Archive

Union funded at work

  • Gblock
    sleeper;1159599 wrote:Do you buy American products? If not, this statement is hypocritical.
    i dont...and i really dont give a crap about unions...but they are absolutely not the reason for our current crappy economy and lack of jobs. you could eliminate them tomorrow and we would be in just as bad as shape if not worse.

    my point was dont cry about jobs going overseas if you dont buy all american. if every quit buying that stuff to save a few bucks then they woudl be forced to bring the jobs back
  • sleeper
    isadore;1159614 wrote:one in a thousand and they collude to control price constantly and collude to keep wages low.
    You have no evidence of this. Enjoy!
  • sleeper
    Gblock;1159617 wrote:i dont...and i really dont give a crap about unions...but they are absolutely not the reason for our current crappy economy and lack of jobs. you could eliminate them tomorrow and we would be in just as bad as shape if not worse.

    my point was dont cry about jobs going overseas if you dont buy all american. if every quit buying that stuff to save a few bucks then they woudl be forced to bring the jobs back
    Agreed. It would likely take a few months to a year for wages to adjust and a fair market value for wages to be established. We also would need to slash corporate tax rates to as near zero as possible.

    These two combined would make America strong again, but it would lose the Democrats plenty of votes and money. Votes and money are more important than American prosperity for the liberal left.
  • isadore
    sleeper;1159622 wrote:You have no evidence of this. Enjoy!
    gosh you sound more and more like the lawyer for the obviously guilty.
  • QuakerOats
    isadore;1159480 wrote:they have been cut because of reduction in state funding not because of the unions

    We spend more today on edcuation than ever before in history. Sorry.
  • sleeper
    isadore;1159631 wrote:gosh you sound more and more like the lawyer for the obviously guilty.
    Are you implying you would like a legal system that doesn't rely on proof, instead opting for whatever rhetoric the liberal left can spew out of its mouth?

    If you make a claim, you are expected to back it up. If you cannot, then its an opinion. Opinions are fine, but don't prove nor make your statement valid.

    Enjoy!
  • Gblock
    sleeper;1159626 wrote:Agreed. It would likely take a few months to a year for wages to adjust and a fair market value for wages to be established. We also would need to slash corporate tax rates to as near zero as possible. These two combined would make America strong again, but it would lose the Democrats plenty of votes and money. Votes and money are more important than American prosperity for the liberal left.
    there still would be a lack of good jobs. jobs that will pay enough to raise a family and live the dream. until we get back to taking raw materials and manufacturing things that people want to buy nothing is going to change. currently we just buy things from other countriies that are already manufactured its a lose lose scenario. the service industries and governments are too big right now imo...we need to get back to making things and then our economy might change. we import waaay to much and export too little.
  • sleeper
    Gblock;1159643 wrote:there still would be a lack of good jobs. jobs that will pay enough to raise a family and live the dream. until we get back to taking raw materials and manufacturing things that people want to buy nothing is going to change. currently we just buy things from other countriies that are already manufactured its a lose lose scenario. the service industries and governments are too big right now imo...we need to get back to making things and then our economy might change. we import waaay to much and export too little.
    I don't disagree. But making things with expensive labor isn't going to work, and that's why unions need to be broken.

    And "live the dream" is something that is not given but earned through hard work. If such work demands a high wage, then it will be given a high wage. Living the dream is different depending on perspective, for me, living the dream is not getting the latest and greatest gadget, driving the best car, living in the best house, blowing your wad on alcohol every weekend, eating out every night, cable TV, etc. Without those things, you don't need to make much more than a fair wage to enjoy life.
  • QuakerOats
    isadore;1159578 wrote:in a market control by corporations working together to keep wages low. And with workers with no corresponding organization to give them bargaining power. Unless of course they unionize.
    Pure poppycock. Most businesses want to hire the BEST person for the job, and are willing to pay handsomely to do so, because statistics prove that it makes more economic sense in the long run. The value the better employees provide far exceeds the incremental cost of the higher wage.

