User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 12:14:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Depends on the labor law.
Unions though? Fuck 'em. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:44:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Come on now. I know you guys are much more opinionated than this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:46:00 PM EDT
[#3]
people have the right to unionize.
companies should also have the rights to say they don't want to work with unions. Freedom. Ain't it grand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:47:29 PM EDT
[#4]
Not all the laws, just the unfair ones.
Unions, yes be gone. In our quick to litigate society we don't need unions. Normal labor laws like 40hr work week, child labor laws, OSHA etc are all fine. Crap laws like needing a reason to fire someone need to go. Edit: Not saying unions should be illegal, but outside the company. If they decide to strike one day, it should not be illegal for the company to fire them all. Unions should not be able to force people to join the union once they are hired by the company. This closed shop crap is BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:48:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Without labor laws to blackmail companies with, Unions are fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:49:48 PM EDT
[#6]
+1 I think the government's role ends at the point of contract enforcement. e.g. if an employer or employee promise each other something... they should be required to comply with the terms of their agreement. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:50:00 PM EDT
[#7]
and minimum wage needs to go. It hurts much more than it helps.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:51:53 PM EDT
[#8]
+1, and yes I know I'm a post whore, but bastiat pretty much sums up how I feel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:52:28 PM EDT
[#9]
No.
Your question is too broad. If you want to be specific about a particular law, do so. Unions should be forced to operate in a free market. No special treatment under the law, no closed shops, no protection from their illegal acts, no exemption from anti-trust and RICO statutes. If a group of workers want to form an organization and offer their services in bulk, go for it. However, no one should have to join a union for any reason whatsoever. Unions are Marxist and have been groomed by communists since WWI. If they want to compete with free workers, let them do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:53:27 PM EDT
[#10]
Screw them both. Let the fair market dictate what is a fair wage/work environment. If the workers want to Unionize fine the company doesn't have to deal with them if they don't want too, also workers who don't want to join the union can opt out.
Unions and labor laws are strangling the productivity of the country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:55:40 PM EDT
[#11]
So you want no labor laws, no minimum wage and corporate union busting. Basically, you want to make $0.50 an hour. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:56:45 PM EDT
[#12]
learn some basic economics. Then get back to me. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:56:51 PM EDT
[#13]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:57:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Another one who wants to make $0.50 an hour and be required to work 12-16 hour days 7 days a week. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:57:22 PM EDT
[#15]
Oh, you guys are gonna hate me.
Minimum wage? Gone. Mandatory overtime pay? Gone. Child labor laws? Gone. 40 hour work week? Gone. Laws protecting unions? Gone. As for unions, in my world employees have the right to form them. The federal government should have exactly ZERO involvement regarding their existence, however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:57:31 PM EDT
[#16]
MOSteve,
That is not what he said. You are using a straw man argument by misrepresenting his view and then condemning it. But then, you are pro-union. What else are we to expect from a union guy, the truth? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:58:04 PM EDT
[#17]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:58:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Steve's a Bolshevik. Ignore him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:00:15 PM EDT
[#19]
If we did away with minimum wage, federal labor laws and unions...ABSOLUTELY! |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:00:36 PM EDT
[#20]
I make a bit more than $0.50/hr, and there are no unions in my industry. You suck at economics. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:01:31 PM EDT
[#21]
That's becoming apparent. Doesn't know jack shit about economics or free markets. No rational thought. Can only emote moronic drivel like "corporations bad!" like they do at the DNC and DU. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:02:24 PM EDT
[#22]
For pete's sake, how dense are you? Do you get all your thoughts from the UAW newsletter? Try logical thought for once. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:02:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Steve NEVER gets that employers CAN'T mistreat GOOD employees!
It is not sound business. Steve why do you feel that business is out to fuck their employees? (don't deny you feel this way) It's 5pm here and I have to go.....it's poker nite so I'll come back and do this to you later krpind------>  <------Stevej/k dude..........kinda 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:02:55 PM EDT
[#24]
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:02:55 PM EDT
[#25]
Repeal of labor laws? Pretty much, yeah. What do you mean by abolish? I wouldn't want to see the Feds bust them all up, but they shouldn't be protected by the Feds either. Get the Government out. That's freedom. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:03:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Yes it is:
That's called union busting.
