I saw something on the news the other day.  A city in California, or California (It was on one of the cable-news stations at the gym, so I couldn't hear it)  Passed an ordinance that Home Depot has to have labor camps for illegal immigrants.  Some woman on some council responsible for this said almost verbatim "If you don't want guest worker labor, don't use it.  If Home Depot does not want to do business in California, don't do business in California."


Government regulation is more often than not outright stupid.  To openly advocate government regulation is like advocating everyone have their left hamstring cut to even up golf scores.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A business is a non-existent entity written down on paper for the purpose of managing assets and making money. If it is not regulated then it has the capability to devour everything in it's path including it's employees and other businesses. And when the business achieves it's ultimate goal, it has accumulated a vast amount of wealth for a very small number of people sometimes to the detriment of millions of other people. A business is a man made entity with no natural rights. Man created businesses, and man has the power to determine the conditions under which businesses may operate, and the tool that man uses to implement these restrictions is called government. It's very, very simple. Business can and should be regulated. End of story. Is that how an agency of the United States Government decided that a gun in somebody's closet was engaged in interstate commerce? Regulatory types make me nervous. And anarchists (which is essentially what libertarians and lassie faire capitalists are) make me nervous. Wow you blow me away with your idea of American business. American businesses especially companies that have fewer than 100 employees are the very backbone of this economy and drive the middle class. Without a vibrant middle class (buying homes cars and spending money having fun), the economy is stagnant and would faulter. When you regulate business, you create the very things you are trying to avoid. I have had this conversation with you before.......you need a clue of how hard it is to just break even when competition is the main obstacle. Add some .gov regulation and it becomes almost impossible to make money. I'll give you a small clue......if a company doesn't make money, employees don't get paid. What in your job history make you so antibusiness???

I'm not anti business at all. I am very much pro-business. I have the utmost respect for people who form a business and work towards making a profit.

I have a problem with companies that think they have some right to dictate to the employees how the will or will not live their lives (for example Scott's firing people who use tobacco either at home or at work).

Oh, and employment is rarely at will. Many, many companies these days require that you sign employment contracts which limit your ability to find another job, limit your ability to start a competitive business, and even give the company the rights to anything you invent for several years after leaving their employ.

I had one employer who felt that if they sent you to training which pertained to your job (now, keep in mind that I work in a field where everything I do is a billable activity which directly generate revenue for the company) they were entitled to force you to work for them for at least a year, and they also felt that they had a right to prevent you from working for any competitor in your metropolitan area. They used to fly people out to Boston for training, and then half way through the class they would fly the HR director up with non-compete agreements and promisory notes for the training. One person that I worked with refused to sign and the company fired him on the spot, canceled his hotel room and canceled his plane ticket home.

If I am contributing your financial independance, then I expect to be treated a little better than a condom.

Quoted: "I figured that was where mr. 36posts was coming from with this thread. He ASSumes that because many of us feel that a company has no right to dictate our personal lives, we must be pro-union. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hate unions, but that has nothing to do with that other thread." Thank you for the personal attack.  It shows how weak you are in your position. Why can't you guys see that NO EMPLOYER HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE YOU TO DO ANYTHING!?! You guys keep screaming RAPE?  You seem to be totally ignorant of economics and psychology.   None of you have presented a single example of an employee who was forced to do anything by their employer.  Employers do not have the force of arms.  All they can do is outline the requirements for the job.  All you do is decide if you want that job. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Not a personal attack, just an acknowledgement of a fact.  It does not show me weak in anything, just points out where you are coming from.

Like I said in the other thread, once the employers start making demands that interferes with something in YOUR personal life, you will start screaming.  You try to deny that, but that is the case and it is hypocrisy at it's best.

You love to throw out terms such as "economics and psychology" so as to sound informed, but you really aren't.

Based on your reasoning, an employer can fire someone (or refuse to hire them) because of their race, ethnic background, or religious beliefs.  However, that would be illegal.  Yet, you seem to think that the employer has the right to delve into your personal life with no repercussions to them.  You seem to think that an employer has the right to control your life even when you are not on the clock.  YOU are the one with the weak argument.

Sounds very much like "Big Brother" and you seem to be fine with that.  "Big Brother" is not necessarily just the gov.

The fact that you seem to think that the responses you got in the other thread are indicative of being pro-union, proves that you do not know what you are talking about.  Because someone thinks that their employer has no business in their personal life is NOT a pro-union stance and actually has nothing whatsoever to do with unions.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A business is a non-existent entity written down on paper for the purpose of managing assets and making money. If it is not regulated then it has the capability to devour everything in it's path including it's employees and other businesses. And when the business achieves it's ultimate goal, it has accumulated a vast amount of wealth for a very small number of people sometimes to the detriment of millions of other people. A business is a man made entity with no natural rights. Man created businesses, and man has the power to determine the conditions under which businesses may operate, and the tool that man uses to implement these restrictions is called government. It's very, very simple. Business can and should be regulated. End of story. Is that how an agency of the United States Government decided that a gun in somebody's closet was engaged in interstate commerce? Regulatory types make me nervous. And anarchists (which is essentially what libertarians and lassie faire capitalists are) make me nervous. Wow you blow me away with your idea of American business. American businesses especially companies that have fewer than 100 employees are the very backbone of this economy and drive the middle class. Without a vibrant middle class (buying homes cars and spending money having fun), the economy is stagnant and would faulter. When you regulate business, you create the very things you are trying to avoid. I have had this conversation with you before.......you need a clue of how hard it is to just break even when competition is the main obstacle. Add some .gov regulation and it becomes almost impossible to make money. I'll give you a small clue......if a company doesn't make money, employees don't get paid. What in your job history make you so antibusiness??? I'm not anti business at all. I am very much pro-business. I have the utmost respect for people who form a business and work towards making a profit. I have a problem with companies that think they have some right to dictate to the employees how the will or will not live their lives (for example Scott's firing people who use tobacco either at home or at work). Oh, and employment is rarely at will. Many, many companies these days require that you sign employment contracts which limit your ability to find another job, limit your ability to start a competitive business, and even give the company the rights to anything you invent for several years after leaving their employ. I had one employer who felt that if they sent you to training which pertained to your job (now, keep in mind that I work in a field where everything I do is a billable activity which directly generate revenue for the company) they were entitled to force you to work for them for at least a year, and they also felt that they had a right to prevent you from working for any competitor in your metropolitan area. They used to fly people out to Boston for training, and then half way through the class they would fly the HR director up with non-compete agreements and promisory notes for the training. One person that I worked with refused to sign and the company fired him on the spot, canceled his hotel room and canceled his plane ticket home. If I am contributing your financial independance, then I expect to be treated a little better than a condom. What is your position on employer provided health insurance?

