GM and the UAW

[geni]

And since there are no labor markets in the modern US of which I am aware (feel free to provide a counter-example) there is no need to counter monosopy power that doesn't exist.

Air traffic control.

 

[geni]

For all their fighting unions arent out to destroy business. They need the business to succeed.

However some unions are stupid.

 

[Tmy]

However some unions are stupid.

True. And the same goes for some companies. Im not saying unions are perfect, far from it. I do belive our country is better off with them. Take a look around the globe. All the winner countries have a union presence.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Air traffic control.

Actually, I did think of government. And that's more true than in most places, but that's because the government CAUSED the job, not the market.

But even still, there aren't air traffic controllers that don't have other employment options. And if you want to get right down to it there are both civilian and military air traffic controllers. A better example might be the labor market for diplomats, or some such. Clearly we'll get corner cases with the government. Aside from the involuntary servitude status of military personel, however, government workers can still quit and get other government or civilian jobs at will.

Aaron

 

[Tmy]

And since there are no labor markets in the modern US of which I am aware (feel free to provide a counter-example) there is no need to counter monopoly power that doesn't exist.

Your statement about a more even wealth distribution is highly suspect, but not germane, so I'll ignore it.

Aaron

baseball is a monopoly. Most sports are.

I think you are being to literal with the term monopoly. If you are a big plant employer out in some town, you are the only game in town. You have monopoly type powers because the work force relies on you. Its either work at MegaCo or work nowhere.

 

[geni]

Actually, I did think of government. And that's more true than in most places, but that's because the government CAUSED the job, not the market.

Your air traffic control system is still goverment owned?

Amtrak almost certianly has jobs that have no direct equiverlents anywhere else.

But even still, there aren't air traffic controllers that don't have other employment options. And if you want to get right down to it there are both civilian and military air traffic controllers.

Diffent skill set though.

A better example might be the labor market for diplomats, or some such.

There isn't one the highest levels of your diplomatic service (ie where the actal diplomats turn up) are entirely run by political patronage

Clearly we'll get corner cases with the government. Aside from the involuntary servitude status of military personel, however, government workers can still quit and get other government or civilian jobs at will.

Only if they have the skills.

In other areas patents will establish short term monopolies and of course de beers continues to control much of the diamond trade.

I don't know your economy that well though.

 

[HeavyAaron]

For all their fighting unions arent out to destroy business. They need the business to succeed.

Strawman.

The problem with business is that is driven just by profits, profits NOW! So they are willing to do harm to society and the country in order to make a buck. Unions are least lookinng out for the workers. Which doenst allways mean they want the most $ for the worker.

Of course business is driven by profits. That's its function. Businesses are SUPPOSED to maximize profits without regards to anything else, including the welfare of their employees. As for your "NOW!" part you're simply wrong. Businesses maximize the present value of their profit. Sometimes that means intentionally taking short term losses, in fact. Certainly there are problems with executives not doing this which is in the best intest of their bosses (the stockholders.) But this is a case of EMPLOYEES ACTING IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS instead of the interests of the company... just like unions do. It's called the "agency problem" if you want to look it up.

But just because a company doesn't care about its employees doesn't mean the employees get the bum of it. They aren't protected by their company, they are actually protected by the threat of their employees leaving for another company. This is more than ample to protect them. In fact you didn't respond to one point in my entire post demonstrating this.

There's a whole science devoted to understanding how this works. Maybe you should look into what those scientists have discovered rather than trusting your intuition or partisian rhetoric.

Then theres the non money issues. Fairness issues. Why should the promotion go to the underseving son in law of the boss?? Why should workers be fired on a whim when theyve put so much of their lives into a company.

Companies that hire undeserving people or fire people on a whim are companies that are not acting optimally towards their only goal... maximizing profits. That very motive you despise discourages exactly the behavior that you dislike. How wonderful! The free market is very evolutionary. Companies that make bad decisions dire out. There is a natural selection mechanism for filtering out that sort of behavior.

Let's talk about the fairness issue, shall we? Unions prevent firing of lousy employees. They prevent employers for paying more for better employees. They prevent hiring of better employees to replace crumy ones. They insist upon contracts that pay more for people who have worked for the company longer instead of people who produce more. How is any of that "fair?" How do you define "fair" anyway? I define it as playing by free market rules which rewards success and is completely indiscriminate.

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

baseball is a monopoly. Most sports are.

