BF2S Forums So ... unions ... yay or nay?

I agree with what you are saying to some degree, but I would never say unions need to go away completely until corporate America also makes some serious changes.  The outrageous pay of executives and their lavish "going away" packages, even when they totally screwed the company three ways from Sunday, are unacceptable in my mind.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

The outrageous pay of executives and their lavish "going away" packages, even when they totally screwed the company three ways from Sunday, are unacceptable in my mind.

Oh, you'll hear no arguement from me on that one.  I was not saying corporate america is always right or that unions should never exist - I voted for the third option.  In fact, I believe that unions could serve a very useful purpose in the corporate world itself.  I believe that labor unions (Teamsters, UAW, etc) have outgrown their usefullness and should be dissolved.

If you're saying that since corporate america gets their golden parachutes that the unions should maintain as they are now, I don't agree with that as that seems to be the "two wrongs make a right" arguement.

They should be the exception, not the rule.

Government regulation of workforce rules has obviated much of the purpose of unions...at least in the US.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

PuckMercury wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

The outrageous pay of executives and their lavish "going away" packages, even when they totally screwed the company three ways from Sunday, are unacceptable in my mind.

Oh, you'll hear no arguement from me on that one.  I was not saying corporate america is always right or that unions should never exist - I voted for the third option.  In fact, I believe that unions could serve a very useful purpose in the corporate world itself.  I believe that labor unions (Teamsters, UAW, etc) have outgrown their usefullness and should be dissolved.

If you're saying that since corporate america gets their golden parachutes that the unions should maintain as they are now, I don't agree with that as that seems to be the "two wrongs make a right" arguement.

I'm more of the mindset that unions have taken on the role of extortion in many cases, rather than being a collective group that bargains to ensure that employees are treated fairly in terms of pay, benefits, and working conditions.

I completely agree with that statement.

PureFodder wrote:

Lack of unions serve to lower wages, worker safety, benefits, job security etc. One worker cannot possibly hope to change a company's policies. A large bulk of the workforce joined together can.

Remember, unions are so important that the right to join one is classed as a human right.

I agree that is their intended purpose, but in the case of labor unions it has been perverted and manipulated into the system now in place and as ADB said, serves to extort rather than ensure fairness.  Power corrupts as they say.

PuckMercury wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

PuckMercury wrote:

Oh, you'll hear no arguement from me on that one.  I was not saying corporate america is always right or that unions should never exist - I voted for the third option.  In fact, I believe that unions could serve a very useful purpose in the corporate world itself.  I believe that labor unions (Teamsters, UAW, etc) have outgrown their usefullness and should be dissolved.

If you're saying that since corporate america gets their golden parachutes that the unions should maintain as they are now, I don't agree with that as that seems to be the "two wrongs make a right" arguement.

I'm more of the mindset that unions have taken on the role of extortion in many cases, rather than being a collective group that bargains to ensure that employees are treated fairly in terms of pay, benefits, and working conditions.

I completely agree with that statement.

PureFodder wrote:

Lack of unions serve to lower wages, worker safety, benefits, job security etc. One worker cannot possibly hope to change a company's policies. A large bulk of the workforce joined together can.

Remember, unions are so important that the right to join one is classed as a human right.

I agree that is their intended purpose, but in the case of labor unions it has been perverted and manipulated into the system now in place and as ADB said, serves to extort rather than ensure fairness.  Power corrupts as they say.

Corporations are far more powerful than the unions, expecially in the US. They are more powerful and more corrupt. Unionisation is a safeguard against this. Companies can only screw unionised workers up to a certain point, at which time they have the power to cause enough financial harm to a company to make screwing the workforce unprofitable. Take a look at US labour history, wages, and labour laws and you'll pretty quickly see just how badly the US populace has done from having weak unions. I'll certainly agree that US unions especially are corrupt as hell, but so are the corporations, hence any reforms of unions MUST be done with reforms of business practice too.

My business law professor said it best, "Unions only come about as a result of bad management."  Some companies don't know where to draw the line at their own greed, and then the workers unionize.

FEOS wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

My business law professor said it best, "Unions only come about as a result of bad management."  Some companies don't know where to draw the line at their own greed, and then the workers unionize.

They may come about as a result of bad management, but they persist as a result of union bosses wanting to keep their jobs.

Or because the workers want to be in a union bacause they think it's a good thing.

Turquoise wrote:

Unions suck, but corporations often do as well.  It's kind of a lose-lose situation when you enter most unionized industries or industries that don't have unions but need them.

