Jon Stewart after all? Roseanne Barr? Maaaatt Daaaaamon? Whatever. Listen to one of your disgusting gurus:
“Aber die bloße Demokratie ist nicht fähig, soziale Übel zu heilen. Die demokratische Gleichheit ist eine Chimäre, der Kampf der Armen gegen die Reichen kann nicht auf dem Boden der Demokratie oder der Politik überhaupt ausgekämpft werden. Auch diese Stufe ist also nur ein Übergang, das letzte rein politische Mittel, das noch zu versuchen ist und aus dem sich sogleich ein neues Element, ein über alles politische Wesen hinausgehendes Prinzip entwickeln muß.
Dies Prinzip ist das des Sozialismus.” (F. ENGELS, Die Lage Englands).
http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Engels,+Friedrich/Die+Lage+Englands.
Find the English text yourself. What Engels says is the DEMOCRACY IS UNABLE TO CURE SOCIAL EVIL. “DEMOCRATIC EQUALITY IS A CHIMERA” The fight between the poor and the rich CANNOT be led on the platform of DEMOCRACY. The only way is to apply the principle of SOCIALISM. Tah-dah!
So, dear Mr. IndependAnt, you wanted quotes, I gave them to you. Now tit for tat.
I still wanna know where this bull…t about “communism is a dictatorship and socialism is a democracy” comes from. Quotes and links, please!
But be very, VERY carefull what you’re qouting. Remember, I can read it IN ORIGINAL and IN CONTEXT.
I will post and repost this entry untill you give me what I want, honey.
Bye.
ETAB,
Ok let me try again explain to you why unions are beneficial to a workforce. It gives their members a say in how their work life will be. In the same way that a legislature is beneficial to a democracy. Legislatures give their voters a say as to how their communities and country will be run.
As far as red herrings go I addressed every counter point you’ve attempted to make. You on the other hand have the bad habit of changing the subject or just outright lying. Case in point I never stated that participation in a union has anything to do with the 1st amendment what I did say is that participation in unions is the economic equivalent of participation in the legislative process (hence to reference to Article 1 of the US constitution).
On Friedman and Sherk I never said that they have commented on Canada or Mexico, I stated that the economic conditions of those countries contradict their views.
Now if you don’t believe that someone who completely or partial owns a business isn’t part of the investment class, how do you define being a member of the investment class?
On Mexico ¾ of it’s population live in urban areas. The lack of industrialization (which I don’t concede since you site no documentation to support this claim) does not account for that countries 50% poverty rate. If that were true Mexico shouldn’t be the 11th largest economy.
The data I use to determine if unionization caused the collapse of the auto industry in the US and Canada is based on a comparative analysis. If as you state unions are the cause of the collapsing auto industry then why is the Mexican auto industry failing as well? The benefits of union participation are simple, it gives the worker a say in their work life, just as voting gives a citizen a vote in their government.
And I did reread the article concerning PM Harper and he was talking about the US economy not Canada’s. I asked in previous posts to list the specific location of information you’ve read that contradicts my statement. So next time why don’t you provide a link to the specific article that you’re referring to.
Finally to your final point, my statements have always been to the benefits that union give to the workforce. The economy as a whole doesn’t need a special benefit from a union.
@ ETAB:
Ask Mr. IndependAnt about the SOURCE of his information. He (or some other liar from his school / UN) probably makes it all up, like he did with “communism is a dictatorship and socialism is a democracy” – he still cannot quote neither Marx nor Engels telling it…
Hmmm… pants on fire…
Mr. Independent – again, you are diverting your writing fro its original meaning and changing it.
You wrote: ” Unions like democracies elect their leaders and chose their agendas. Now ETBA you and the other readers of this post are not advocating repealing Article One of the US Constitution are you?”
