>You will notice that you actually being worth the extra $20k wasn't a prerequisite, only that you now have the power of a union to muscle it out of the employer.
And having more power makes you more valuable, because having powerful people work for you is a boon. So we're full circle again.
You example is a perfect demonstration of corporate mentality: As a group you want to bully an extra $20k out of an employee, for what reason? Just because you are a corporation and you can?
>With discrimination, minimum wages, OSHA, child labor, etc. already on the law books, why are people even talking seriously about unions these days?
Maybe because unions caused those things to happen, dummy.
"With NASA putting men on the moon and building numerous technological advances, why are people even talking seriously about funding NASA these days?"
> And having more power makes you more valuable, because having powerful people work for you is a boon. So we're full circle again.
How is this true? If it were true that having a powerful group work for you (powerful in the sense of collective negotiations) why would nearly all industry move to India and China? Why not enjoy the local "boon" of unions to your company?
> You example is a perfect demonstration of corporate mentality: As a group you want to bully an extra $20k out of an employee, for what reason? Just because you are a corporation and you can?
First, I am for minimum national salaries (or hourly pay) for jobs based on description.
Second, you are again just assuming that the fact that a person walks into a company and is willing to work that they are worth maximum money available from that company.
The corporation is not "bullying" because the person can go work for another corporation (possibly today) in response to it, the union is bullying because the corporation can not hire the "other" workforce in response to it. You are falsely comparing the ability of a person to work with money, when you should be comparing that person's actual labor to money.
> Maybe because unions caused those things to happen, dummy.
> "With NASA putting men on the moon and building numerous technological advances, why are people even talking seriously about funding NASA these days?"
False equivalence. What new breakthrough in labor law might unions create comparable to the breakthroughs in science and medicine that NASA makes every week? Do you imagine that it might revert back to child labor? Shall we still have abolitionists for the USA? Do you imagine that, since we have laws against it, that we might snap back into national slavery?
Unions had a useful purpose in our history. They might even be useful still, but existing to strong-arm companies (and that is what it is) is not useful to modern United States.
Almost all software shops are not unionized. Jobs move overseas because companies are not expected to act as beneficial actors in other countries, they know they do not have to respect basic human rights or pay a fair market value wage for labor.
The corporation freely signed a contract with the union to follow certain stipulations. There is no bullying on either side.
The breakthrough unions provide is a power balance from which your profession can advocate for setting base pay, working conditions and benefits. It provides a front against mismanagement/abuse and ensures you get the protections regulation and contracts provide. These are problems that existed in the past, exist now and will exist in the future as long as organizations of people are around.
You have a mischaracterization of unions of simply existing to force money out of companies, when their purpose has been explicitly stated many times.
> Almost all software shops are not unionized. Jobs move overseas because companies are not expected to act as beneficial actors in other countries, they know they do not have to respect basic human rights or pay a fair market value wage for labor.
Jobs move over seas because it allows companies to produce something for less money. Period. Unions have the opposite effect of making production cost less money.
>Almost all software shops are not unionized. Jobs move overseas because companies are not expected to act as beneficial actors in other countries, they know they do not have to respect basic human rights or pay a fair market value wage for labor.
>The corporation freely signed a contract with the union to follow certain stipulations. There is no bullying on either side.
How many companies do you imagine "freely" signed a contract with unions without the threat of walk-outs hanging over their heads. This is the definition of bullying.
> You have a mischaracterization of unions of simply existing to force money out of companies, when their purpose has been explicitly stated many times.
I am very clear what unions do in practice, not theory.
You idea of "production" is too narrow-minded. You don't only produce products, you also produce communities of valuable, productive, happy employees. The people who work in your company are a product of your company.
Unions might force your company to spend more on something intangible, but they do not reduce production efficiency.
>How is this true? If it were true that having a powerful group work for you (powerful in the sense of collective negotiations) why would nearly all industry move to India and China?
What is your problem? Seriously. Labor WOULDN'T move overseas if unionized workers had any power. The labor moves over seas because those with the power decide where to move the labor, and it is decidedly NOT unions.
>Second, you are again just assuming that the fact that a person walks into a company and is willing to work that they are worth maximum money available from that company.
I made no such assumption. I only assumed that the worker should be able to negotiate their worth by using other employees as a resource for evaluating what that is. If all the other workers agree you are worth X, the company should pay X. The company should not be in charge of both determining what you are worth AND paying you, because they are likely to minimize both, no matter what reality has to say.
The only reason you have competitive wages anywhere without unions is because companies compete against each other. And if they collude, you lose that. It doesn't matter what you are worth, only how much collusion is legal or accepted.
>Do you imagine that, since we have laws against it, that we might snap back into national slavery?
Do you know that the laws can be repealed? And that the people who would repeal them are the same people you're asking everyone to forfeit their political and economic power to?
How do you expect a law to stay on the books if the only ones championing for it have their hands tied?
> What is your problem? Seriously. Labor WOULDN'T move overseas if unionized workers had any power. The labor moves over seas because those with the power decide where to move the labor, and it is decidedly NOT unions.
Yes seriously. You stated that having a union makes the company more productive because of it cooperative power. Corporations are economic entities, and made an economic choice, proving that this is not the case.
> I made no such assumption. I only assumed that the worker should be able to negotiate their worth by using other employees as a resource for evaluating what that is. If all the other workers agree you are worth X, the company should pay X. The company should not be in charge of both determining what you are worth AND paying you, because they are likely to minimize both, no matter what reality has to say.
Why should it be up to your coworkers to judge your worth. There is very clearly another better way. You make or save X dollars for your company, you are worth some amount of that. The bigger the X the more you are worth to the company.
>The only reason you have competitive wages anywhere without unions is because companies compete against each other. And if they collude, you lose that. It doesn't matter what you are worth, only how much collusion is legal or accepted.
I am not for company collusion, and it is illegal in most place already anyway.
>Do you know that the laws can be repealed? And that the people who would repeal them are the same people you're asking everyone to forfeit their political and economic power to?
How do you expect a law to stay on the books if the only ones championing for it have their hands tied?
I expect a law to stay on the books because people still have the right to vote in this country.
The laws that would help American workers the most (Obamacare, living wage, guaranteed retirement, guaranteed unemployment benefits, etc.) are not supported by unions. Guess why?
And having more power makes you more valuable, because having powerful people work for you is a boon. So we're full circle again.
You example is a perfect demonstration of corporate mentality: As a group you want to bully an extra $20k out of an employee, for what reason? Just because you are a corporation and you can?
>With discrimination, minimum wages, OSHA, child labor, etc. already on the law books, why are people even talking seriously about unions these days?
Maybe because unions caused those things to happen, dummy.
"With NASA putting men on the moon and building numerous technological advances, why are people even talking seriously about funding NASA these days?"
See how absurd that sounds?