As long as businesses are forced to sit at the table with the unions there can be no reasonable outcome. But if we can't make that argument how can we expect to convince anybody.

I would have no problem with a union if it didn't purport to represent, or try to collect fees from, anybody who doesn't want to join. The NLRA does allow unions to take that position rather than "represent" everybody at a plant -- but none of them do it.

Where I'm at we have 2 good size power plants, a few coal mines, natural gas and oil fields and pipelines everywhere. We get Boilermakers and Pipefitters and others through here from all over the country and that is exactly how they work. They tend be a rowdy bunch and there are some that aren't fit to push a broom. But while I wouldn't want to hire most any of them in my shop, many of them are damn good at what they do. And the unions have stringent testing and high standards for the better jobs. A lot of them have a right to be proud as they work hard to build a good reputation and they get asked back by name. A lot of them, though, are just primadonnas and they all rely on unemployment while between jobs. The point is it's a real system and it could work fine if the government would get out of the way.

For the longer term purposes think about what unions were originally started for. Working conditions and wages. We have replaced the unions in those areas with numerous government agencies. Now all the unions have to do is sit around and make up ways to remain "necessary". I don't know about you but I'd rather deal with a union on a voluntary basis than any of the aforementioned government agencies any day.

The answer to your last question is the best part. If the union/staffing agency couldn't come up with a long term business model that benefits their customers they would just go away.

"Then the union becomes responsible for providing quality workers..."

Ah. So you are thinking of it in terms more like a staffing agency. I think I understand where you are coming from now. And yes, in several ways staffing agencies work a lot like how you describe your hypothetical union acting: the company hires a staffing agency to provide qualified labor and in exchange, the company gets charged a higher wage rate of which the staffing agency takes a cut before delivering the rest to the laborer.

This type of approach really only has a chance with a high-turnover, low-skill labor pool - which undoubtedly exists today. It is the one most subject to automation for the same reasons. These arrangements tend to break down, however, in a low-turnover or high-skill labor pool because the efficiencies drive the system toward permanent employees rather than the temporary arrangements provided by a staffing company because both the company and the worker want the stability and without the middle man, the employer can effectively pay less (overall) and more (to the employee) at the same time - all without any difference in productivity of the employee. So the real question for your hypothetical is can the staffing agency identify a long-term market in which this model can be successful or are they going to focus on the temp-to-hire idea?

I guess I didn't state that as well as I could have. You cannot deny individuals the right to assemble and work together for common interests. (the legitimate function of a union) That said, bargaining requires 2 sides and nobody should be able to force you, as an employer, to the bargaining table.

It's amazing how the Hispanic workers could see what we in management was trying to do however the hard sell was with white Americans who didn't want to work yet get paid. Good thing the Hispanic out numbered the white people. Almost made me ashamed to be white.

In a free market a union would be returned to its proper position as a representative of a group of employees who might otherwise be unheard in a large company. Around here we tend to be pro-business but you have to keep in mind that not all business owners and of course not all management is going to be ethical, even in a free market where they might eventually suffer for their lack of ethics.

A union could be beneficial to both the employee and the employer. If either could walk away from the union at any time then the services provided would have to be beneficial. If the employee had to write a check for his union membership he would make sure the union was representing him the way he wanted. Imagine a company needing some skilled workers for a three month job. With a good relationship with a union and they are covered with one phone call. Then the union becomes responsible for providing quality workers or they are not going to get that phone call. And the workers need to do their best to get into the right union so they can get that work. Nobody has a gun to anybodies head. Anybody, including the union, can walk away. The union becomes a business who's customers are both the employee and the employer.

When I can, I donate to the National Right to Work foundation so I get frequent emails of their activities. Sometimes so many that I just end up deleting them without reading them but it seemed like one of them was talking about the unions losing at VW in spite of the company being pro-union.

Why does anyone posit a RIGHT to bargain collectively?

I don't hire employees as a group, I employ them as individuals.
If you don't like the terms of employment, don't take the job.
If you think you are worth more, but your employer disagrees, find another job.
(If you can, people's claimed skill sets do not appear as comprehensive or effective to the employer on the job)

You're welcome.

