Unions are incredibly important for worker's rights, and any corruption or mess-ups in the union is by far outweighed by the benefits and power it grants its workers.
Printable View
Unions are incredibly important for worker's rights, and any corruption or mess-ups in the union is by far outweighed by the benefits and power it grants its workers.
unions keep businesses from becoming monopolies. they are completely necessary in a free-market society.
even skilled workers need some collective say if their income is based on direct customer contact.
not really, they are moreso proof that a free market doesnt work
ok, then tell me why a completely dominated market works more efficiently.
monopolised isnt the antonym of free
Until they start organising strikes because the company no longer needs some of those workers since they introduced automated systems. But hey, fuck progress. Self entitled morons with no economic sense think that they should keep their job despite it being completely unnecessary and will gladly disrupt the lives of millions of people. (yes, I've moved on to the London underground unions)Quote:
Originally Posted by Solly
ok, well
THEY TOOK MEH JAARRBBB!!!!
Yes, let's get everyone unemployed and increase the money gap between managers and employees. The fault does not fall on the union if you're dependent on a company that mistreats its employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Editor
The primary function of a company is to make money, not provide jobs. This is a fact. Anyone who says different does not understand the purpose of a company.
Hence the unions are put in place in order to provide social responsibility. If there were no unions there would be no middle class.
And then the unions abuse their power to force companies to keep on staff they just don't need. Businesses are there to make money, not to give some twit a job.
are you seriously implying that businesses prioritising making money over providing employment is a good thingQuote:
Originally Posted by The Editor
Yes Ed, because obviously slightly corrupted unions are much worse than no middle class.
If twits don't have jobs how can any economic cycle be completed?
Yes, yes I am. The private sector makes the money, the public sector hires people to provide services. More police, doctors, nurses, teachers, ambulance drivers, firemen etc. etc..
That would deprive any non-executives of luxury items. And by luxury items I mean clothes, utilities, houses.
what is the point of the private sector making moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by The Editor
where do you think the money goes
Public sector employees do get paid, you know.
Part of it ends up in the public sector via taxes, the rest goes back into the private sector.
So by your lay-out the private sector employees get no funds, even though they make up 75% of the population.
and again youre implying that this is a good thing ???Quote:
Originally Posted by The Editor
Wait, what? No! Private get paid too. After all, you'll have private architects, engineers, builders, manufacturers... And that's just relating to construction. What I'm saying is that automation would reduce the number of people needed in a private business to make money. This frees them to work in the public sector providing services to society, such as healthcare. The government gets more revenue from taxes, people get better public services by having more people available to work for them.
No, without unions everyone in the private sector would get under-paid. Those fired would somehow automatically be hired into the public sector, where the government would have to increase taxes in order to sustain the sudden influx of employees, causing everyone in the private sector to become even more poor.
Aside from which, public sectors also need to be (and are) unionized. How about that London underground you were talking about. Isn't that unionized?
this assumes there is an efficient way to reallocate labor under a system as market-driven as is the westQuote:
Originally Posted by The Editor
there isnt.
You're not following the logic. We're not talking about a sudden and drastic cut in the number of private employees. It would be a gradual shift: a slowly decrease in the number of people in private jobs while increasing production, and a steady increase in public jobs in tune with the increased tax revenue.
There's no requirement to be unionised in England. And the London underground unions do a great job of demonstrating how irritating and disruptive an overpowered union can be. Bastards keep striking and refuse to let TFL reduce employees despite them not being needed any more.
Communism doesn't work in practice either, but that doesn't stop it being a good idea. An idea you can never hope to achieve, but still a damn good idea.
i remember my prior arguments against communism with you were a paraphrased version of thisQuote:
Originally Posted by God