Wrong on both counts. I am not absolutely pro-union, and I am not a member of any union. I don't want to be a member of any unions either. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:03:35 PM EDT
[#27]
But it should also be recognized that they don't come cheap. They cost money - a LOT of money. In these times where we're seeing massive economic consequences from almost anything you can think of, we should be asking how we can keep our private companies afloat, instead of punishing them for doing what they do best. By the above, I do not advocate corporate welfare. It does bug me some that it seems that top level managers are making so much while their companies go bankrupt. What are they getting paid for, then? People who actually care about the company enough to give it efficient and effective leadership are needed. The company needs to get its money's worth out of its people. Is that taking place when everybody is trying to run it into bankruptcy? The same for the unions. The workers cannot be in it to suck blood out of the rock that their company has turned into, in the name of "fair wages" or somesuch. The money is not infinite. It has to come from somewhere. Where does sanity come into union demands? People complain about high prices. Prices rise for real economic reasons, not just because CEOs want to get rich. Those prices can be lowered by reducing the costs that go into production and funding the support of production. Is anybody willing to do that? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:04:13 PM EDT
[#28]
No, it's called freedom. And you are afraid of it and against it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:06:14 PM EDT
[#29]
unions are great, I'm all for individuals being able to make any contract they want.
I'm also for letting firms not hire anyone associated with a union. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:08:21 PM EDT
[#30]
OK, let me try your logic: [bastiat]Companies are constrained by federal labor laws, the minimum wage and unions in America which force them to pay workers too much money for too little work. If the federal labor laws and minimum wage were repealed, and companies were able to ignore the unions then working conditions and wages in America would not fall to the levels of the third world countries that American corporations are currently exporting their manufacturing and technology jobs to.[/bastiat] 
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:09:54 PM EDT
[#31]
+1 Sounds about perfect to me. I don't care about employees forming unions. Just remove any laws protecting them. If a company wants to fire all of his union employees, he should have the right to do so. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:12:29 PM EDT
[#32]
"Free market capitalist" here.
Capitalism is a harsh mistress. But it's the only mistress known to work that gives everyone an equal shot at success based upon skills, dedication and work ethic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:13:15 PM EDT
[#33]
yes, that smilie really proves your point there, steve. Here, let me show you a little example. It's real world economics. Liberals think cigarrettes are bad. They want to tax cigarrettes more to discourage smoking. So higher cost of smoking = fewer cigarrettes bought. Environmentalist liberals want increased taxes on gas to discourage consumption and pollution from excise driving. So higher cost of gas = less gas used. Now, let's have the government mandate a higher cost of labor. So for an employer it costs $100 a day to do a job instead of $80. Will that result in MORE labor being used, or less labor being used, steve? Let me know if you figure that one out. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:13:48 PM EDT
[#34]
That's only if they want to get rid of idiots who tend to gravitate to places where they cannot be fired instead of being forced at gunpoint to keep them on. I however command higher wages and am worth every penny. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:49:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Yes they can, and they do. You may not, but many companies do.
Because they are: - Enron forced employees to accecpt company stock as their retirement plan, and when the executives of Enron realized that the stock was going to lose it's value they issued a company policy forbidding any employee from selling their Enron stock so that outside investors would not become fearful and dump their stock as well. - Kmart's CEO took millions in personal loans from the corporation to build his home while Kmart was losing money at an astonishing rate. Kmart closed dozens of stores and laid off thousands of employees before their stock was devalued. Eventually the CEO resigned, and on his way out the board of directors gave him a $4 million dollar bonus and forgave the personal loans that he took from the company. - United Airlines begged (and received) for billions of dollars in federal subsidies to bail them out after 9/11. In return, United filed for reorganizational bankruptcy. During the process they decided to default on their employee pension plan leaving all retired employees and working employees who had accrued retirement money under that plan out in the cold. I've also had my fair share of personal experiences (the company that came to me my 3rd day on the job and asked me to go to Washington DC for a month after swearing up and down that I wouldn't have to travel comes to mind) as well. Corporate America is about making money and they'd have no problems cutting wages and benefits while increasing hours and decreasing workplace safety if it meant increasing profits without risking government fines and facility closures. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:57:24 PM EDT
[#36]
No, working conditions would deteriorate to match those in communist China, Hondurous, Pakistan and Vietnam as would wages. Why? Because corporations could increase profits by sacrifing workplace safety, forcing employees to work longer hours, paying a lower wage and cutting benefits. And if the employees don't like or refuse to agree, then close the plant in Ohio and ship manufacturing to China, then fire the IT staff and ship IT functions to Bagalore. Once people's unemployment starts running out they'll be ready to work for what ever the corporation decides they're going to pay, for as many hours as their told in whatever hell hole death trap the corporation wants them to work in. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:58:34 PM EDT