Could you, again, explain the relevance of the amendment to this? When I asked you this question, you replied:
“I never stated that participation in a union has anything to do with the 1st amendment what I did say is that participation in unions is the economic equivalent of participation in the legislative process (hence to reference to Article 1 of the US constitution).”
Nope – you cannot now claim that you said this..in your first sentence. Because you didn’t. And again, what the heck does the first amendment have to do with this?
No, it is absolutely false to claim that membership in union gives members a say in their work life. It enables the executive to manoevre for situations which can be very costly – and which many members may be opposed to. This results in a loss of jobs.
Most companies work closely with their workers. Without unions. There is no need for workers to pay those exorbitant dues in these cases. And that’s all that you have to declare as a ‘benefit of unions’? That it gives the workers a say in their work life? Unreal. Haven’t you ever heard about modern business practices..that involve the workers?
And do you seriously claim that the union actually enables workers to have a say in their work? In many cases, the union PREVENTS the worker from saying anything. What if the worker felt that you didn’t need three guys to do X job; that one would suffice? The union wouldn’t allow this remark to go to administation!
What about unions taking those dues and giving that money to support political parties..which the workers don’t approve of? Hey? How’s that for democracy? No vote by the worker; the Union executive takes those dues..and gives it to support a political party with which the worker disagrees. Neat. Some benefit to the worker..take their money and give it to support the wrong politics. Heh.
With regard to Friedman and Sherk, you wrote that they “appear to be oblivious to the existence” of Canada and Mexico. This does NOT equate to your statement that the ‘economic conditions’ of these countries contradict their views’. On what? On the results of unions? But their views aren’t contradicted by the economic conditions! Union wages do increase beyond the carrying capacity of the economy! And unionization DOES result in worker layoffs! And businesses going bankrupt; and closing to move to non-unionized work areas.
Google Mexico and industrialization..and you can do your own research. The Mexican auto industry is unionized.
Ahh, so now we find that you don’t know what an Investor Class means. Heh.
The Investor Class can be understood as someone who can invest, in a private business enterprise, between 400,000 to 800,000 to a million and more..easily. This means that a group can start up a large industrial development or research or foundation.
The Investor Class US immigrant invests 1 million and can hire at least 10 employees. The Canadian Immigration Investor is 400,000 to 800,000 investment.
The point is, this amount, whether for an immigrant or a citizen, defines an Investor. And Canada’s taxes and cost of living prevent the development of such a class.
Your original claim was that Canada didn’t have a recession. I provided the FACTS that it did. There’s tons of evidence. Google it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=ay3InxTSQVws&pid=20601082
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=1612312
Surely, again, you are joking. The only benefit of a union is that workers get a ‘say in their worklife’? That has to be the weakest and most invalid claim in support of a union that I’ve ever heard.
One more thing, David- the higher salary is only beneficial if you have a job. The unemployment rate in Michigan is over 15% while Texas’ unemployment rate is about 8%.
Marina – I doubt if Mr. Independent has ‘sources’ for his ‘information’..such as that Canada has not been in a recession; that Mexico has ‘an absence of unions’ and ‘virtually no organized labor in Mexico’.
And his most outlandish statement, that because a union executive is elected, then, this means that the union is ‘beneficial to an economy’. Whew. That’s like saying that because a Criminal Gang elects its leaders from a pack of candidates..and chooses its next bank bust, then, this gang (and its activities) is beneficial to the economy. Heh.
Marina,
You stated in your last post that your justification for believing the USSR was a socialist country and not a communist one was not based on just the wording of the country. You neglected to state what your other justification(s) were though. I’m sure that was an oversight on your part. I’m still waiting for your explanation.
Concerning your reference to `The German Ideology’ I noticed you conveniently posted a “quote” and provided a link to a site in a foreign language. If you want to convince me of your position you’re not going to be able to do that with guile or deception. That book was originally published in Russian and had been translated into every major language spoken on the planet. If you wanted to you could have selected a quote written in English but you didn’t. If you’re going to try and lie I’m going to call you out on it.
