Wages down 23% since 2008. Bank profits near record levels.

[BoulderSooner79]

Don't you think that Unions, with forced dues, buy enough Congressmen to dilute the laws over time too?

Yes, and that's part of the balance of power. It's unfortunate, but
whatever mechanism balances the power must include enough money
to offset what the companies can do. I would rather see the campaign
laws changed so neither side can so blatantly influence legislation. But
I don't see that happening because the guys in congress benefit from
to 2 side trying to out bid each other and they make the rules. This is
why the companies are trying so hard to bust the unions. Not just to
get the upper hand short term, but to reduce union dues and thus
legislation long term.

[SCOUT]

Yes, and that's part of the balance of power. It's unfortunate, but
whatever mechanism balances the power must include enough money
to offset what the companies can do. I would rather see the campaign
laws changed so neither side can so blatantly influence legislation. But
I don't see that happening because the guys in congress benefit from
to 2 side trying to out bid each other and they make the rules. This is
why the companies are trying so hard to bust the unions. Not just to
get the upper hand short term, but to reduce union dues and thus
legislation long term.

I don't think unions are part of the balance of power. Your claim was the rich company owners would just buy legislation, but the reality is that unions do that more than anyone.

To your other point, companies are trying to bust the unions so they can be profitable and pay market wages.

Extortion shouldn't be a way of business in 2014.

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't think unions are part of the balance of power. Your claim was the rich company owners would just buy legislation, but the reality is that unions do that more than anyone.

To your other point, companies are trying to bust the unions so they can be profitable and pay market wages.

Extortion shouldn't be a way of business in 2014.

Companies want to control the definition of "market wages". Look no further than the recent ruling against the kind of companies I work for (Google,Apple,Facebook,etc). They just lost in court against charges of collusion of trying to keep wages down for high-tech workers. They had secret agreements between companies to not poach workers because it was driving salaries up too high. This was a case of workers having the upper hand because of pure supply and demand market forces and the companies tried to subvert it. These are our high tech, gleaming, innovative companies held up as shining example of free market capitalism.

If you don't think that our 2014 business leaders wouldn't revert to 1914 labor conditions if there was nothing to stop them, you are naive. It would be a slow, incremental process, but it would happen due to competition. If one competitor took a step that way and lowered costs, it would force the competition to follow suite. It wouldn't be from evil designs, just survival instincts.

[SCOUT]

Companies want to control the definition of "market wages". Look no further than the recent ruling against the kind of companies I work for (Google,Apple,Facebook,etc). They just lost in court against charges of collusion of trying to keep wages down for high-tech workers. They had secret agreements between companies to not poach workers because it was driving salaries up too high. This was a case of workers having the upper hand because of pure supply and demand market forces and the companies tried to subvert it. These are our high tech, gleaming, innovative companies held up as shining example of free market capitalism.

If you don't think that our 2014 business leaders wouldn't revert to 1914 labor conditions if there was nothing to stop them, you are naive. It would be a slow, incremental process, but it would happen due to competition. If one competitor took a step that way and lowered costs, it would force the competition to follow suite. It wouldn't be from evil designs, just survival instincts.

I disagree with almost everything you typed. For example, I hire people for a living. My company is successful because we pay better, operate better and just have a better environment than any of our competitors. You are right that market forces can force wages down, but the same is true on the upward side. I am literally an example of that.

Unions don't ever change. They are always anti-management.

Management isn't always anti-worker.

That is the difference.

[pphilfran]

I disagree with almost everything you typed. For example, I hire people for a living. My company is successful because we pay better, operate better and just have a better environment than any of our competitors. You are right that market forces can force wages down, but the same is true on the upward side. I am literally an example of that.

Unions don't ever change. They are always anti-management.

Management isn't always anti-worker.

That is the difference.

Excessive supply of labor results in low wages....
Companies are on a never ending quest to cut costs...

[SCOUT]

Excessive supply of labor results in low wages....
Companies are on a never ending quest to cut costs...

I agree that an excessive supply of labor suppresses wages, but that is not the case with Unions.

[BoulderSooner79]

I disagree with almost everything you typed. For example, I hire people for a living. My company is successful because we pay better, operate better and just have a better environment than any of our competitors. You are right that market forces can force wages down, but the same is true on the upward side. I am literally an example of that.

Unions don't ever change. They are always anti-management.

Management isn't always anti-worker.

That is the difference.

I've seen all these forces in action at companies I've worked for. As a programmer,
I'm fortunately the demand has exceeded supply for almost all my career, and
there has never been a push to unionize (and unionizing programmers would
amount to herding cats). I'm compensated well and always have been. But
my companies have tried to lower wages by hiring in India, China, Bulgaria
and other lower wage locales. And they lobby congress to increase the quota
of H1 visas to bring cheaper labor here, so I'm not oblivious to what's going
on. If they could displace me with someone cheaper, they would.

As I've said, I'm not pro union, just pro workers' rights. My leverage
comes from too few US kids wanting to go into technical fields. The
balance of power may come from different places for different
professions.

I'm glad your company pays better and is run better. I hope some
unscrupulous company doesn't come in and undercut you and
hurt your business.

[TAFBSooner]

I disagree with almost everything you typed. For example, I hire people for a living. My company is successful because we pay better, operate better and just have a better environment than any of our competitors. You are right that market forces can force wages down, but the same is true on the upward side. I am literally an example of that.

In the tech industry, salaries were forced down by collusion between the companies, not by market forces.

(If you consider collusion between companies to be a market force, please so state and explain.)

If you are OK with the tech companies joining forces against the workers, why are you against the workers joining forces against management?

[SCOUT]

In the tech industry, salaries were forced down by collusion between the companies, not by market forces.

(If you consider collusion between companies to be a market force, please so state and explain.)

If you are OK with the tech companies joining forces against the workers, why are you against the workers joining forces against management?

There is a bit more to it than just those companies, but I am willing to even accept the notion for the sake of argument. Oh and I never said that i was OK with collusion, but again for the sake of argument...

Instead of asking the question you did, why wouldn't you reverse it? If workers join forces against management, as they have for decades, why are you opposed to the reverse?

[BoulderSooner79]

There is a bit more to it than just those companies, but I am willing to even accept the notion for the sake of argument. Oh and I never said that i was OK with collusion, but again for the sake of argument...

Instead of asking the question you did, why wouldn't you reverse it? If workers join forces against management, as they have for decades, why are you opposed to the reverse?

Big guy vs. little guy. The workers must gather together in some way to have any clout at all. Big companies already have huge clout by themselves - look at Apples cash and market value. But it is a complex system and the dynamics of the monster company certainly don't scale down to the mom and pop corner store. So many people want a black and white, good vs evil conflict when it comes to something like unions and truth is always grey scale. If either side totally wins, it will be a careful what you wish for situation.

[Sooner8th]

There is a bit more to it than just those companies, but I am willing to even accept the notion for the sake of argument. Oh and I never said that i was OK with collusion, but again for the sake of argument...

Instead of asking the question you did, why wouldn't you reverse it? If workers join forces against management, as they have for decades, why are you opposed to the reverse?

The difference is the company can hire and fire you. If you start to make to much money, a company can simply lay you off and keep younger cheaper workers. I know some unions do work across companies, but manufacturing unions negotiate contracts with each individual company with different wage rates so you don't have an entire industry setting a wage rate.