Walker v. Public Employees

[we vs us]

You got your edit in before I could respond.  I'll agree, for now, that Walker should accept the concessions and move on.  

Have you ever been in the position of taking a cut or losing your job?  I have.  I took the cut to try to save the company.  Ultimately the company went under but not for the lack of the will of the employees.

As a sidebar, I don't see much difference conceptually between busting a union and forcing a union on a group that doesn't really want one by the "usual tactics". It only depends on which side you are on.

Just wanted to underscore here that the unions have agreed to all of Walker's cuts.  They ONLY thing they're protesting is his attempt to take away their ability to collectively bargain.

This very specifically about union busting. 

Also:  Ohio's next.

[Red Arrow]

This very specifically about union busting. 

Do you want to turn this thread into one about union busting?  I think it's been done on TNF before but we can revive it if you want.

[we vs us]

Do you want to turn this thread into one about union busting?  I think it's been done on TNF before but we can revive it if you want.

I'm up for whatever discussion you want to have, but I think when you know some even basic facts about what's happening in Wisconsin, it's pretty hard to see it as anything else other than a concerted effort by Walker to bust the public service unions.

[Red Arrow]

I'm up for whatever discussion you want to have, but I think when you know some even basic facts about what's happening in Wisconsin, it's pretty hard to see it as anything else other than a concerted effort by Walker to bust the public service unions.

I agree that the concessions accepted by the union are separable from the "union busting".  I have already said that Walker should accept the concessions and move on. 

Busting the Union may be an issue that Walker wishes to pursue but he needs to accept what has been offered so far.  It's probably not something that a resident of Oklahoma really needs to be involved in.

[Red Arrow]

I was under the impression that, in general, the employees get to vote on whether or not to unionize..

Do you have any problem with an employer that says the heck with it, I don't want to put up with a union and then goes out of business?

[nathanm]

Do you have any problem with an employer that says the heck with it, I don't want to put up with a union and then goes out of business?

Of course not, when there's not an imbalance of power being exploited with that decision. A person is free to be in business for themselves or not as they please. What I do have a problem with are chains closing stores to prevent unionization. This is because they're clearly desire to continue in their line of business, but they don't feel like negotiating a single contract for some reason.

I have less of a problem with a single-owner small business doing pretty much whatever they like (barring discrimination, among a few other things I think we all agree are beyond the pale) because the power imbalance is smaller in that case. When it comes to larger companies and/or governments, I think the increased imbalance of power between employer and employee justifies some interference in that relationship to keep things on the level. Personally, I'd rather have unions negotiating wages rather than government setting wages in situations where the power imbalance is too great for individual employees to negotiate a fair deal on their own.

Even fervent proponents of the invisible hand like Milton Friedman agree with that concept.

It's ironic, to be sure, but the free market can't really be free without some regulation to ensure the freedom of its participants.

[Red Arrow]

Of course not, when there's not an imbalance of power being exploited with that decision. A person is free to be in business for themselves or not as they please. What I do have a problem with are chains closing stores to prevent unionization. This is because they're clearly desire to continue in their line of business, but they don't feel like negotiating a single contract for some reason.

That reason probably has less to do with a single contract than it does with the work place rules and hassles that go with dealing with a union that would go with it.  If a chain would rather not do business in a community,  they should have the right to close down.  If the chain is a bad enough place to work, it will find itself unionized all over or out of business entirely.  Unions targeting a few stores in a chain to get a foot in just to have a union there is not acceptable to me.  Remember that Unions are nothing more than big business themselves.

[nathanm]

Fair's fair, my friend. Unions help to rebalance the imbalance of power. And the rules don't work such that they can unionize the entire company at once, so it's gotta start in one store somewhere.

Again, if you run a business for yourself and hire a few people, there is little to no imbalance of power to be cured.

[Red Arrow]

Fair's fair, my friend. Unions help to rebalance the imbalance of power. And the rules don't work such that they can unionize the entire company at once, so it's gotta start in one store somewhere.
Again, if you run a business for yourself and hire a few people, there is little to no imbalance of power to be cured.

You either missed or chose to ignore my point of having a union just to have a union regardless of working condtions. 
Fair's fair is correct.  If a company doesn't feel like dealing with something, they have the option of closing down.  Sometimes the patient doesn't have to die, just the offending portions need to be removed.   If a union is needed, it will fester in more than one store of a chain. 

[Gaspar]

I guess I'm confused about this "Power Imbalance" term. 

"Work for" implies that you are providing labor or expertise to someone else.  They are paying for that.  "Ballence" is dictated by the market.  If you are earning less money for your labor or expertise, then you are free to seek employment elsewhere. 

As an employee, you have the power to seek a better job.  As an employer you have the power to seek a better employee.

Demand dictates the number of employees and the amount of product produced.  Profit belongs to the employer. 

Monopoly and subsidy corrupt the process through artificial profit, lack of competition, or inflated demand.

Regulation introduces limitations, and can lead to monopoly (through impediment) or decrease in quality (through increase in operating expense, and decrease in innovation).


People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. – Joseph Sobran

Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior. – Dee Hock

 

[Gaspar]

You either missed or chose to ignore my point of having a union just to have a union regardless of working condtions. 
Fair's fair is correct.  If a company doesn't feel like dealing with something, they have the option of closing down.  Sometimes the patient doesn't have to die, just the offending portions need to be removed.   If a union is needed, it will fester in more than one store of a chain. 

Since the impact of the repeal of prohibition, and a law enforcement system capable of tracing most large transactions, unions have become the only refuge left for the old organized crime groups. 