Now the one thing that you did correctly state (but seem unable to understand) was that Engel’s did believe that democracy could not cure social evil, thus the goal of communism. So my question to you is what exactly is communism a transition from? And if you do decide to respond be sure to do so in English and provide the specific source your referencing (that’s means a site link or a manuscript with a page number).
I’ll be waiting.
ETAB
Once again you’re trying to lie your way out of being proven wrong. You stated in post 38 “Mr. Independent – again, you are diverting your writing fro its original meaning and changing it.” The following are the first or second lines from previous posts on this article:#36 “Ok let me try again explaining to you why unions are beneficial to a workforce”#29 “For once you’re right, but only in that I am proving the value of unions” #12 “As to this article I’ll use history and current events to disprove your position that the gains earned by union members come at the expense others.” Would you care to point out specifically how I’ve diverted my writings from it’s original meanings? My point has always been that unions are beneficial to the workforce and not harmful to the economy.
Now I have stated, on numerous occasions that the benefits of organized labor are beneficial to a workforce in the same way that a legislature is beneficial to a democracy. I’ve also asked the readers of this website who are against unions if they are also against Article 1 of the US Constitution. I didn’t consider ETAB that you are so ignorant of the US Constitution that you wouldn’t understand the difference between the 1st Amendment (which I’ve never referenced) and Article 1 of the Constitution. Article 1 of the Constitution vests with congress (among other things) the power to make law.
You stated that “Most companies work closely with their workers”. How do you know this? Site evidence, otherwise it’s just your opinion. You also mentioned some of the consequences of internal union activities (corruption & theft); these are the same problems that happen in every legislative body. And the beauty of organized labor (and democracy) is that if you don’t like your leaders vote them out of office or start your own union. With regard to Friedman and Sherk the economic conditions of Canada and Mexico do contradict the views of Friedman and Sherk. The absence of unions in Mexico’s private workforce should eliminate Mexico’s poverty by F&S view but it hasn’t. Furthermore, with Canada’s high percentage of unions in the private workforce Canada’s poverty should increase in F&S view but it hasn’t. And I have researched Mexico’s industrialization. According to the Mexican Ministry of the Economy (Secretaria de Economia), the Mexican economy first began it’s mass industrial programs in the 1930’s. If you have information from a credible source (CIA World Fact Book, The Heritage Foundation, The Wall Street Journal, etc…) then share it on this website. Webster’s dictionary defines and investor as “An investor is any party that makes an investment”. The examples I sighted in previous posts (attributed to the CRA) state that the Canadian workforce is heavily invested in their economy. I asked you what you thought the term meant in order to determine if you would write something like “The Investor Class can be understood as someone who can invest, in a private business enterprise, between 400,000 to 800,000 to a million and more..easily.” While you are entitled to believe whatever you want, those beliefs are not automatically facts. Your comment that on 9/21 PM Harper stated that Canada is in a recession is false. Now the article that you quoted from 9/20 does state that Canada did enter a recession this year, you did not state that in post #25. However on that single point I stand corrected. You see unlike you I have the ability to learn. You can convince me that I’m wrong, but only with evidence and not just your opinion.
Gosh,Mr. Independent, gosh. Didn’t you know that Marx and Engels were German, and wrote in German, and that the German Ideology was published, late, in German..in Russia.
Gosh, how would communism, cure ‘social evil’ (and what the heck is that?). After all, communism is not a transition from anything…because economic modes are not evolutionary (heh, Marx was influenced by Darwin!)..Got that? NOT linear. NOT evolutionary.
Utopian theories are rather like a fairy tale, where, in the future, ‘all will be perfect’. And like a fairy tale, utopian theories, eg, communism, are intellectual constructs and inoperative in the real world.