I think you are being to literal with the term monopoly. If you are a big plant employer out in some town, you are the only game in town. You have monopoly type powers because the work force relies on you. Its either work at MegaCo or work nowhere.

I didn't ask about monopolies. Monopolies aren't a problem with this regard. Monopsonies are. baseball players can happily switch from one team to another (provided the unions don't stop them.)

And I'm asking you to name this MegaCo that controls an ENTIRE labor market.

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

Your air traffic control system is still goverment owned?

Amtrak almost certianly has jobs that have no direct equiverlents anywhere else.



Diffent skill set though.

It's pretty dog gone close. I have close friends who've done both, and I have a pilot's license, so I'm not unknowledgable about this myself. But of course there will be some difference of skill sets between any two jobs. So?

There isn't one the highest levels of your diplomatic service (ie where the actal diplomats turn up) are entirely run by political patronage



Only if they have the skills.

In other areas patents will establish short term monopolies and of course de beers continues to control much of the diamond trade.

I don't know your economy that well though.

Ack! Stop it with the monopolies. They don't cause the problem. Monopoly is the sole SUPPLIER of a good or service. (A union is a monopoly of labor.) Monopsonies are the problem. They are the only PURCHASER of a good or service. A monopsony in the labor market is the only EMPLOYER a person could have. i.e. there are no other jobs available to the person other than the one person.

Monopsonies are as illegal in the US as monopolies are. Unions are one of the few exceptions to anti-trust law. They are mostly legal.

Aaron

 

[Mycroft]

The difference being this works in practice.

I disagree.

History clearly shows that given the opportunity big business will exploit its workers in near slave-like conditions.

This "free market" is great if your skills are creative or technical or in some other way in high demand. For the vast majority of people who are "cogs in the machine", they may very much be at the whim of how their employers choose to treat them.

 

[Tmy]

Let's talk about the fairness issue, shall we? Unions prevent firing of lousy employees. They prevent employers for paying more for better employees. They prevent hiring of better employees to replace crumy ones. They insist upon contracts that pay more for people who have worked for the company longer instead of people who produce more. How is any of that "fair?" How do you define "fair" anyway? I define it as playing by free market rules which rewards success and is completely indiscriminate.

Aaron

Companies are made of people. People will do things that may not be in the best interest of the company.

Its a fallacy to say Unions prevent fireings. Comapanies can still fire employees if their is just reason to do so. The problem is that companies are too lazy to jump through the hoops.

As for the seniority system. Well its what many unions do because the fairness is time based. You know your slot and you know what to expect. As you said how do you define "fair".

Is their even such a thing as a free market anyway?? One thats not manipulated with tarriffs, patents, govt protection, ect...


What points did you want me to hit? I mixing up posters.

 

[Tmy]

Ack! Stop it with the monopolies. They don't cause the problem. Monopoly is the sole SUPPLIER of a good or service. (A union is a monopoly of labor.) Monopsonies are the problem. They are the only PURCHASER of a good or service. A monopsony in the labor market is the only EMPLOYER a person could have. i.e. there are no other jobs available to the person other than the one person.

OOOPS sorry. I thought it was a typo.

Do you support the baseball union?? Wouldnt they fit in your definition.

 

[geni]

It's pretty dog gone close. I have close friends who've done both, and I have a pilot's license, so I'm not unknowledgable about this myself. But of course there will be some difference of skill sets between any two jobs. So?

That means that the employee is at a dissadvantage if they try to switch jobs.

Ack! Stop it with the monopolies. They don't cause the problem. Monopoly is the sole SUPPLIER of a good or service. (A union is a monopoly of labor.) Monopsonies are the problem. They are the only PURCHASER of a good or service. A monopsony in the labor market is the only EMPLOYER a person could have. i.e. there are no other jobs available to the person other than the one person.

Monopsonies are as illegal in the US as monopolies are.

Wrong. Last I cheacked you still have patent and copyright law.

 

[gnome]

Companies that hire undeserving people or fire people on a whim are companies that are not acting optimally towards their only goal... maximizing profits. That very motive you despise discourages exactly the behavior that you dislike. How wonderful! The free market is very evolutionary. Companies that make bad decisions dire out. There is a natural selection mechanism for filtering out that sort of behavior.

In practice, however, companies that make bad decisions can take decades to have those decisions catch up to them. Even then, a large enough company can get government bail-outs, or go ahead and collapse, while giving all the people who made the bad decisions the fabled "golden parachute". Where is the incentive to avoid that behavior then?