Organization is not just for the sake of organization, it is a business.  A big business dealing in hundreds of billions of dollars transfered from the workforce to these groups.  It is the ultimate evolution of protection money. 

This protection money is still used to pay for politicians, and there is still a great deal of fear and consequence in resisting it.

[nathanm]

I guess I'm confused about this "Power Imbalance" term.  

Then you aren't much of a libertarian.

Rather than make you go read the copious writing on the subject, I'll write about it myself: In a free market, the correct price can only be arrived at by a willing buyer and willing seller of similar power agreeing on a price. If one of the seller or buyer are in a position of power over the other, they can unilaterally dictate the price, thus distorting the market.

For example, at one time Wal-Mart induced Rubbermaid to sell them product at below cost. Why? Because Rubbermaid posited that it was in their best interest to sell a lot of product at a small loss rather than sell much less product and have to fire most of their workforce. They hoped to make it up by increasing prices to other purchasers. A purchaser with less control of the market could never have made that demand and certainly never had that demand honored. Purchasing something at below cost is not economically efficient, so is bad for the market.

Similarly, an individual seeking to be hired at Wal-Mart has no leverage for negotiation unless perhaps they are already C level. There is a significant imbalance of power in that relationship, so an efficient free market is unlikely to be seen. Throw collective bargaining in the mix and there is a more equal relationship, so the willing buyer and willing seller can arrive at the best price, economically speaking.

Unions may have their problems. Some may even be corrupt, I don't know. (I won't concede the point, but I won't dispute it, either) That in no way implicates the entire concept as being somehow a bad thing. There's ample proof that the management at many companies fears unionization, primarily because it upsets what they see as an imbalance of power in their favor. Nobody likes having to negotiate from a position of equality, but that is precisely what is required for the free market to function at its best.

[we vs us]

"Work for" implies that you are providing labor or expertise to someone else.  They are paying for that.  "Ballence" is dictated by the market.  If you are earning less money for your labor or expertise, then you are free to seek employment elsewhere.  

As an employee, you have the power to seek a better job.  As an employer you have the power to seek a better employee.

 

You're leaving out a major option for both sides:  negotiation.  

It's a big hit to both management and labor to have an employee pool whose only option is to stay or go.  If negotiation is an option, that opening for discussion can help set a much better price and eliminate the need to constantly hire and train new workers.  At the same time, negotiation helps labor show their value to management.

EDIT:  I promise I didn't read your post, nate.

[Gaspar]

Then you aren't much of a libertarian.

Rather than make you go read the copious writing on the subject, I'll write about it myself: In a free market, the correct price can only be arrived at by a willing buyer and willing seller of similar power agreeing on a price. If one of the seller or buyer are in a position of power over the other, they can unilaterally dictate the price, thus distorting the market.

For example, at one time Wal-Mart induced Rubbermaid to sell them product at below cost. Why? Because Rubbermaid posited that it was in their best interest to sell a lot of product at a small loss rather than sell much less product and have to fire most of their workforce. They hoped to make it up by increasing prices to other purchasers. A purchaser with less control of the market could never have made that demand and certainly never had that demand honored. Purchasing something at below cost is not economically efficient, so is bad for the market.

Similarly, an individual seeking to be hired at Wal-Mart has no leverage for negotiation unless perhaps they are already C level. There is a significant imbalance of power in that relationship, so an efficient free market is unlikely to be seen. Throw collective bargaining in the mix and there is a more equal relationship, so the willing buyer and willing seller can arrive at the best price, economically speaking.

Unions may have their problems. Some may even be corrupt, I don't know. (I won't concede the point, but I won't dispute it, either) That in no way implicates the entire concept as being somehow a bad thing. There's ample proof that the management at many companies fears unionization, primarily because it upsets what they see as an imbalance of power in their favor. Nobody likes having to negotiate from a position of equality, but that is precisely what is required for the free market to function at its best.

LOL!  You seem to build your own definitions, but that's ok.

Negotiation is positive, and it's part of the complex relationship between an employee and an employer.   Each holds an equal barganing chip.  The employee holds his skills and labor, and the employer holds his investment in that labor or those skills.

When the employee comes to the table with a third party, or as a collective with other employees, the process is corrupted. 

Lets say I'm the lazyist person in the company and I want a raise and 4 weeks of vacation time.  I go to my boss and he laugh's at me and says, "NO. Your performance is not worthy of such investment."  At that point, If I value my skills above my current pay and benefits, I have the option to seek employment elsewhere.

Now, same scenario, except I am a union member.  I meet with my union rep and we discuss, not my performance, but the performance of all of the employees at my pay grade doing my same or similar jobs.  We march as a collective into the bosses office and demand a pay raise and increase in benefits.  The negotiations begin.  Because there are several employees that actually do their jobs efficiently, the boss makes a concession to increase benefits and possibly avoid a strike.  The investment was cheaper than the alternative.  Now you have the worst performing employees being rewarded at the same level as the best performing.  You have removed the performance incentive from the workplace. 

[Red Arrow]

Similarly, an individual seeking to be hired at Wal-Mart has no leverage for negotiation unless perhaps they are already C level. There is a significant imbalance of power in that relationship, so an efficient free market is unlikely to be seen. Throw collective bargaining in the mix and there is a more equal relationship, so the willing buyer and willing seller can arrive at the best price, economically speaking.

With a Union, you are trading one entity (company) for another (union).  Go to a Union shop and try to negotiate as an individual to get something better than the Union contract offers.