ETAB,
Marx and Engels were in fact from Prussia. The German Ideology was first published in Russian. I never stated that “communism could cure social evil”. And I noticed that you didn’t address any of the inaccuracies you stated that I corrected. If you had studied the manuscripts that are being discussed (or studied anything in general), you would know what I’m talking about. You were right about one thing though “Utopian theories are rather like a fairy tale, where, in the future, ‘all will be perfect’.” And like a fairy tale, utopian theories, (communism, socialism, and libertarianism) are intellectual constructs and that have all failed in the real world.
Mr. Independent – your comments remain, not facts, but your opinion. And by the way, stop with the accusations of ‘lying’. A different analysis is NOT a lie. You, my dear, are not the Holder Of The Truth.
You haven’t provided any evidence – not a speck of evidence – that unions are beneficial to a workforce, and saying that they are, because the workers elect their union representatives, is a trivial irrelevance. It is not a value that provides any benefit to the workers. How does electing a union executive benefit the workers? And a union executive does not make laws. Establishing rules and regulations within a work environment does not require a union.
Most companies work closely with their workers and you could find that out yourself by googling such terms s ‘employee input into company management’. The practice is widespread and has been for years. Google that – and you’ll get about a million hits. These will show you how management regularly have staff and worker meetings to work on improving goods and services. But, of course, you don’t believe such collaboration has been ongoing for years and without unions. You could also try phrases like ‘performance management’, participative management; etc. Business programs in colleges and universities devote a great deal of time to this type of workplace collaboration. No unions are needed.
No, the views of Friedman and Sherk..and I hope you realize these are two different authors and two different books..are not contradicted by Canadian and Mexican realities. They do NOT state that the absence of unions should eliminate Mexican poverty or indeed, any poverty. They DO state that unions cost jobs, reduce the workforce, increase the costs of goods and services, and create an elite sector of the workforce.
When I’m speaking of an Investor Class, I’m hardly using the ambiguous general meaning of a Webster’s Dictionary. I’m using the economic meaning of a particular CLASS who can invest in the infrastructural economy of the country by paying for developing an industry, hiring workers etc. Sheesh.
My comment about the definition of an Investor Class is not a belief but a fact. I provided an example; it’s a part of the definition of an immigrant to Canada and the USA. If you want to immigrate to Canada within the term ‘Investor’, you must be prepared to invest that amount..Same with the US.
This is a credible definition of what it means to function within the Investor Class in each country. This definition applies not only to immigrants but defines your economic role as a citizen.
http://www.immigration.ca/permres-business-investor.asp
http://www.immigration.ca/us/investmentfaq.asp
You originally denied that Mexico had any unionization at all; but the reality is that it has a very high rate of unionization in both public and private areas (28%). And no, in Canada, the greatest percentage (about 60%) of unionization is in the public not private sector..which is only about 20% of the total of about 30%.
With your perspective of the benefits of unionization, then, Mexico ought to be as well off as Canada. But it isn’t.
Again, you haven’t provided any evidence for the benefits of a union – and claiming that workers can elect an executive, who make rules..is not, in itself, evidence of any benefit. The workers don’t need to pay dues for such a workplace arrangement (rules of work).
Stick the issues, Mr. Independent. Prussia was a part of Germany. Marx wrote in German; the book was published in German in Russia. If you believe otherwise, provide proof.
Now, back to the Unions. What ‘inaccuracies’ did I state that you corrected? And again, what are the benefits of a union?
ETAB
Once again you’re trying to lie your way out of being proven wrong. The only instances in which I accused you of lying were when you misquoted statements of mine. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
On the issue of the benefits to a workforce that are provided by unions. It’s very simple, they provide representation. Just like a legislature. In both you elect your leaders to pursue an agenda. If they fail to deliver you elect new leaders or start a new union. Just like you would in a legislative process. In almost every rebuttal you’ve made on this point you have tried to change to subject and ask how a union benefits the economy. I’m not speaking to that at all. All I’ve ever stated is that unions provide a very important benefit to the workforce and do not harm the economy.