I agree, but for different reasons.  I agree that workers need some protections from being exploited or abused, but I abhore the very idea of collectivism.  Also, modern unions have themselves become the big buisness 'coorperations' they once protected the workers against.  There are even workers in some areas that feel forced or coorced to join the union or be edged out of the field.  And lower workers can be bound by the descisions of the senior union officials.  Not to mention they freely use their position not to protect workers against unfair conditions, but to wrangle every last benifit out of the cooperations, driving up the prices the company must charge for its goods.

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Unions suck, but corporations often do as well.  It's kind of a lose-lose situation when you enter most unionized industries or industries that don't have unions but need them.

I agree, but for different reasons.  I agree that workers need some protections from being exploited or abused, but I abhore the very idea of collectivism.  Also, modern unions have themselves become the big buisness 'coorperations' they once protected the workers against.  There are even workers in some areas that feel forced or coorced to join the union or be edged out of the field.  And lower workers can be bound by the descisions of the senior union officials.  Not to mention they freely use their position not to protect workers against unfair conditions, but to wrangle every last benifit out of the cooperations, driving up the prices the company must charge for its goods.

Agreed...  that's basically what's happened with GM.

I'm not a huge fan of collectivism either, but pure individualism is no better.  A combination of both is necessary for a functional society.

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

I agree, but for different reasons.  I agree that workers need some protections from being exploited or abused, but I abhore the very idea of collectivism.  Also, modern unions have themselves become the big buisness 'coorperations' they once protected the workers against.  There are even workers in some areas that feel forced or coorced to join the union or be edged out of the field.  And lower workers can be bound by the descisions of the senior union officials.  Not to mention they freely use their position not to protect workers against unfair conditions, but to wrangle every last benifit out of the cooperations, driving up the prices the company must charge for its goods.

Agreed...  that's basically what's happened with GM.

I'm not a huge fan of collectivism either, but pure individualism is no better.  A combination of both is necessary for a functional society.

I know, I know.  I just don't have to like it.  That is where, I am sorry to say, government comes in. A nessasary evil, that.

I do find it rather ironic that you hate collectivism but joined the military.  Being a soldier is probably one of the most collectivist experiences you can have -- I would assume at least.

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

I know, I know.  I just don't have to like it.  That is where, I am sorry to say, government comes in. A nessasary evil, that.

I do find it rather ironic that you hate collectivism but joined the military.  Being a soldier is probably one of the most collectivist experiences you can have -- I would assume at least.

No, it is far, FAR from beign collectivist.  I conciously, purposefully suborned myself to orders as a matter of preserving that which I love; namely, my family.  It comes down to family being the most important part.  But some threats I can not overcome or defend against myself.  For that, I need to group people together for protection.  Admittedly, 'banding together for the common good' has a communistic feel to it, but only in a limited sense for a specific goal.  My objection is losing the CHOICE to make my descisions along those lines.

Time to create a History and Moral Philosophy class ala RAH.

That's an interesting take on it.  I agree with you to an extent, but even the concept of "family first" is collectivist by nature.

I guess what I'm getting at is that maybe you more specifically hate collectivism in the form of authoritarian government, correct?

Turquoise wrote:

That's an interesting take on it.  I agree with you to an extent, but even the concept of "family first" is collectivist by nature.

I guess what I'm getting at is that maybe you more specifically hate collectivism in the form of authoritarian government, correct?

All of our little debates end up being huge spaces of quotes upon quotes.

The concept of family first is not collectivism as much as "enlightened self intrest" mixed with "creating a legacy" via our children.  Passing on our genes is one of the most basic drives humanity has.  In order to ensure the survival of our progeny, we must protect them and ensure an enviroment in which they can prosper.

That "enviroment in which they can prosper" can be an entirely new topic, knowing this place.

I will admit that it is my American upbringing, and more particularly, my southern-state American upbringing with a miltary-heavy family history thrown in that forms my opinions in such matters.  I am big, HUGE in to the choices of people and being responsible for our choices.  I despise any form of grouping or government that limits our choices or tries to shield us from the responsibilities and repuscussions of our actions and mis-steps.

I know, I KNOW, that you can not have a pure liberty enviroment, as that would be anarchy.  I know that human nature would intervene.  I know about greed and the desire for power, the hunt for stability.  I want an enviroment that can reach as far to the side of liberty and freedom of action that is both possible and practical.  I know there must be some limits on that.  I also want to be able to see and agree on those limits.