So the employer folds and the union gets more rights.
So the employer folds and the union gets more rights.
The employer folds, meaning they keep on people they don't need, wasting money that they could be using to improve the service.
Sounds like anyone that is against unions is playing the devil's advicate.
Now you're being Mr. slippery-slope
listen the editor. the free market system doesn't work. idle labor is not efficiently allocated to other industries. in this light it is important that as few people lose their jobs as possible. considering the inefficiencies of the free market, there must be an institution that makes sure decisions regarding labor are not based solely on profit.
the point of strikes is to force other cost-cutting measures. often times they are available. for example they could reduce management salaries, suspend bonuses and dividends, sell stock, and look for other ways to reduce overhead rather than cutting labor. this is because people need jobs to survive, and the labor market does not efficiently re-allocate labor. and in our modern day when well paying jobs are being destroyed, it is important than if someone has a good manufacturing job they should stay on it as long as possible.
even if a company pays them to stand around. if they can afford it they should be made to do so. because if they CAN afford it then the money saved from labor would simply be redistributed to executives and shareholders. if after all other cost cutting measures have been employed they still cannot afford all the labor, then they should cut some so that other jobs can still remain; but not a moment before.
The point of a company isn't to provide jobs, and it never should be.
Because it undermines the fundamental reason why businesses exist: to provide services or goods in exchange for other services or goods. If you create a business purely to provide jobs, you will inevitably reduce your ability to efficiently produce goods or services. This means other companies will be able to undercut you and that's it, you're out of the game. Everybody loses their job and they're all no better off than when they started.
alright i just wanted to see if you'd actually give an answer
anyway that wasnt the point of my post at all. the point was that providing good jobs should come as a responsibility to a company while it produces. until those jobs become burdensome to the point of interfering with the ability to produce. IF they do then job cuts can start, AFTER alternate cost-cutting measures have been enacted. not a single job should be cut or reduced until executive compensation has declined by about 80% of thereabouts. it should be a last resort. for several reasons.
of course there is the reason that people need jobs to live and that the free market cannot efficiently reallocate labor. also this is a problem for the entire economy. in a recession it will make sense for each firm to cut employees and hours as demand decreases. but when everyone does that there is a further demand slump. this is because the crown jewel of capitalism's failure is that perfectly sensible and preferable microeconomics decisions often collude to produce macroeconomic disaster. the easier it is for firms to cut jobs, the more they will do so. in a recession, more jobs will be cut. more job cuts, decreased demand. it is a cycle essentially of no short-term end without significant intervention to force firms to retain jobs.
besides this is all outside the scope of YOUR original argument. that being that unions seeking to save jobs will cause the entire company to fold. not if alternative cost cutting measures are successful. if they are not then jobs can be cut. a union has a job to do, that being to look out for its workers. a union should not allow job cuts until all other means of cost cutting and improving efficiency has been tried. thats really what its down to.
Yes, a union has a duty to its members to keep their jobs no matter what the cost to the company. However, the needs of the company should also be considered. It can be far more efficient to reduce a superfluous workforce, but the union will fight it. My point is that at the current time some unions have too much power and that they abuse that power. For example, the underground unions regularly strike over things like pay, despite being paid far more than most people with similar qualifications. These strikes affect not just TFL but also millions of people who have nothing to do with this and would just like to get to work on time for once.
By the way, there is a problem with cutting pay to management: they can get other jobs, with better pay.
too lazy to search threads from months ago
Rayne you where never talking about communism a month ago
unions need more power in Britain, their power is extremely insufficient and industrialised nations like Germany which promote corporatism and worker relations are having productive economies. that's an argument which needs to be lumped in here rather than a theoretical debate about the purpose of collective bargaining in a free-market economy and its flaws in terms of capitalism
i probably have a wrong idea on what a union actually is. anyone care to enlighten me?
workers in a particular company or trade come together to negotiate contracts for their workers. the contracts will stipulate terms of pay but also terms of conduct by the employer for scheduling, dismissal, work conditions etc so if a worker feels he is being treated unfairly by the employer he can have a union representative demand the contract be enforced. usually they will restrict non-union workers from entering whatever is unionized so the contracts cant be undercut, and declare strikes if they can't come to an agreement with the employer. in the US at least once a union has been formed employers are legally obliged to bargain 'in good faith' meaning they have to make reasonable concessions in terms of pay, worker protection, etc.