My position is that insurance of any kind is nothing more than a legalized protection racket, and should be abolished completely.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I must be in the minority. Fuck Unions. I'll join your minority. <---------forced union "member" I'm a Republican and a Union member. I really can't see your point what's wrong with a fair wage,health ins. vacation time,Pension,job security. would you rather make $75000.00 a year and be trained well and have work rules in place or according to your logic make $25000.00 a year and have some A$$ hat screw you over because of a personality conlict. I LOVE UNIONS they have been very good to me and my family. To sum it up if you want to work for less and have no security don't join a Union

To sum it up, if you can't hack it in the real world without the government and a gang protecting you, go union.

A Republican and a union member? See my first post... a hypocrite who wants socialism when its good for his wallet, but capitalism when its time to spend his money.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I must be in the minority. Fuck Unions. I'll join your minority. <---------forced union "member" I'm a Republican and a Union member. I really can't see your point what's wrong with a fair wage,health ins. vacation time,Pension,job security. would you rather make $75000.00 a year and be trained well and have work rules in place or according to your logic make $25000.00 a year and have some A$$ hat screw you over because of a personality conlict. I LOVE UNIONS they have been very good to me and my family. To sum it up if you want to work for less and have no security don't join a Union To sum it up, if you can't hack it in the real world without the government and a gang protecting you, go union. A Republican and a union member? See my first post... a hypocrite who wants socialism when its good for his wallet, but capitalism when its time to spend his money.

I have "hacked it in the real world" in the same field in the non-union sector for 10years with zero problems. All I'm saying is I enjoy the extra $40,000.00 a year that comes with being a Union member. I go to work 5 day's a week and I WORK. I LOVE UNIONS

Quoted: Quoted: By unskilled I mean sticking widget A into Widget B. A job anyone can learn to do in under 1 month with no previous education in the field would fall into that catagory. While jobs like that do exist in manufacturing, the majority do not qualify. Your average worker in an American manufacturing plant is charged with keeping track of complex machines that do a great percentage of the production here, that all must meet specific tolerance requirements for ISO 9000 certifications. They are responsible for constant quality control, etc. The average job many people consider "unskilled" is a hell of a lot more involved than most realize.

The majority today in the US do not qualify, but not the majority in the world..... or the majority 20 years ago.

Want to bet why a whole lot of those jobs that did fit my description moved? While labor costs are not all of it, they are a signifigant chunk, in a close tie for first with burdensome government regulations (brought along mostly by democrats, who are supported and elected in part by unions) and an assed up tax system throw in to boot.

Even most auto worker jobs... yeah the guy tightening down the bolts has to run them to specific torque, but he has an air gun that is calibrated for that use, and all he has to do is check it, or in a union shop I am sure they demand a whole seperate employee to check it, per the manufacturers specs to make sure it stays calibrated.

Now the guy who maintains the calibration system and repairs/calibrates the tools... THAT'S skilled labor that you can't replace with ease. But the guy using it? Not hardly.

The jobs that demand quality people are here......... for now.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I must be in the minority. Fuck Unions. I'll join your minority. <---------forced union "member" I'm a Republican and a Union member. I really can't see your point what's wrong with a fair wage,health ins. vacation time,Pension,job security. would you rather make $75000.00 a year and be trained well and have work rules in place or according to your logic make $25000.00 a year and have some A$$ hat screw you over because of a personality conlict. I LOVE UNIONS they have been very good to me and my family. To sum it up if you want to work for less and have no security don't join a Union To sum it up, if you can't hack it in the real world without the government and a gang protecting you, go union. A Republican and a union member? See my first post... a hypocrite who wants socialism when its good for his wallet, but capitalism when its time to spend his money. I have "hacked it in the real world" in the same field in the non-union sector for 10years with zero problems. All I'm saying is I enjoy the extra $40,000.00 a year that comes with being a Union member. I go to work 5 day's a week and I WORK. I LOVE UNIONS

All your sayng is your more than happy to be paid $40,000 a year more than you are worth because of government protected extortion and a socialistic system, and for you thats easier than actually going out and really earning it in the free market.

In short, your a socialist hypocrite.

Quoted: My position is that insurance of any kind is nothing more than a legalized protection racket, and should be abolished completely.

ANY insurance? So the guy going down the street who hits you doesn't need insurance for his car? You shouldn't be able to buy homeowners insurance? You DID say all insurance.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I must be in the minority. Fuck Unions. I'll join your minority. <---------forced union "member"[/quote I'm a Republican and a Union member. I really can't see your point what's wrong with a fair wage,health ins. vacation time,Pension,job security. would you rather make $75000.00 a year and be trained well and have work rules in place or according to your logic make $25000.00 a year and have some A$$ hat screw you over because of a personality conlict. I LOVE UNIONS they have been very good to me and my family. To sum it up if you want to work for less and have no security don't join a Union

+1 .........I enjoy better than average pay and benefits because of my union, so I'll stay a member and support them as long as I can and as long as it benefits me and my family. .......Also,
I don't get paid $26 hr for unskilled labor. I make about $25 hr to provide skilled maintenance for a critical business operation.