Now on your point that “employee input into company management” replaces the need for unions is absurd. If you really think that, do you also feel that the US Congress and all state legislatures should be disbanded and replaced with a “voter input into government management” agency?
On my view on Friedman and Sherk, you are once again misquoting me. They do state that unions cost jobs, reduce the workforce, increase the costs of goods and services, and create an elite sector of the workforce. My rebuttal to that has always been then why hasn’t the virtual absence of unions the Mexico’s private sector lead to increased jobs, increase in the workforce, decrease the costs of goods and services, and an the elimination of an elite sector of the workforce. I further confirm that conclusion by pointing out that the lost jobs, reduction in the workforce, increase in the costs of goods and services, and the creation of an elite sector of the workforce haven’t occurred in Canada. I never stated that F&S stated my rebuttals. I did state that their views are proven false by what has occurred in Canada and Mexico.
On your point that I denied Mexico has no organized labor is false. I never stated that. My specific statement was that there is virtually no organized labor in Mexico’s private workforce. The numbers you cited were not attributed to any government agency or confirmed by independent organization (like mine were). So if Mexico’s private sector is highly unionized what is the exact percentage? Where do you learn this? And why are these unions hiding these “facts”? It would seem counter-productive to hide that from potentially new members in their country wouldn’t it? As for the stats you cited for Canadian union membership where specifically to you learn this? And if Canada has almost 2/3 of it’s union members working for the government how do the unions in Canada “cost jobs, reduce the workforce, increase the costs of goods and services, and create an elite sector of the workforce”? That doesn’t make sense. So cite where you obtained this information. It’s ironic that if you are able to provide any such credible evidence, you will be undermining your opinion that unions are bad for an economy. If the fast majority of union members in Canada do not work in the economy how are they causing the harm to it that you claim? I await your response. Remember I’m interested in facts not myths.
Mr. Independent – again, stop defining a different perspective as a lie.
Oh, speaking of ‘lies’..
Please read your post #21, where you state that Mexico has ‘virtually no organized labor’. Please note the absence of the qualifier ‘in the private sector’. And also #12, where you again state ‘there is virtually no organized labor in Mexico’. Again, note the absence of the qualifier. hmm.
Oh, and you didn’t provide any evidence for your above noted opinion.
Defining a union as ‘providing representation’ as its only benefit is trivial. There is no need for a worker to pay the massive dues for ‘representation’. You can achieve the same result of representation with a shop steward, with participatory management. No need for the dues, no need for the development of massive parastic corporations that move into political lobbying, that force wages up, force prices up, result in lowering of the quality of work..etc.
And comparing a union to a legislature is an invalid analogy. A union does not act as the administration of the company, while a national legislature does. A national legislature defines the economic infrastructure of the ‘company’ (i.e. the nation); its internal and foreign relations and infrastructure. A union does none of the above and is supposed to represent only the factors of the workplace. Your analogy is weak and again, there is no need to set up a union to act merely as ‘a representative’.
Friedman and Sherk, among so many others, point out that unions DO harm the economy. You have nothing to say about their research that concludes how, exactly, unions harm the economy. By the way, are you, like them, an economist? Check out Sherk’s references to his article. He knows what he’s talking about.
Oh, and you provide no evidence for your conclusions that unions don’t cost jobs, increase costs etc..in Canada. Why don’t you provide this evidence?
The private sector unions in Canada cost jobs and increase costs of the goods- as evidenced by the loss of jobs in the auto industry in Ontario, in the forestry in BC, manfacturing in Ontario and Quebec, etc..and in the public sector, in health care, education.
The public sector tries to raise taxes to pay for its bloated staff..but..this eventually runs out (as in California).