    You need to involve yourself in free market economics, and put the monthly union newsletter down.
  • Gblock
    dont union workers only make up around 6-7 percent of private sector workers?? honest question i honestly dont know that was always my thinking that over all it was about 12 percent most of those govt employees and in the private sector around 6 percent...im just not sure of how big a deal it is...i think we have bigger problems
  • said_aouita
    QuakerOats;1159678 wrote:Pure poppycock. Most businesses want to hire the BEST person for the job, and are willing to pay handsomely to do so, because statistics prove that it makes more economic sense in the long run. The value the better employees provide far exceeds the incremental cost of the higher wage.

    You need to involve yourself in free market economics, and put the monthly union newsletter down.

    :thumbup:
  • Gblock
    QuakerOats;1159678 wrote:Pure poppycock. Most businesses want to hire the BEST person for the job, and are willing to pay handsomely to do so, because statistics prove that it makes more economic sense in the long run. The value the better employees provide far exceeds the incremental cost of the higher wage.

    You need to involve yourself in free market economics, and put the monthly union newsletter down.
    Most?
  • sleeper
    Gblock;1159689 wrote:dont union workers only make up around 6-7 percent of private sector workers?? honest question i honestly dont know that was always my thinking that over all it was about 12 percent most of those govt employees and in the private sector around 6 percent...im just not sure of how big a deal it is...i think we have bigger problems
    6 to 7 percent? No chance.

    Unless you are comparing like a CEO to a guy who mops up at the factory.
  • wkfan
    Sorry for being late to the party......
    WebFire;1159491 wrote:Which is the whole point. With SB5 in place, schools and municipalities could have structured wages and benefits to fit their needs. Instead, they have to cut because they have to pay what the union contract says.
    Just as a reminder, the schools, municipalities, etc also signed that contract that specified wages and benefits to be paid to the union members. If they did not want to pay those wages and benefits, they should not have agreed to, and signed, that contract.

    QuakerOats;1159678 wrote:Pure poppycock. Most businesses want to hire the BEST person for the job, and are willing to pay handsomely to do so, because statistics prove that it makes more economic sense in the long run. The value the better employees provide far exceeds the incremental cost of the higher wage.

    You need to involve yourself in free market economics, and put the monthly union newsletter down.
    (to the bolded part) Yes, I'm sure that they do. Please define for me why this is different if there is a union (particularly a public worker union) involved. Doesn't the employer want to hire the 'best' person?
  • Gblock
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

    union membership data
  • WebFire
    wkfan;1159719 wrote:Sorry for being late to the party......



    Just as a reminder, the schools, municipalities, etc also signed that contract that specified wages and benefits to be paid to the union members. If they did not want to pay those wages and benefits, they should not have agreed to, and signed, that contract.




    (to the bolded part) Yes, I'm sure that they do. Please define for me why this is different if there is a union (particularly a public worker union) involved. Doesn't the employer want to hire the 'best' person?
    And what would have happened if they did not sign those contracts?
  • sleeper
    wkfan;1159719 wrote:Just as a reminder, the schools, municipalities, etc also signed that contract that specified wages and benefits to be paid to the union members. If they did not want to pay those wages and benefits, they should not have agreed to, and signed, that contract.
    Well when those school boards are run by union backed members, the people that work for the city are elected backed by union money, etc, then its essentially the union agreeing to the deal themselves.

    That's why public sector unions should be illegal. Private sector unions can do whatever they want.
  • wkfan
    WebFire;1159741 wrote:And what would have happened if they did not sign those contracts?
    More than likely, if it were a school district, more negotiations until an agreement was reached.
  • Belly35
    I buy from China, India and Germany now.
    Can I make this product here in the Ohio… YES

    That is my goal to create jobs and manufacturing in Ohio and move away from the overseas suppliers

    I can produce, be competitive in the market, I can offer the employees good wages and benefits. To be dictated by a Union Representations that will alter production, wages and benefits that is unrealistic mentality in today’s market and as a business owner.
    The pricing structure of my product will be little higher Made in America because of wages estimated -5%-7%.