Company I work for is almost all union and we only made something like 364 million in the last quarter.

www.kiplinger.com/personalfinance/columns/picks/archive/2005/pick1104.htm


Damn unions.

Quoted: My position is that insurance of any kind is nothing more than a legalized protection racket, and should be abolished completely.

So, I should run the risk of tens of thousands (or more) of dollars in medical bills rather than pay group rates for medical insurance at work.

Yeah, it's a racket until you need it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I must be in the minority. Fuck Unions. I'll join your minority. <---------forced union "member" I'm a Republican and a Union member. I really can't see your point what's wrong with a fair wage,health ins. vacation time,Pension,job security. would you rather make $75000.00 a year and be trained well and have work rules in place or according to your logic make $25000.00 a year and have some A$$ hat screw you over because of a personality conlict. I LOVE UNIONS they have been very good to me and my family. To sum it up if you want to work for less and have no security don't join a Union To sum it up, if you can't hack it in the real world without the government and a gang protecting you, go union. A Republican and a union member? See my first post... a hypocrite who wants socialism when its good for his wallet, but capitalism when its time to spend his money. I have "hacked it in the real world" in the same field in the non-union sector for 10years with zero problems. All I'm saying is I enjoy the extra $40,000.00 a year that comes with being a Union member. I go to work 5 day's a week and I WORK. I LOVE UNIONS All your sayng is your more than happy to be paid $40,000 a year more than you are worth because of government protected extortion and a socialistic system, and for you thats easier than actually going out and really earning it in the free market. In short, your a socialist hypocrite.

LOL... It would seem that the people who "hate" unions the most are ones who aren't affected by it one way or another. OF COURSE it's better to make a higher wage if you can. Why wouldn't you? It doesn't logically follow that the union differential is the amount of money that a given person is being overpaid. Some of these folks seem to like the wages they get, yet they hate being "forced" to join a union. Fine... they should just quit and take one of those $9/hr jobs. Personally, I can't support my family on a $9 per hour wage.

I realize that most of you guys are talking about factory workers when you refer to unskilled help. I know what you're talking about, and I've seen it myself. No wonder cars cost as much as they do. Let's not generalize about all unions here, however.

Union-trained workers in specialized construction trades are often better-trained that their non-union counterparts, although, with the prevailing wage laws, both will often earn the same amount of money. Union training is supposed to assure the client of a properly trained workforce, and the idea makes sense, but I'll admit that the true craftsmen in the trades who are worth their salt are paid the same amount as the slackers who do as little as possible to just get by. This is one reason that I tend to not run work as a foreman. There is little or no control over who you'll get, and it can be frustrating to try to get good work out of people who just won't make an honest effort. We have a motto: "A day's work for a day's pay," but not everyone lives up to the same standard. They do, however, all get the same pay. We have our share of stupid boneheads. The sad part is, they often come out smelling like a rose because they are protected. The good part is that is's not the norm.  

I work my ass off, often in less than favorable conditions, while the lot of you sit in your air-conditioned offices complaining about the help at Arfcom. I'll take the union wages over $9/hr, of course. I suppose that makes me a Socialist hypocrite, too. Would you feel better if I made less?  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I must be in the minority. Fuck Unions. I'll join your minority. <---------forced union "member" I'm a Republican and a Union member. I really can't see your point what's wrong with a fair wage,health ins. vacation time,Pension,job security. would you rather make $75000.00 a year and be trained well and have work rules in place or according to your logic make $25000.00 a year and have some A$$ hat screw you over because of a personality conlict. I LOVE UNIONS they have been very good to me and my family. To sum it up if you want to work for less and have no security don't join a Union To sum it up, if you can't hack it in the real world without the government and a gang protecting you, go union. A Republican and a union member? See my first post... a hypocrite who wants socialism when its good for his wallet, but capitalism when its time to spend his money. I have "hacked it in the real world" in the same field in the non-union sector for 10years with zero problems. All I'm saying is I enjoy the extra $40,000.00 a year that comes with being a Union member. I go to work 5 day's a week and I WORK. I LOVE UNIONS All your sayng is your more than happy to be paid $40,000 a year more than you are worth because of government protected extortion and a socialistic system, and for you thats easier than actually going out and really earning it in the free market. In short, your a socialist hypocrite.

End of conversation

Quoted: I'm not anti business at all. I am very much pro-business. I have the utmost respect for people who form a business and work towards making a profit. I have a problem with companies that think they have some right to dictate to the employees how the will or will not live their lives (for example Scott's firing people who use tobacco either at home or at work).

I have a problem with that as well. BUT I would quit. It really is as simple as that.
I know we will never agree, but ALL an employer OWES an employee is a check and a safe work enviroment.
[repeating myself] Savy business owners and managers take very good care of good employees because they are too hard to find.[/repeating myself] No manager can afford to lose employees to a competitor, again this is how a free unregulated market HELPS employees help themselves

Oh, and employment is rarely at will. Many, many companies these days require that you sign employment contracts which limit your ability to find another job, limit your ability to start a competitive business, and even give the company the rights to anything you invent for several years after leaving their employ.

Worthless as the paper they are written on in Texas.
Let me repeat that...WORTHLESS.