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2009/12/c6633.html
The above is from the public sector union Executive in Canada, insisting that unless the govt comes up with more money, massive public sector job losses will result. More money? Is that because the unionized job wage increases are 3% more than the non-unionized private sector? Is that because of the cost of the extra benefits..which include such ‘goodies’ as banking your sick days and taking them as up to SIX MONTHS extra salary when you retire? Oh..and the fact that the unionized companies and the public sector..can’t pay the cost of the bloated pensions of these union workers?
Your ‘rebuttal’ to the experts of Friedman and Sherk, has been to provide only example (your Canadian example is invalid because of the large loss of jobs in Canada). And your example of Mexico is invalid because both the public and private sector in Mexico are unionized and you totally ignore that the poverty in Mexico is not related merely to unionization but to its late industrialization ..Europe, US and Canada were industrialized in the 19th c..not 1930..and its embeddedness within the US economy..and its corruption and its refusal to develop an economy outside of the main cities.
Again, how do unions benefit the workers? And your claim that they ‘provide repesentation’ is not merely weak but trivial. Further, your rebuttal arguments citing Canada and Mexico are filled with inaccuracies (no, I’m not calling you a liar;I’m an adult and I don’t play the schoolyard game of ‘liar, liar’).
Your sentence” If the vast majority of union members in Canada do not work in the economy how are they causing the harm to it’..is totally unintelligible. Obviously a ‘union member’ who is working IS in the economy. And my point is that a union harms the economy. Just because one is working within a union doesn’t mean that the union isn’t harming the economy..with its unequal wages, benefits, increase of costs.
Once again you’re trying to distort what I’ve stated. I’ve only accused you of lying when you misquote my posts. That’s it. I’ve demonstrated why your opinions are contradicted by current events.
Speaking of the lies, the following are a few examples of what you’ve stated I said and what I actually said:
ETAB LIE #18 The Canadian Revenue Agency and Heritage Foundation do not define whether or not unions create or do not create a robust Economic climate. ACTUAL POST #12 concerning the positive effect of organized labor consider that over 1/3 of all Canadian workers are unionized. Canada has a market base economy, a very strong middle class and very little poverty. #15My previous statements are based on facts as stated by the Canadian Revenue Agency and confirmed by the Heritage Foundation.
ETAB LIE #34 It is utterly irrelevant that the executive of unions is elected; it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment and nothing to do with the economy. ACTUAL POST #29 Now ETBA you and the other readers of this post are not advocating repealing Article One of the US Constitution are you?
ETAB LIE #38 Mr. Independent – again, you are diverting you’re writing fro its original meaning and changing it. ACTUAL POST #36 It gives their members a say in how their work life will be.
ETAB LIE #38 Nope – you cannot now claim that you said this..in your first sentence. Because you didn’t. And again, what the heck does the first amendment have to do with this? ACTUAL POST #29 Now ETBA you and the other readers of this post are not advocating repealing Article One of the US Constitution are you?
Those are just a few and if you continue to misquote what I say, I will call you out for the liar you are. And for the record, I’ve never called you a liar for stating your opinion only when you have misquoted my posts. As for the evidence that I have provided as to why unions are beneficial to a workforce, if you were to read your own posts you would noticed comments like “#45 because the workers elect their union representatives, is a trivial irrelevance”. More than anything else that representation is the benefit that unions provide to it’s members. Unions do not just elect leaders but have those leaders pursue agendas. Things like the 8 hour work day, child labor law, and work safety standards are just a few of the legacies that were earned by organized labor. If you really think that representation is unnecessary then are you against Article One of the US Constitution?
On your points on ‘#45 employee input into company management’ your quote actually demonstrates why unions are so important. Most businesses primary motivation is to make as much money as it can, often at the expense of it’s employees. As long as no laws are being broken, that’s fine. By the same token an employee has the individual right to pursue employment that is as profitable as possible. The best mechanism to insure that is thru organized labor. Most individuals cannot ensure their maximum earnings from a company by themselves, thus the benefit of unions.