    Take the cost of cheaper foreign labor, add in shipping, duties, freight, delays, currency rate, up-front payments of 50% and lots of other cost overseas factors making a product in America is not that costly.
    So using the idea that America Labor cost is the problem is bullshit .. it the Union benefits and the instability of demands (wages) is the problem with Unions. With Unions once manufacturing is started and profits are made, Unions making demands on owners is a sure job killer in the future.

    Uinons are not the only problem .

    However until the government, State, Local and Federal understand that America has to re-tool to be able to manufacture in America and the cost of that re-tooling is too costly to the private business owner, nothing will be accomplish. Government has to provide the financial incentive, support and tax structure with guarantees of long term stability for manufacturing to create jobs.

    When government agenda (screw up) cause banking institution to adjust/lower the business owner line of credit was the downfall of job creation in American.. Thank you, you worthless Politian’s

    Wrap your head around this:
    Example: Tool and Die cost for me to make a mold in America $300,000.00
    Tool and Die cost for me to have China make the tool and die mold … $30,000
    China Government put in $30,000 and China Manufacture put in $30,000 = $60,000 total ($90000.00)

    Now if you wanted to start a company and needed a product made and you where faced with those cost figures to start a new product line production which way would you go?

    It is not the low labor cost in China, India or Germany that is big factor it the cost of re-tooling America Manufacturing.

    Bush tax rebates to the public was bullshit … Obama pissing away Stimulus … are perfect example of mindless government clueless to the needs of what creates jobs.
    Rebates of $1000.00 created jack shit it just paid off old bills … Obama paid off supporter
    Did anyone notice that I did bash Bush .. see I call it as I see it and I take no prisoners.

    That $1000.00 tax rebate x 300 old bill paying civilian = $300000.00 = given to Belly would have been the creation of new manufacturing product and the creation of 7 new jobs, increase tax base, long term employment and new wages to be taxed … with the potential of growth in the future. I’m just one company, just think of how many other could do the same in America…
    Compare that to Obama Solar Panel butt buddies fraud…

    Now if the government would have looked into providing funding for re-tooling America Manufacturing with that money … America Small Business would be a Producer today…


    Sorry I got carried away ... I'm call Obama now :D shovel ready job my ass
  • isadore
    QuakerOats;1159678 wrote:Pure poppycock. Most businesses want to hire the BEST person for the job, and are willing to pay handsomely to do so, because statistics prove that it makes more economic sense in the long run. The value the better employees provide far exceeds the incremental cost of the higher wage.

    You need to involve yourself in free market economics, and put the monthly union newsletter down.
    they control the labor market and do not pay handsomely as can be seen by the continuous decline in real wages.
  • sleeper
    isadore;1159819 wrote:they control the labor market and do not pay handsomely as can be seen by the continuous decline in real wages.
    You and your boy Barack will take care of declining wages with more inflation!

    Problem solved.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1159819 wrote:they control the labor market and do not pay handsomely as can be seen by the continuous decline in real wages.
    The only reason to pay "handsomely" is to attract an employee that they want. The only reason to want an employee is because that employee will bring value to the company and increase shareholder equity.

    Companies do not exist to employ people as shocking as that might sound.
  • isadore
    sleeper;1159829 wrote:You and your boy Barack will take care of declining wages with more inflation!

    Problem solved.
    gosh a ruddies based on what. He seems to set on inflation at least as well as Bush
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
    http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/annual-averages-for-rate-of-inflation/
  • sleeper
    isadore;1159863 wrote:gosh a ruddies based on what. He seems to set on inflation at least as well as Bush
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
    http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/annual-averages-for-rate-of-inflation/
    Bush sucked too. What's your next deflection?
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1159852 wrote:The only reason to pay "handsomely" is to attract an employee that they want. The only reason to want an employee is because that employee will bring value to the company and increase shareholder equity.

    Companies do not exist to employ people as shocking as that might sound.
    soulless entities driven strictly by profit, who completely control the labor market. Reasons to support government regulation and unions to counterweight these predatory institutions. They have no interest in benefiting our nation or its citizens. And are often run by people who are most interested in their own benefit package and showing short range profit than even in the interests of their shareholders.