I had one employer who felt that if they sent you to training which pertained to your job (now, keep in mind that I work in a field where everything I do is a billable activity which directly generate revenue for the company) they were entitled to force you to work for them for at least a year, and they also felt that they had a right to prevent you from working for any competitor in your metropolitan area. They used to fly people out to Boston for training, and then half way through the class they would fly the HR director up with non-compete agreements and promisory notes for the training. One person that I worked with refused to sign and the company fired him on the spot, canceled his hotel room and canceled his plane ticket home.

Mixed emotions about this one, on one hand I understand the managements position on not wanting to waste money training an employee.......it costs A LOT.
On the other hand....that is a low down shitty thing to pull on someone.
They should have been upfront with how the process worked. If this company still is existance it is a shame. Their best and brightest could EASILY be hired by a competitor.

If I am contributing your financial independance, then I expect to be treated a little better than a condom.

While I agree, it is for different reasons.
You seem selfish and want to be put on equal footing with owners.
I want my company to be the standard for excellence in my industry. I understand that the only difference in my company and my competitors is people.
Better people make better companies.

Quoted: +1 .........I enjoy better than average pay and benefits because of my union, so I'll stay a member and support them as long as I can and as long as it benefits me and my family.

As a blue collar worker, government intrusion into my affairs is bad, however, government intrusion into the affairs of my employer is just dandy as long as I get mine...

Quoted: I make about $25 hr to provide skilled maintenance for a critical business operation.

If this is true, what do you need the union for? Collective barginning only works when the individual holds no power themselves (read: unskilled labor). If you can provide a critical skill set, then the market will reward you (probably at a better rate than the union provides).

Quoted: Based on what I've read in the GD, most people are obsessed woth Bareback Buttsex Mountain, too. I think it is funny when liberals say capitalism is a necessary evil, because it is the only way to financially support the social programs they want.

Fixed it for ya!

Quoted: Based on what I have read in GD, the following is believed by many: <snip> What are we doing without?

Our system isn't capitalism, it's corporate socialism. Here is a quick article on it:

www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html

What's good for the middle class is good for this country, not what's good for corporations is good for this country.

How can you be forced to sign a no-compete agreement?  You can always say 'no thanks' and head for the door.  Are they going to shoot you?

I am flabbergasted that adult men and women keep talking about being 'forced' to do anything.  You are offered a business opportunity and you always have the power to say yes or no.

When you have gone shopping, did you ever feel you were 'forced' to purchase something?

You guys have some really weak minds.

Quoted: what do you need the union for? Collective barginning only works when the individual holds no power themselves (read: unskilled labor). If you can provide a critical skill set, then the market will reward you (probably at a better rate than the union provides).

This is what union/ regulation guys NEVER get.

Quoted: What's good for the middle class is good for this country, not what's good for corporations is good for this country.

When corporations and small businesses are driven into the ground due to government regulation, where will the middle class be then?

BTW, thanks for falling into the liberal trap of categorizing citizens by "class." This ain't India; we don't have a caste system.

Quoted: Quoted: My position is that insurance of any kind is nothing more than a legalized protection racket, and should be abolished completely. So, I should run the risk of tens of thousands (or more) of dollars in medical bills rather than pay group rates for medical insurance at work. Yeah, it's a racket until you need it.

People didn't always need health insurance to cover the cost of their health care. I think that there is alot that can be done to decrease medical costs (without imposing price controls) which would make health care affordable. Placing severe limitations on medical malpractice law suits would go a long way towards reducing the cost of medical care. I'd also support some government subsidies to pharmacutical companies to help offset R&D costs for drugs (to keep the cost of presciption drugs lower).

My experience with health and dental insurance is that they take your premiums and then refuse to pay when you file a claim. As an adult, the health and dental insurance that my employers have provided me with has literally never covered anything that I have had to file a claim for. I've been stuck paying the bill for everything that I have ever had to have, including doctor's vists, x-rays, dental checkups and having my wisdom teeth removed.

Quoted: Actually business is being more regulated by insurance companies than government and we didn't vote for their management at all.

No, but you are free to stop working at a company if their benefit package does not agree with you. You can't "quit" America when the government regulates companies into the ground.

Quoted: It follows his approach of some or more entitled than others

How so? Did I miss a thread?

Quoted: ...and things like smoking, sexual promescuity, drag racing, and motorcycling should be outlawed not by law but by insurance decree.

The difference, of course, is that the government inflicts its will at the barrel of a gun. Therefore, instead of being dragged off to jail for engaging in "banned" activities, you are either dropped from your insurance or you pay a higher premium.

Quoted: Quoted: I must be in the minority. Fuck Unions. I'll join your minority. <---------forced union "member"

You don't have to join the union, even if they say you do.  Tell them to stick it.  I worked in a union shop, and I signed on as an objector. Basically, when you do that, you cannot vote in any elections, or file a grievance against a union member.  BUT, they still take 75-78% of the union dues out of your paycheck, as that is "the amount that it costs me to be represented by the contract that they negotiated for me". Yeah, right.  What a bunch of BS.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I must be in the minority. Fuck Unions. I'll join your minority. <---------forced union "member" I'm a Republican and a Union member. I really can't see your point what's wrong with a fair wage,health ins. vacation time,Pension,job security. would you rather make $75000.00 a year and be trained well and have work rules in place or according to your logic make $25000.00 a year and have some A$$ hat screw you over because of a personality conlict. I LOVE UNIONS they have been very good to me and my family. To sum it up if you want to work for less and have no security don't join a Union To sum it up, if you can't hack it in the real world without the government and a gang protecting you, go union. A Republican and a union member? See my first post... a hypocrite who wants socialism when its good for his wallet, but capitalism when its time to spend his money.