As to your assertion that there is no investor class in Canada your wrong again. First of all the definition you’re using is an immigration classification but that’s ok because David Thompson, Galen Weston, and James Irving are just a few of Canada’s billionaires. See the link below:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html
My actual statement concerning unionization was that there is virtually no organized labor in Mexico’s private sector. Additionally I stated in an earlier post #21 “I’d agree with you that governmental employee union power is wrong. The benefit of organized labor comes from the unionization of the private workforce not the public servants who are supposed to work for all of us.” So again your quotes in #45 were again a distortion of my statements. Now in post #45 you stated that “both public and private areas (28%)” of Mexico’s workforce is unionized, and I asked you where you learned this, what the brake down between public/private ratio is, and why it appears to be a secret. I asked for specifics and you just changed the subject.
The final points you made are irrelevant unless you can provide the information above. If you can do that the debate can continue.
The above post was in response to ETAB
Independent – I must say, you are ‘unreal’. You simply don’t understand what is written and you don’t understand economics.
I wrote that the Cdn Revenue Agency and the Cdn Heritage Fd do NOT define whether or not a union creates a robust economy. Just because you say that the Cdn economy is good, does not mean that it is robust because of unions! And certainly, neither agency has made that claim!
My mixing up of ‘Article’ and ‘Amendment’ does not take away the substance of my comment that it is utterly invalid to compare a union to a national legislature.
Ahh, so now we come to what do unions do..and you come up with ’8 hour day, child labor law and work safety’ – none of which require a union and all of which are the result of legislative, not union, agendas and activities. So, now that we have such laws, what do unions do? Hmmm?
Again, article one refers to the institution of a governmental legislature and it is a false analogy to try to say that a union is comparable.
If, as you declare (and this is debatable) a company’s sole agenda is to make as much money as possible, then, this has to include a constructive and supportive workforce. Otherwise, the products and services would be subject to indifferent work. Therefore, a good management rewards its workers. NO need – absolutely no need..for a union.
You really don’t understand much about economics, do you? Using the definition supplied by the Immigration Dept is a valid means of defining ‘what is an investor’. It refers, as a description, to both immigrants and citizens.
And citing 23 billionaires is NOT a CLASS! Nor is the Investor Class made up only of billionaires. Read the Immigration stats again..and realize that very, very few Canadians can invest that kind of money. Canada does not have an Investor Class.
As for your remarks about Mexico’s lack of ‘organized labor’ – you wrote that, and you did NOT include the qualifier ‘in the private sector’. Read what you wrote in #12,and in 321 and #29 where you state that Mexico has no organzed labor..and this is without that qualifier of ‘in the private sector’. I didn’t distort your statements; you made them.
ETAB,
Once again you’re trying to lie your way out of being proven wrong. Every single time I’ve quote you I’ve cut and pasted your comment from your posts. That frequently hasn’t been then case with you.
As to my quote concerning the CRA and the HF you stated that I posted that the CRA and the HF define whether or not a union creates a robust economy. My point was that you were that you were misquoting me. I mean seriously all you have to do is cut and paste my quotes, but you choose instead to lie about what I’ve written.
Your repeated confusion over the Articles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights illustrates your ignorance of complex concepts.
As to the specific legislation I mention all were they result of union lobbying. From your point of view, veterans had nothing to do the passage of the GI Bill since it was past by congress.
If you continue to believe that there is no need for union representation that it is contradictory to not also think that there is no longer any use for legislatures. And the comparison is completely valid.
And considering your repeated confusion over various topics that you’ve tried to discuss I doubt you can judge want anyone understands.
So how many millionaires would a country have to have in order to have an investor class?
As to your final statement I wrote in previous statements my issues with public employee unions. Once again, nice try but no cigar.
Hello there, I discovered your website by means of Google even as searching for a related topic, your web site got here up, it seems great. I have bookmarked to favourites|added to bookmarks.