Now that's interesting. A small union to keep out the big union.

So let me ask this question: how would a union even exist in a true market?

The reason I can't condone unions in any way is because they are an artificial device created to distort markets by force. Their premise isn't based on who can do the best job and therefore demand the best pay (value given and value received), but rather on coercion to demand pay, etc., regardless of performance.

I absolutely agree that governments exacerbate the problems presented by unions, but I can't get away from the initial premise of the union in the first place: the proposition that the union worker's membership in a union somehow makes them more valuable than their actual productive activities.

In a free market, genuine capitalism, when their work is not worth what they are demanding, pay or otherwise, the business owner/management is free to walk away.

I agree with everything else you said but none of it justifies the accusation that unions are inherently evil. That accusation completely ignores the fact that unions could accomplish NONE of that without the strong arm of government backing them up. That statement is based on the current activities of unions after years of government meddling. I could make the same exact argument about capitalism. "Capitalism is evil. Capitalism has failed us in healthcare. Capitalism has failed us in the financial sector." We (on this site) all know that this is an illegitimate argument. We all (should) know that capitalism has never failed because it has never been fully implemented. We also know that any time someone on the left makes that argument he loses any credibility. At least for us. So how can you expect to make a blanket argument like that and maintain any credibility.

Big unions have become nothing more than another tool of the government (mostly the democrat party) to gain votes and to pound on, harass, and extort money from businesses. To blame this on the "inherently evil" union is to deny the root of the problem and loose the debate before you ever get started.

I tend to agree with that assessment.

Very well stated and I agree. The overinflated wage clearly results in your above mentioned logical outcome; less profit margin, lower demand for the goods, less production.

It disgusts me that people DEMAND such high wages when they haven't been earned, when their experience dictates a much lower wage.

Funny! Cronymals! True

They are the biggest PAC the Dems have. And the most "coercive".

Here is the article i found regarding the "anti-union" union at VW Chattanooga, TN plant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/story...

Like VW. They find it odd that the Tennessee plant doesn't want the UAW. So there are some employees creating their own sort of group, not a union per se, but similar. The exception would be it's only for the workers at the VW plant, not a national type of organization. It's still a collective type thing, though.

They have a stake in their employment when it's not guaranteed. Work hard, EARN the rewards of it. And job security will naturally follow, because a good company wants to keep its productive employees. Who wants to pay someone a wage they haven't earned? And I would feel like such a looter if I was paid for more than my ability. Ugh!

What I found interesting was that even though the union thugs were complaining about people pulling guns on them, none of them bothered to file a police report. If this were real, they would not only have an open-and-shut assault case, but it would make intervention by the NLRB almost a gimme.

What does this say to me?

It never happened. They got run out of town by good old-fashioned people standing up to bullies who can't take what they dish.

When their work isn't worth what they are demanding as pay, yes.

What they are doing is essentially forming a non-competitive oligopoly on labor, are they not? They aren't professing better quality work to justify higher pay or better benefits and neither is the market calling for it. They are simply creating an artificial labor shortage in order to drive wages up.

The thing that unions continue to fail to understand is that the only thing they are doing is raising the price of the goods manufactured by these companies. And according to the basic, immutable laws of supply and demand, a higher price leads to lower demand. So while they might be getting paid more, their company is inevitably going to be producing less and selling less!

I have no problem with people working hard to earn better pay. Positive working conditions should be mutual - work environment studies show that a positive environment leads to dramatically better production, so this should be a no-brainer for any competent manager. What I have a problem with is people who think they deserve more without changing what they are doing or how they are doing it. That's the entitlement attitude that has us sitting at real debt in this nation >$100 TRILLION.

There is not even a police report since they didn't go to the police. The only thing resembling proof is how quickly they backed down.

VW US was not in favor and voted such. I haven't seen what has transpired recently, but will look into it. Tennessee I believe is where the particular plant is.

So a group of individuals working together to improve their pay and/or working conditions is inherently evil? Care to defend that conclusion?