What does "hacking it in the real world have to do with being in a union ? The real world as you call it ,usually promotes the guy with the most BS or connections not the one with the most skills .......Also from what I'm reading everyone thinks you get a union job ,you instantly make union wages,,,ha......You start out at 50-60% and apprentice over 5 years to get to full scale ....During which the employer can  pretty much lose you anytime .......that's in the trades ...............................I am a union carhauler ,which everyone makes the same baseline pay ,but if you are a hard/fast worker you can make double what the lazy mofo's make .........I have been in the trades,have been a non unioin/management project mgr., and been in the teamsters ........when I was  non union/mgmnt ,the co. I worked for got very upper mgmnt heavy and decided to cut costs outta the workers pay ,insurance and bonuses....all of which were substandard to begin with....go "real world" ...do I agree with unions politically? no ....but, they promote what is best for them ,just like an group would ...........

Quoted: While I agree, it is for different reasons. You seem selfish and want to be put on equal footing with owners. I want my company to be the standard for excellence in my industry. I understand that the only difference in my company and my competitors is people. Better people make better companies.

No, not at all really. I have great respect for people who take the risks associated with start/owning their own business. I think that business owners are entitled to reap the rewards of the risks that they take, which means in part means having more money and a better lifestyle than their employees. I don't have a problem with people getting rich at all. I'll even give you an example.

In my career field, every hour that I work is billable to the customer and is a direct source of revenue for the company. My entire career, the companies that I have worked for have always billed me out at a much higer rate than what they pay me (the average in my field is about $250 per hour billable to the customer while employers usually pay between $40-$50 per hour). I have worked with some people who feel that the company is simply whoring us out and giving us the scraps while they keep the lion's share of the profit. I have never felt that way, and I'll tell you why.

Many customers would rather deal with a consulting firm rather than a lone consultant. One person can pick up and walk off in the middle of a project and leave a customer high and dry, but a company with multiple consultants can continue to deliver services on a project, even if the original consultant up and quits. Also, much of the business in my field come from vendors/business partners who engage a consulting firm to deliver a project to the customer on behalf of the vendor/business partner. Since these vendors are staking their reputation with their customers on who they engage to deliver a project, the vendors/business partners will often time place criteria on a company before it will engage them (like saying that a company has to have a minimum of 20 consultants, all of whom have taken an specific training course and may have obtained specific industry certifications). Basically, a consultant couldn't just walk out the door and start getting contracts billing at the same rate that the firm was billing. I have always understood this, and it has never bothered me in the least. The owners of every company I have ever worked for have all made more money than me, drove nicer cars than I did and lived in bigger houses than me, and it has never phased me in the least. I have always fully realized that these people put their necks out to start a business, put in a lot of hard work to get it off of the ground and I have always felt that they were able to reap the rewards.

I'll give you another example, one company that I worked for offered quarterly bonuses as part of their compensation package. When I went to work for them I quickly discovered that they changed the bonus structure ever quarter. They kept tacking on additional requirements to meeting the goals, and altering the bonus schedule for eligable employees, and they even eliminated the bonuses completely for a couple of quarters. Alot of my co-workers bitched up a blue streak over this, and it never phased me a bit. I did not depend on my bonuses as part of my salary, and I viewed them as just that bonuses - additional money paid by the company for doing a good job. I had a few quarters where I didn't get a bonus, and I never once felt cheated or wronged. I've gone years between raises (due to financial struggles that the company was dealing with) and never batted an eye over it.

My problem is not with the owners of a company making more money than I do, having a better quality of life than me or even being able to decide how they run their business. My problem is with business owners who treat their employees like they are company property and dictating to them what they can and cannot do in their personal lives. I don't think that a company should be allowed to require that someone submit a sample of their bodily fluids for inspection before hiring (I may give some leeway on people who operate heavy/dangerous equiptment), and I don't think that a company should be able to tell you what you can or cannot do on your personal time (unless it is illegal, I'll give the company that much leeway), I think that it should be illegal for an employer to try and intimidate an employee with non-compete agreement (worthless or not) in order to prevent them from going to work for someone else.

You must realize that your employees aren't entirely free to quit. At a minimum they have to be able to buy food, and I'm sure that they are required to pay rent or a morgtage, make a car payment, some probably have to pay child support and so on. They don't have the luxury of up and quitting because they don't want to do something that you ask. If you come to one of them with a cup and order them to piss, chances are they have no choice but to piss. And as more and more jobs go overseas, and there are more and more potential employees with fewer and fewer jobs available there is a definate risk that employers will begin place more demands on their employees which have nothing to do with their job. As I think I posted once before, there was a day when my great grandfather had to take his foreman a pint of gin each week in order to keep his job. Why? Because if my great grandfather wasn't greatful enough to bring his foreman a pint of gin then there were a dozen out of work guys who would be. The unions put an end to that.

Quoted: Quoted: what do you need the union for? Collective barginning only works when the individual holds no power themselves (read: unskilled labor). If you can provide a critical skill set, then the market will reward you (probably at a better rate than the union provides). This is what union/ regulation guys NEVER get.

I'm not a big fan of Unions personally, but something that business owners always forget is that there was a day when workers were physically intimidate and sometimes forced to do favors for their supervisors in order to retain their jobs. The reason that Unions are in existence is because business owners used to abuse the shit out of their employees.

Quoted:

Damn Steve, I'll buy you a beer sometime just for typing all that out.

You sound like a good guy, you just don't understand what it is like to sit in the top chair.

An owner/ manager must balance the needs of customer/employee/vendor/stockholder/banker and many more.
SOMETIMES it is give and take, like it or not.

I know I beat this to death, but you don't understand that NO employer can fire or mistreat good employees because if they do, they will go to work somewhere else.

Quoted: When corporations and small businesses are driven into the ground due to government regulation, where will the middle class be then?

