How people are treated has nothing to do with whether they are *able* to organize. And there's a difference between employees of a given company at a given location bargaining collectively, and the formation of professional unions which exist as parasites on business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8MVFoiw-...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8zNsUTWs...

No reason. except the business owners aren't protected by law in their organizing.

If laborers unionize, people like me will come in and undercut them... unless government prevents it, with closed-shop State type rules and regulations.

If unionization works so well for everybody... why are unions on the decline?

Like a bigot, you damn the "greed" of businesses, but fail to damn the "greed" of their employees.

The question is: 'How does grouping together increase their value?'

How does investors working together increase their "value?"

In fact labor grouped together can help define their value to investors.

First, their profit margins are not "huge". Second, they won't be competitive with fast food places that *don't* pay their employees more than they're worth. Third, they're under no obligation to keep employees or stay in business. If they wish to have an 80% profit margin, and the employees unionize and try to force them into a 40% profit margin (which they can't do without government support), then the employer can take his marbles and go home. He can start another business, or go to work for another business. Let's see those employees do the same after pulling that little stunt.

How does grouping together increase their value? Union workers are less productive than non-union, and more expensive.
They are not low earners because of corporate greed, and wanting more money than their labor is worth is dishonest greed on their part.
They want a better position to establish their value, get educated. Get experience. Keep their genitals in their pants and not produce kids they can't feed themselves.

You can't have it both ways; either you subsidize those people with food stamps, or your let them go hungry. Blaming McDonald's, which owes them *nothing*, certainly not employment, does not address the problem.

Let's say you double their salary. The McDonald's franchise has to increase prices to accommodate the lost productivity; or they can fire half their employees... the most expensive half.

Meanwhile, Walmart workers, having to pay more for their McDonald's meals, stop eating McDonald's and go to Burger King, or buy food at Walmart's deli, or buy Ramen Noodles or cans of Mini-Ravioli, foods nutritionally no better than that at McDonald's. McDonald's profits go down, more layoffs. Stores start shutting down.

Congrats, you put the mean old greedy franchisee out of business... and unemployed everyone who worked for him.

Why is corporate greed so much worse than employee greed? Because the numbers to the left of the decimal point are so much more numerous? Why is it okay for employees to blackmail a company into paying them MORE THAN THE VALUE OF THEIR CONTRIBUTION, but not okay for a company to make more profit than some smarmy academician arbitrarily deems sufficient?

Hiraghm says: "a wage appropriate to the employees' contribution."

That is negotiable through unions.

"Unions exist for the benefit of the union officers"

Sadly you are correct that corruption often manifests itself in taking advantage of others. But to combat corporate abuses can you offer another solution?

Wrong Rocky...

Without corporate abuses there would be no unions. Walmart, McDonald's, etc. have abused enough folks that unions are seriously considered as a weapon against corporate abuses.

From Hiraghm: "just like GM,"

Actually Ford did OK with its unions and all that stuff through the recent troubled times. I like to attribute to Ford marketing to all Americans and not catering to the right wing, but that's only my opinion.

Oh, and my guess is that your are claiming to be below the 50th percentile, which is an IQ of 100 on most standardized tests? Figures.

Absolutely false. It initially began at 1% (now Intertel) and changed to 2% to make more folks eligible. Currently Mensa has approximately 50,000 members and Intertel has about 5,000 members in America. You really should get your facts correct.

Does the government decide what to pay McDonald's employees? Ohhhhh, minimum wage oppresses! If the employees make less they will be more free!

And what management, holy, or even motivational book agrees with that?

You can buy it for them.
The problem of your tax dollars buying them food has nothing to do with McDonald's paying their employees a wage appropriate to the employees' contribution. That's a problem of do-gooder legislation.

Ain't no accounting for bigotry. Oh well.