I agree that if the managers of a company truly had the company's best interests at heart, this would be less of an issue. But a company can operate and compete sub-optimally for quite a long time... without any consequences for the decision makers.

 

[Tmy]

I didn't ask about monopolies. Monopolies aren't a problem with this regard. Monopsonies are. baseball players can happily switch from one team to another (provided the unions don't stop them.)

And I'm asking you to name this MegaCo that controls an ENTIRE labor market.

Aaron

The teams are merely franchises. Thats like saying I can move from one Walmart to another if I dont like walmart #1.

Until baseball players were unionized they didnt have the opportunity to be free agents and switch teams.

 

[CapelDodger]

I agree that if the managers of a company truly had the company's best interests at heart, this would be less of an issue. But a company can operate and compete sub-optimally for quite a long time... without any consequences for the decision makers.

Digesting your own muscle, or less graphically selling the family silver. Cutting your out-goings by not maintaining your house. Sweat the assets. Bottom-line this year determines this year's bonus - and you never have to give that back, not even if the company flatlines a few years down the line.

Time was that the upper echelons were constrained in their self-gratitude by the beady eyes of the lower echelons co-ordinated by a union. Shareholders used to be another constraint on the executive but that hardly seems to feature now. The short-term thinking of boosters and bonus-bandits dominates the Anglo-Saxon economies and why not? The West is in decline and denial, so long-term is a loser.

 

[Ladewig]

Stop it with the monopolies. They don't cause the problem. Monopoly is the sole SUPPLIER of a good or service. (A union is a monopoly of labor.) Monopsonies are the problem. They are the only PURCHASER of a good or service. A monopsony in the labor market is the only EMPLOYER a person could have. i.e. there are no other jobs available to the person other than the one person.

Monopsonies are as illegal in the US as monopolies are. Unions are one of the few exceptions to anti-trust law. They are mostly legal.

Aaron

Would a large coal mine in a small West Virginia town qualify?

 

[pgwenthold]

For all their fighting unions arent out to destroy business. They need the business to succeed.

The UAW assembly-line factory workers in my area make $27 an hour.

That's twenty-seven dollars an hour.

I gotta tell ya, I seriously doubt the marginal production of such a worker is anywhere _close_ to $27. Personally, I doubt it is anywhere close to minimum wage, even, but that's the cost.

I would say we could replace all the workers with high school dropouts and they would be just as productive, but then again, a lot of the people I'm talking about ARE high school dropouts. And they are making $27 an hour, with a pension, and health care benefits.

My wife is a member of the world's most respected profession (veterinarian) in the same town. In the end, her yearly salary is about the same as these workers, although she doesn't get a health plan or retirement plan. And she gets called to work at 11 pm for emergencies (including holidays - she was doing surgery at 2 am Christmas morning).

I am all for unions when it comes to protecting workers from being exploited. However, these workers are not exploited. They have it as good as it comes.

Is there any wonder that the company they are working for is going bankrupt?

 

[pgwenthold]

The teams are merely franchises. Thats like saying I can move from one Walmart to another if I dont like walmart #1.

Until baseball players were unionized they didnt have the opportunity to be free agents and switch teams.

The MLB Players Association is a bad comparison for things like the UAW. In fact, their goals are completely opposite.

The goal of the MLBPA is to create a free market for players to bid their services. They are pushing for the right for players to negotiate their own contracts in exchange for their services.

Meanwhile, the goal of the UAW is to get a formulaic schedule where everyone of the workers gets the same contract.

People often ask me how I can support the MLBPA but not support the UAW or the NEA. Union solidarity and all that. The answer is that not all unions work toward the same thing. Yes, they are all looking out for their workers, but one union has the goal to break anti-competitive behavior of the employers, whereas the other wants to create anti-competitive behavior of the employees. These unions are clearly out of control (see my post above), and have gone well beyond protecting the workers from being exploited.

Meanwhile, the MLBPA is trying to create a market where members can freely sell their services.

 

[gnome]

I gotta tell ya, I seriously doubt the marginal production of such a worker is anywhere _close_ to $27. Personally, I doubt it is anywhere close to minimum wage, even, but that's the cost.

It ought to be possible to investigate this question--it's very measurable. Though I have to ask, if they're paying their workers more than they make from them... why are they operating at all?