Probably no worse then they are now with numerous jobs leaving the country for workers who make 50 cents an hour, benefits being slashed for workers yet management getting more benefits and millions in salary/bonus,  and foreign governments and people running "Corporate America".

Quoted: BTW, thanks for falling into the liberal trap of categorizing citizens by "class." This ain't India; we don't have a caste system.

Wow, this little blurb of yours deserves a whole topic post itself.  Citizens are catagorized by "class" and we do have a caste system.  

Look at what you said, "the liberal trap", so you are classifying people by being liberal, republican, or other.  

People are classified based on skin color (black, white, native american, hispanic, etc), ethnic origins (hyphenated Americans are a big part of what is wrong in this country yet we have african-Americans, irish-Americans, italian-Americans, etc), amount of money they have (poverty, middle class, upper class), jobs they hold (policeman, carpentar, plumber, etc), things they enjoy doing (biker, weightlifter, jogger, etc), where they live (northern, southern, californian, homeless), religious beliefs (christian, muslim, hindu, etc) and many classes and subclasses.  Many are government endorsed and many people happily classify themselves.

As to having a caste system, we sure do.  You have different socioeconomic castes (rich, middle class, poor), different levels of power castes (citizen, police, military, governmental officials), and many others.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I must be in the minority. Fuck Unions. I'll join your minority. <---------forced union "member" I'm a Republican and a Union member. I really can't see your point what's wrong with a fair wage,health ins. vacation time,Pension,job security. would you rather make $75000.00 a year and be trained well and have work rules in place or according to your logic make $25000.00 a year and have some A$$ hat screw you over because of a personality conlict. I LOVE UNIONS they have been very good to me and my family. To sum it up if you want to work for less and have no security don't join a Union To sum it up, if you can't hack it in the real world without the government and a gang protecting you, go union. A Republican and a union member? See my first post... a hypocrite who wants socialism when its good for his wallet, but capitalism when its time to spend his money. I have "hacked it in the real world" in the same field in the non-union sector for 10years with zero problems. All I'm saying is I enjoy the extra $40,000.00 a year that comes with being a Union member. I go to work 5 day's a week and I WORK. I LOVE UNIONS All your sayng is your more than happy to be paid $40,000 a year more than you are worth because of government protected extortion and a socialistic system, and for you thats easier than actually going out and really earning it in the free market. In short, your a socialist hypocrite. End of conversation

See my post page 1:

Sad part is most are so brainwashed by the union line that they just swallow it, I have yet to meet but one on here willing to actually debate the facts without resorting to insults. They will be along soon to drop quick one liners and union talking points.... but I doubt they will try to argue the facts.

Quoted: LOL... It would seem that the people who "hate" unions the most are ones who aren't affected by it one way or another. OF COURSE it's better to make a higher wage if you can. Why wouldn't you? It doesn't logically follow that the union differential is the amount of money that a given person is being overpaid. Some of these folks seem to like the wages they get, yet they hate being "forced" to join a union. Fine... they should just quit and take one of those $9/hr jobs. Personally, I can't support my family on a $9 per hour wage.

We are ALL affected by overpriced labor. You say "of course its better" to take more money. If you were having a yard sale and had to have someone threaten the buyers to make them pay more money, will you say "of course its better" and take the money?

A closed shop should be illegal, and employees free to join the union or negotiate thier own wages and compensation. But if that happened, unions would fail. So unions depend on government protections that force things like closed shops that put them in a psoition to extort money above what thier real value is.

I realize that most of you guys are talking about factory workers when you refer to unskilled help. I know what you're talking about, and I've seen it myself. No wonder cars cost as much as they do. Let's not generalize about all unions here, however. Union-trained workers in specialized construction trades are often better-trained that their non-union counterparts, although, with the prevailing wage laws, both will often earn the same amount of money. Union training is supposed to assure the client of a properly trained workforce, and the idea makes sense, but I'll admit that the true craftsmen in the trades who are worth their salt are paid the same amount as the slackers who do as little as possible to just get by. This is one reason that I tend to not run work as a foreman. There is little or no control over who you'll get, and it can be frustrating to try to get good work out of people who just won't make an honest effort. We have a motto: "A day's work for a day's pay," but not everyone lives up to the same standard. They do, however, all get the same pay. We have our share of stupid boneheads. The sad part is, they often come out smelling like a rose because they are protected. The good part is that is's not the norm.

You say factory workers are different, then go on to say how the slackers that work with you get the same money for less work. In short, the employer is getting ripped off, a form of theft, protected by your union

I work my ass off, often in less than favorable conditions, while the lot of you sit in your air-conditioned offices complaining about the help at Arfcom. I'll take the union wages over $9/hr, of course. I suppose that makes me a Socialist hypocrite, too. Would you feel better if I made less?

I would feel better if you and your buddies earned what they are worth on the free market. Not used extortion to gte more.

Socialist... the main socialist mantra is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and what you describe comes a lot closer to that than "a days work for a days pay".

Oh, and you don't want to compare "less than favorable conditions" with me..trust me on that. And there are people here doing what you do making well over $120,000 a year without a union, because thats the rate the free market calls for.

My experience with health and dental insurance is that they take your premiums and then refuse to pay when you file a claim.

WRT health insurance, this is one place unions still do good work.  For individual employees, getting ripped-off by an insurance company is normal.  For us, we switched from Blue Cross after they denied every single claim over a four year period.*  They didn't pay out a penny.  Golden Rule is looking just as bad, and the local hospital won't even take it after Golden Rule refused to pay on dozens of valid claims.  With a union, you can negotiate with the health insurance company as a group.  When Joe Worker calls, for example, Blue Cross, they don't give a damn.  I know, I've been there.  If a union called that represented a much larger group of workers, they would.

