Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Hamma owes me a nickel, I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HERE!
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-04-20, 05:46 AM | [Ignore Me] #47 | ||||
Lieutenant General
|
Without unions, a lot of protective legislation would not exist. So yes, as long as the legislation is there, there's less need for an active union. You therefore see a decline in the union members in the Netherlands as well. In some countries it is almost tradition to be a union member when employed.
That doesn't mean that unions are obsolete. Regarding your statements about how the USSR formed... I think you're better of checking out this and reading it fully: http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/...stimeline1.htm It was a time of great turbulence in Russia and a lot of alternate paths could have been walked. Also, you should check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidar...sh_trade_union) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolut...s_impact_grows Solidarity, a Polish trade union that's at the base of the fall of communism in the Warschau Pact nations. Malorn: Socialism =/= Communism. The type of socialists labour parties fall under are Social Democrats.
There's lightyears of difference with Social Democrats and the socialism as perceived by for instance South Americans. Social Democrats have embraced capitalism, but seek to improve (worker/civilian) conditions and restrict excesses. You should really do a bit more research Malorn, because you tar everyone with the same brush. It's like those people who claim that mass murderers are always atheists. Even though it's quite easy to name genocides performed by religious people. Always pointing at everything "more left than themselves" as leading to Communism without understanding anything regarding socialism is a typical American right wing trait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism Some liberterians are anarchists. Are you an anarchist just because some libertarians are? |
||||
|
2012-04-20, 09:12 PM | [Ignore Me] #50 | ||||
Colonel
|
2. There is a HUGE risk involved in unionizing. Many/most states are at will employment states, meaning that they can fire you without cause. If you don't have overwhelming support and can't spring it on the company by surprise, you stand a very good chance of simply being fired. Its exactly like a revolt against a government.. you need a critical mass of people willing to risk everything. 3. Some people have spent a lot of money for decades painting unions in the worst possible light. Kinda like the anti socialist rhetoric.
|
||||
|
2012-04-22, 12:02 AM | [Ignore Me] #51 | |||
Anyway, none of this shit is actually about unions or money or what's fair for workers. It's about the Republicans trying to gut one of the main sources of money and organization behind the Democratic party. The bullshit in Wisconsin and other places, where they're trying to castrate unions, is because Democrats traditionally receive a lot of money and votes from unions. No unions means an easier time winning elections for Republicans. Last edited by Warborn; 2012-04-22 at 12:05 AM. |
||||
|
2012-04-23, 02:31 PM | [Ignore Me] #53 | |||
Major
|
|
|||
|
2012-04-23, 03:11 PM | [Ignore Me] #55 | ||
Major
|
Unions arent stupid, they want to keep the business afloat just as much as the owners do. The majority of unions have accepted this and have taken pay cuts and layoffs the past few years. But when it comes, for example, to closing down a call center/factory and moving all the jobs to India/China when the business is healthy...
Also, businesses dont dont have much incentive to pay women equal wages to men when the average pay for women is 20+% below men's. Women cant really quit their job and move to another business and just get the same, unequal, pay. |
||
|
2012-04-23, 05:01 PM | [Ignore Me] #57 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
Malorn, you say you don't think in black and whites, yet every topic you show you do think in absolutes and almost nothing but absolutes. Still, glad you see there's actual relevancy. The need for unions differs per region though, in well-fare states the need for unions (also from a worker pov) has degraded severely over time. So much that some are struggling to get members. That's a good thing as it indicates the system is healthy.
The easier it is for unions to acquire new members, the harsher the working conditions. China? India? Could definitely use more union influence. EDIT: In the case of your wife, if she had been layed off in some states in the US, her pay would have dropped to 0 within a day. This has lead to disastrous situations for a lot of US citizens, since they cannot pay their bills in an event like that. Especially not since pay wasn't that great to safe up a lot of money in the first place. Look at how many people had to take multiple jobs, leaving no time for family and hence have a very stressful existence. That doesn't create a healthy society if it is completely dependend on good times. If a company has to take into account lay offs well ahead, they plan and think ahead and they simply keep lay-offs in mind in their budget. If there's a transfer period, the household situation is more stable as there's time to find a new job or even to create your own initiative while you still have a bit of income left, change to a lower cost living, etc. It is not healthy to go from one extreme (full pay) to the other (no pay) at all. This leads to instant need of a new money source, meaning debts are almost unavoidable. Does it cost money? Yes. Does it cost society more if people go into debt, lose their house and can't find a new job in time? Good question, not? On the other hand, it can be too hard to fire someone. In which case they can become nothing but a drain of resources. There should always be a healthy balance. But tipping the scales too far either way in the end can cause severe problems in a crisis. Last edited by Figment; 2012-04-23 at 06:15 PM. |
||
|
2012-04-23, 10:10 PM | [Ignore Me] #58 | |||
Master Sergeant
|
__________________
OL - Dangerous Operations Group {DOG} "There is NO "I" in Teamwork" DOG SLOGAN - "It's not the size of the DOG in a fight, it's the size of the fight in the DOG" DOG BATTLE CRY - " Cry 'Havoc,' and Let Slip The DOG's OF War. " And Hamma I see the VS and the NC have infiltrated your board. So the TR will have to kill them all and make them the yellow bastards they are |
|||
|
2012-04-24, 04:38 AM | [Ignore Me] #60 | ||||||
Lieutenant General
|
Possibly that union was set up with the old guild system in mind though, especially if it was intended for carpenting, plumbing and smith works which were traditionally strong guilds. Guilds are interest groups of specific craftsmen and the attitude towards people from outside of the guild is also quite typical: only those within the local guild are accepted, others of the same trade but outside the union were typically shunned as 'illegal' rivals. In contrast to earlier forms of unions, it was obligated to join a guild in order to even practice a particular craft. The guilds were, beyond a form of union, a means to completely regulate the market. Not sure if you're aware of the history of guilds, but in Europe these ran and dominated cities together. A lot of guilds had their own militias even up to the end of the 18th century. Basically (and given Malorn's concerns with paranoia regarding market regulation, quite ironically), they were capitalist cartels motivated solely by self-interest. Governments in those days were very decentralised (cities ran the local area) and the ruling classes in the city and townships, meant basically the leaders of the wealthiest guilds. They dominated everything out of self-interest up to the point that new inventions were outlawed because not the entire guild could profit from it - if innovation was done outside of the guild a lot of pressure was enacted to get them into the guild or simply stop. Furthermore, people within a guild had to think alike. Guilds existing well into the 19th century in Eastern Europe has been seen as one of the reasons that these areas were not industrialised as much as the west and therefore economically fell behind. So one could argue that the smaller the central government and the more power to the local government and private owners, free trade is actually at risk. At least locally. Especially the western dutch shipping guilds profited immensily from the dutch international free trade doctrine, where a lot of other guilds were far more mercantile (examples of mercantile factions within Europe were The Hansa and Ligurian and Venetian trade leagues) and had trouble competing elsewhere. Now that we got to the topic of free trade. Some funny things about free trade:
|
||||||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|