[#37]
SteveO,
Enron did not force anyone to have Enron stock in their retirement plan. Enron have employees stock options. The purpose of these options is to permit the employees to sell them and make money. The purpose of an option is not to hang on to it. Companies give stock options because it costs the company virtually nothing and makes good money for the employees. However, greed caused many employees to hang onto the stock to get more. Many employees decided to hang on to them to see how much more they could make. No one was prohibitted from selling at the time of the option or while it was going up. When it started to fall, there was still time to sell. However, many employees, just like the head guys at Enron, were in their full greed mode and decided to see if it wouldn't bounce. They waited too long to sell. The window was closed briefly. The error that the employees made was not selling their stock that they were awarded the option on. It is well known in financial circles that is what these options are for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:02:28 PM EDT
[#38]
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:03:02 PM EDT
[#39]
You also said that you don't care if the middle class has to move into mud huts and live off of rice to make corporations more profitable (because you have invested heavily in the stock markets). I however am a little more reluctant to sell my entire nation into the hands of people who would impovrish 95% of America just so that my stocks could go up. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:05:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Intersting argument. I expect nothing less from a degreed history/legal/economic expert. Which chapter discusses sweatshops and tenaments? Explain to me how Americans would be able to maintain their standard of living without any labor laws or unions, when the countries that we are competing with for jobs have a much, much lower standard of living. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:07:44 PM EDT
[#41]
Steve, I work in an industry that has NO unions. My employer can pay me anything they want (as long as it is above $4.25/hour) without fear of government intrusion. They can force me to work as many hours as they like since I am salary.
Why is my company paying me 11x the minimum wage plus benefits? Give up? Maybe it is because my skill set demands that salary based on the market. If your skill set is worth $4.25/hour, then forgive me for not defending your "right" to earn $25/hour. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:09:19 PM EDT
[#42]
why don't you try addressing my basic economics quiz WRT the minimum wage, then? You are so clueless about this that it's scary. You're citing socialist / communist talking points and apparently have absolutely no idea how basic economics work. Do you really believe the shit you're spouting, or does it just make you feel good? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:09:40 PM EDT
[#43]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:11:12 PM EDT
[#44]
The free market is the best way to do it.
If you have a better solution then you should be writing a book rather than knocking it steve. It would sell. Trust me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:12:06 PM EDT
[#45]
I blame Bush for Steve's complete lack of economic understanding... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:14:32 PM EDT
[#46]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:19:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Correct. I don't care if people end up having to eat rice and live in shitty homes because they're not skilled enough to compete. Having a nice house and top shelf food is not a right. The context in that thread was that I think employers should be able to fire employees for any reason as long as there's no contract preventing it. I don't think this will result in people living in mud huts and starving. Also, I don't think I said I'm heavily invested in the stock market. I may have said that if you're worried about all this you SHOULD invest, but I didn't say anything about myself. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:22:04 PM EDT
[#48]
This isn't about me. I also work in an industry without unions, and I make about the same as you and I do it from the comfort of my own home. Unions don't benefit me directly. I am not effected by the minimum wage, I am not effected by OSHA safety standards and working more than 40 hours a week would benefit me greatly. However, most Americans aren't in this position. Most Americans have to go to a job everyday and work for a company that sees paying their employees salary, providing them with a safe workplace and letting them go home after a 40 hour week (unless they are paying overtime) as having a negative impact on profits. Think of the money that could be saved by removing the smoke detectors, fire supression system, emergency lighting and using asbestos insulation. Think of the boost to profits if they could pay their workers the same rates that people in China, Mexico, Hondurous, India, Pakistan and Vietnam make. Think of the increased productivity if we could force workers to work 12-16 hour days, without providing lunch periods. Think of the cost reduction if we could eliminate employer funded health and retirement benefits. $$$$$$ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:23:08 PM EDT
[#49]
Who needs depleted uranium to make bullets. We can simply mine the cognitive abilities of some of these union psycophants. Nothing comes close to that density. I don't know how they lift their heads off the pillow in the morning. The weight must be a bugger.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:24:52 PM EDT
[#50]
Yes. Explain to me how Americans would be able to maintain their standard of living without any labor laws or unions, when the countries that we are competing with for jobs also do not have labor laws, do not have unions and have a much, much lower standard of living. I'm all "ears". |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
