|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Unions: Can we find some agreement on first principals?
#14159197 - 03/21/11 12:58 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I find that all the discussion on unions is caught in a quagmire where unstated assumptions are relied on to make points. I would like to strip away everything down to the bare bones, from there figure out what is fair and right. The purpose of this thread is not to repeat the same old phrases that mark your opinion but to outline the basic situation employees and employers find themselves in, so that from there we could look at how unions may or may not fit in.
I would begin with survival, for the primary reason we work is to insure our survival. In return for the employee's work, the employer gives them the means to acquire food, water, shelter and clothing.
At this starting point it seems to me the employer holds an enormous advantage over the employee: secure access to the means of survival. However the relationship is not one way, the employer also depends on the employee to produce and sell a product. The relationship is interdependent.
I would argue that at this basic situation, the employer has far more power than the potential employee, assuming the employer already has multiple employees. Basically if the employee doesn't get the job, they will not get secure access to the means of survival. On the other hand, if the employer doesn't get the employee, they lose out on growing the business.
There are many other factors which will soon come into play. What do you think about this first foundation for what is going on?
|
txhc4life
Seeker of Truth


Registered: 01/20/10
Posts: 39
Loc: TX
Last seen: 13 years, 1 day
|
Re: Unions: Can we find some agreement on first principals? [Re: Freedom]
#14159365 - 03/21/11 01:42 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The employer definitely has the advantage. Over specialization in our workplaces has allowed people to be treated like cogs in a clock. The overspecialization along with wage labor and the employer owning the means of production, has solidified the employers advantage over the working people.
I like Alexander Berkman's, What is Anarchism, it tries to break down the ideas of wage slavery and the inequalities capitalism brings upon society.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Unions: Can we find some agreement on first principals? [Re: Freedom]
#14159420 - 03/21/11 01:55 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I think your first principles are crap. There are thousands and thousands of employers competing for workers. But you do not see that because you have no experience as an employer. Even in public sector unions there are multiple municipalities competing for the services of teachers, police, firemen, janitors, etc. Just where I live right here there are over 100 municipalities within a 40 minute commute. Here's a first principle anybody should be able to agree on:
Every increase in pay and/or benefits for a union employee comes at the expense of everybody else. Governments do not pay for anything. They shuffle money from one pocket to the other. That's it.
Let us also not forget that this whole current kerfuffle is not over private industry unionism. Any private company that wants to commit financial suicide by going union is their business.
--------------------
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Unions: Can we find some agreement on first principals? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14159634 - 03/21/11 02:41 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I am trying to keep this very simple to begin with, starting with the trunk so that we can get that right before we branch out into the complexities such as private/public unions.
Quote:
There are thousands and thousands of employers competing for workers.
I partially addressed this when I said that employees and employers are interdependent. I agree that employers need employees. I don't agree that the only thing to look at is companies competing for employees. Employees also compete for employment. The number of available potential employees for a particular position will vary depending on the position, the geographical location, and through time.
I suggest that our first principals be applicable to the normal variation in this supply and demand.
Still at the end of the day if an employer does not hire the employee, that employee does not have secure access to basic necessities of life. If the employee does not accept the job, the employer does not get an additional employee to grow the business. Looking at these facts it should be apparent the employer has more power. Now if we add a limited supply of employees, the lower the number of potential employees the more power each individual potential employee has. The larger the employee pool, the less power each individual has.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Unions: Can we find some agreement on first principals? [Re: Freedom]
#14159760 - 03/21/11 03:01 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: I am trying to keep this very simple to begin with, starting with the trunk so that we can get that right before we branch out into the complexities such as private/public unions.
Quote:
There are thousands and thousands of employers competing for workers.
I partially addressed this when I said that employees and employers are interdependent. I agree that employers need employees. I don't agree that the only thing to look at is companies competing for employees. Employees also compete for employment. The number of available potential employees for a particular position will vary depending on the position, the geographical location, and through time.
I suggest that our first principals be applicable to the normal variation in this supply and demand.
