Boeing's South Carolina employees run off Union organizers
Posted by Non_mooching_artist 9 years ago to Business
I am actually elated after reading this. Unions are the socialists means of control over workers under the guise of "fairness".
Just another scheme to redistribute wealth and maintain control over a cowed populace. Kudos to the Boeing employees!!
Just another scheme to redistribute wealth and maintain control over a cowed populace. Kudos to the Boeing employees!!
As long as the area is 'at will', then unions can compete with free workers - and win if they can. It is when there is a closed shop that unions become frightening.
Jan
From the article; "The union filed an unfair labor practice with the National Labor Relations Board in which it alleged that "two organizers were threatened at gunpoint and others reported hostile and near-violent confrontations," according to a union press release"
Union organizers use forceful, sometimes violent tactics and are protected by law but then accuse the opposition of using the same tactics. Classic communist tactics according to Oleg Atbashian.of the Peoples Cube.
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.
It disgusts me that people DEMAND such high wages when they haven't been earned, when their experience dictates a much lower wage.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Hasn't Volkswagen workers also voted against the unions at least 3 times. Except Volkswagen is pushing the unions.
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)
After 18 years at my current job, the "union" bought off our governor and forced all state employees to become dues paying members. The gun that they pointed at our heads was "join or be fired".
Like I said, I had worked here for 18 years and now was going to be fired if I refused to join the union...not because of poor job performance...only if I didn't "pay" to keep my job.
With only a few years to retirement, I caved and paid their ransom. At least, I took the easy way out and pay only for that which is used to represent my interests. That fact requires the union to refund a portion of my dues, every year.
I can't think of the term for "de-unionizing" my job, but I'm ready to take the vote, when and if it comes up. Scott Walker...where are you when we need you?
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.
In any event, it is an interesting turn when union leaders, who historically have used violence or the threat of violence to intimidate workers, are now complaining about threats.
Good 😎
Cronymals all of them.