* In defense of Blue Cross, they did give us about 2% total of what we paid in premiums back when we canceled our account.  Of course we had to agree not to sue them, but we couldn't afford to do that anyway.z

Quoted: We are ALL affected by overpriced labor. You say "of course its better" to take more money. If you were having a yard sale and had to have someone threaten the buyers to make them pay more money, will you say "of course its better" and take the money?

What exactly do you mean by overpriced labor?

According to all who claim to be capitalists here, no labor is overpriced as it is the amount that  needs to be paid for people to do that  job.  The only way corporations get around paying that wage is through hiring illegal aliens, making agreements with other corporations to keep wages low in an area, or moving to another country where people are paid 10 cents an hour.

What it sounds like to me is that you and the others in this thread who talk of "unions" and "overpriced labor" feel that anyone who works in a non-"professional" field should only make $8 per hour.  

There is almost no "unskilled labor" in this country.  Every labor or factory job has been mechanized/computerized to lower the amount of workers needed.  The workers who run those machines and computers are by default considered skilled workers.  

Quoted: WRT health insurance, this is one place unions still do good work.  For individual employees, getting ripped-off by an insurance company is normal.  For us, we switched from Blue Cross after they denied every single claim over a four year period.*  They didn't pay out a penny.  Golden Rule is looking just as bad, and the local hospital won't even take it after Golden Rule refused to pay on dozens of valid claims.  With a union, you can negotiate with the health insurance company as a group.  When Joe Worker calls, for example, Blue Cross, they don't give a damn.  I know, I've been there.  If a union called that represented a much larger group of workers, they would. * In defense of Blue Cross, they did give us about 2% total of what we paid in premiums back when we canceled our account.  Of course we had to agree not to sue them, but we couldn't afford to do that anyway.z

This might be considered an example of collective barganing.  Which, is different than blackmail.

Quoted: What exactly do you mean by overpriced labor? According to all who claim to be capitalists here, no labor is overpriced as it is the amount that  needs to be paid for people to do that  job.  The only way corporations get around paying that wage is through hiring illegal aliens, making agreements with other corporations to keep wages low in an area, or moving to another country where people are paid 10 cents an hour. What it sounds like to me is that you and the others in this thread who talk of "unions" and "overpriced labor" feel that anyone who works in a non-"professional" field should only make $8 per hour.   There is almost no "unskilled labor" in this country.  Every labor or factory job has been mechanized/computerized to lower the amount of workers needed.  The workers who run those machines and computers are by default considered skilled workers.

People should get a fair wage/salary for the work they perform.

In a free market, a skill is marketable item.  You can offer your services (skills), and find the best wage.  Simple capatialism.

If a labor union decides they want more money than they could reasonably negotiate for (on an individual or collective basis), They can threaen to strike.  They can strike.  They can form picket lines and attempt to prevent "Scab labor" from filling their positions.  Some areas have laws protecting unions, so they cannot be fired outright en masse.  Essentially they are saying, "Give us X, or we will shut you down."  The company has the ability to pay up, or go out of business.
It is not, like most things, 100% bad.  I have no problem striking for safe working conditions.  Who cares if you get fired from a job that may injure/kill you anyway?

Quoted: Quoted: Let's look at Delphi.   Their union negotiated [a.k.a. blackmailed] their way into $26 an hour unskilled labor jobs.  Probably a ga-jillion in bebefits, too.   Now Delphi says "We are broke.  We cannot afford to pay your artificially inflated wages and stay in business.  Do you want to work for $9 an hour?" The Unions response was to threaten to strike. I hate to say this, but I think a major company is going to have to be run out of business before anyone wakes up.  Union employees believe the company exists to provide them with a job.  Any final product is just a by-product, and doesn't really factor into their pay and benefits. There.  That ought to stir up someone's blood. One says it's the $26/hr wages that are killing the company. Another will insist it's bad management. The arguing is what makes it interesting. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

It is bad management. They let the union dictate how the company pays its employees.

Quoted: Quoted: We are ALL affected by overpriced labor. You say "of course its better" to take more money. If you were having a yard sale and had to have someone threaten the buyers to make them pay more money, will you say "of course its better" and take the money? What exactly do you mean by overpriced labor? According to all who claim to be capitalists here, no labor is overpriced as it is the amount that  needs to be paid for people to do that  job.  The only way corporations get around paying that wage is through hiring illegal aliens, making agreements with other corporations to keep wages low in an area, or moving to another country where people are paid 10 cents an hour. What it sounds like to me is that you and the others in this thread who talk of "unions" and "overpriced labor" feel that anyone who works in a non-"professional" field should only make $8 per hour.   There is almost no "unskilled labor" in this country.  Every labor or factory job has been mechanized/computerized to lower the amount of workers needed.  The workers who run those machines and computers are by default considered skilled workers.

Overpriced labor is any labor that you pay more for than you could get an equally satisfactory employee for on the free market.

The free market should dictate labor. If you can hire a person to do a satisfactory job for $11 an hour and you are paying $28 only because the government says you must deal with a union, the labor is overpriced.

Now many, many non-union jobs pay high, and that is driven by the market.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's look at Delphi.   Their union negotiated [a.k.a. blackmailed] their way into $26 an hour unskilled labor jobs.  Probably a ga-jillion in bebefits, too.   Now Delphi says "We are broke.  We cannot afford to pay your artificially inflated wages and stay in business.  Do you want to work for $9 an hour?" The Unions response was to threaten to strike. I hate to say this, but I think a major company is going to have to be run out of business before anyone wakes up.  Union employees believe the company exists to provide them with a job.  Any final product is just a by-product, and doesn't really factor into their pay and benefits. There.  That ought to stir up someone's blood. One says it's the $26/hr wages that are killing the company. Another will insist it's bad management. The arguing is what makes it interesting. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. It is bad management. They let the union dictate how the company pays its employees.