Still at the end of the day if an employer does not hire the employee, that employee does not have secure access to basic necessities of life. If the employee does not accept the job, the employer does not get an additional employee to grow the business. Looking at these facts it should be apparent the employer has more power. Now if we add a limited supply of employees, the lower the number of potential employees the more power each individual potential employee has. The larger the employee pool, the less power each individual has.
You seem to be of the opinion that employers exist to provide sustenance for employees. They do not. They exist to provide sustenance for their owners. The employee has the right to seek employment elsewhere. He competes with other employees and employers compete for him. I think your big mistake is applying global or societal effects to individual cases. That is a trap. Further, anyone can start their own company or work solely on their own. That is another method of "securing access to the basic necessities of life". Independent contracting. It's a beautiful thing.
--------------------
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Unions: Can we find some agreement on first principals? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14159869 - 03/21/11 03:18 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I have to do some work now but I'll just say I've been an independent contractor, my wife is an independent contractor, and I started my own (legitimate) business this year.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Unions: Can we find some agreement on first principals? [Re: Freedom]
#14159902 - 03/21/11 03:25 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Then why do you say that employers have the advantage? They don't. They cannot collude to set wages or prices. Do you know what would happen to you if your industry, whatever it is, all got together to set prices for your customers? You would be arrested.
--------------------
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Unions: Can we find some agreement on first principals? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14165188 - 03/22/11 03:13 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
You seem to be of the opinion that employers exist to provide sustenance for employees. They do not. They exist to provide sustenance for their owners. The employee has the right to seek employment elsewhere. He competes with other employees and employers compete for him. I think your big mistake is applying global or societal effects to individual cases. That is a trap. Further, anyone can start their own company or work solely on their own. That is another method of "securing access to the basic necessities of life". Independent contracting. It's a beautiful thing.
Purpose is relative. For the employer it could be sustenance, it could be wealth building, it could be they fell they are providing an important service, it could be they simply want to do something interesting with their lives. Any of these could apply to employees.
From the customer's perspective the purpose is to provide a product. From the governments perspective it is to help build a strong economy.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Then why do you say that employers have the advantage? They don't. They cannot collude to set wages or prices. Do you know what would happen to you if your industry, whatever it is, all got together to set prices for your customers? You would be arrested.
I believe in personal responsibility yet I also see it as a fact that our species is an interdependent network of individuals. From the individual's perspective, the immediate need to work is to find secure access to sustenance. In our economy, that sustenance is money. At the most basic level, those who have the money to give clearly have more power than those who need it.
Laws, the size of the employee pool, competition from other companies and other things will modify this basic relationship and relative power, but I think this is a good candidate for the foundation of the relationship and the power.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Unions: Can we find some agreement on first principals? [Re: Freedom]
#14165271 - 03/22/11 03:22 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
You seem to be of the opinion that employers exist to provide sustenance for employees. They do not. They exist to provide sustenance for their owners. The employee has the right to seek employment elsewhere. He competes with other employees and employers compete for him. I think your big mistake is applying global or societal effects to individual cases. That is a trap. Further, anyone can start their own company or work solely on their own. That is another method of "securing access to the basic necessities of life". Independent contracting. It's a beautiful thing.
Purpose is relative. For the employer it could be sustenance, it could be wealth building, it could be they fell they are providing an important service, it could be they simply want to do something interesting with their lives. Any of these could apply to employees.
From the customer's perspective the purpose is to provide a product. From the governments perspective it is to help build a strong economy.
None of those are of any relevance since the people you speak of (government employer customer) do not own the company. Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Then why do you say that employers have the advantage? They don't. They cannot collude to set wages or prices. Do you know what would happen to you if your industry, whatever it is, all got together to set prices for your customers? You would be arrested.
I believe in personal responsibility yet I also see it as a fact that our species is an interdependent network of individuals. From the individual's perspective, the immediate need to work is to find secure access to sustenance. In our economy, that sustenance is money. At the most basic level, those who have the money to give clearly have more power than those who need it.
Laws, the size of the employee pool, competition from other companies and other things will modify this basic relationship and relative power, but I think this is a good candidate for the foundation of the relationship and the power.
You fail to establish your point of power. On one hand you concede competition among employers but on the other you dismiss it. Without labor the companies have no money to "give".
You also ignored my point entirely about collusive pricing.
--------------------
|
|