How is that bad management?

The management's options are usually:

1) Company goes out of business due to the strike, thus costing management their jobs and leaving the stockholders with whatever insignificant amount of money is left after liquidation.

2) Negotiate with union and meet their terms to overpay the employees.

Once you take the free market out of the equation, the management has no choice.

Quoted: My experience with health and dental insurance is that they take your premiums and then refuse to pay when you file a claim. WRT health insurance, this is one place unions still do good work.  For individual employees, getting ripped-off by an insurance company is normal.  For us, we switched from Blue Cross after they denied every single claim over a four year period.*  They didn't pay out a penny.  Golden Rule is looking just as bad, and the local hospital won't even take it after Golden Rule refused to pay on dozens of valid claims.  With a union, you can negotiate with the health insurance company as a group.  When Joe Worker calls, for example, Blue Cross, they don't give a damn.  I know, I've been there.  If a union called that represented a much larger group of workers, they would. * In defense of Blue Cross, they did give us about 2% total of what we paid in premiums back when we canceled our account.  Of course we had to agree not to sue them, but we couldn't afford to do that anyway.z

UAW is currently, and has been for a few years, screwing retirees out of health insurance.  This will be the second time prescription drug costs have tripled due to negotiations with GM.  New deductibles that they didn't have before and they dumped Blue Cross who paid for almost everything while pitching it in their magazines as getting rid of a company that didn't make payments.  The current company only pays if medicare covers it, and they are switching again to an even worse plan.  If the retiree doesn't qualify for medicare to pay a claim, the insurer won't pay now, but the new plan will still require a portion to be paid by the patient.  That means people like my grandfather, that actually planned for retirement, and has assets that provide income other than the pension which is half of what he even gets from Social Security, are getting screwed.  My Grandfather's medical costs will more than triple this year due to the change.  Of course active employees aren't getting the shaft like retirees.  The union doesn't care about workers at all, but most union members don't understand.

My grandfather's only use for the retirement benefits was the health insurance, and now that is pretty much gone.  They just dropped dental totally, and the propaganda they send is making it obvious they will be totally dropping the prescription drug coverage soon.  But of course reading the magazines and fliers would make you think they are making positive changes.  Only if you actually read the book-like legalistic agreements do you find out that you are getting screwed.

The Union is itself a money-making organization, or business if you will.  The more money active dues paying members make, they more money the union makes.  It's a great relationship, until you retire and are dead weight.

Quoted: I realize that most of you guys are talking about factory workers when you refer to unskilled help. I know what you're talking about, and I've seen it myself. No wonder cars cost as much as they do. Let's not generalize about all unions here, however. Union-trained workers in specialized construction trades are often better-trained that their non-union counterparts, although, with the prevailing wage laws, both will often earn the same amount of money. Union training is supposed to assure the client of a properly trained workforce, and the idea makes sense, but I'll admit that the true craftsmen in the trades who are worth their salt are paid the same amount as the slackers who do as little as possible to just get by. This is one reason that I tend to not run work as a foreman. There is little or no control over who you'll get, and it can be frustrating to try to get good work out of people who just won't make an honest effort. We have a motto: "A day's work for a day's pay," but not everyone lives up to the same standard. They do, however, all get the same pay. We have our share of stupid boneheads. The sad part is, they often come out smelling like a rose because they are protected. The good part is that is's not the norm.

Quoted: You say factory workers are different, then go on to say how the slackers that work with you get the same money for less work. In short, the employer is getting ripped off, a form of theft, protected by your union

I was referring to the sort of unskilled labor, performing unskilled repetitive functions for exorbitant amounts of money, that typically drive the costs of manufactured items upward. These costs are then obviously passed on to the consumer, all of us.

I agree that the employer is getting ripped off; even more so, the final customer, because he's the one paying the bills. This goes for the factory scenario as well as the commercial construction aspect.

Quoted: I work my ass off, often in less than favorable conditions, while the lot of you sit in your air-conditioned offices complaining about the help at Arfcom. I'll take the union wages over $9/hr, of course. I suppose that makes me a Socialist hypocrite, too. Would you feel better if I made less?

Quoted: I would feel better if you and your buddies earned what they are worth on the free market. Not used extortion to get more. Socialist... the main socialist mantra is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and what you describe comes a lot closer to that than "a days work for a days pay".

They aren't my buddies. Free market? There are many jobs out there at $9/hr. Maybe that's all I'm worth... more likely, it's all they are willing to pay. I just can't see how anyone can make a living on $360 a week. It might be alright for a kid living at home, but it's not enough to support a family. You can see the attraction toward a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, there are people "earning" the higher wages who really aren't worth it.

Quoted: Oh, and you don't want to compare "less than favorable conditions" with me..trust me on that. And there are people here doing what you do making well over $120,000 a year without a union, because thats the rate the free market calls for.

Really? Sounds good to me... are you hiring? I need a change.

For those who have not seen it yet, here is my simplified example of why union members are hypocrites.

Labor is a product, just like any other product. As such, the market should dictate the price.


But when the government steps in and says "If 51% of your employees vote to form this group, then you must deal with this group for all the labor you purchase" that places an artificial control on the labor pool, and suddenly the purchaser is no longer free to shop around, so the seller (now just the union instead of all the sources) can either buy or not buy..... and not buying means closing up shop.

Think of machne guns. In the early 80's there was a great supply and prices were reasonable..... anyone could buy a nice M-16 for under $1500 because the supply was not limited. The in 86 the ban passed, and now that same machine gun costs $15,000. Is the gun 10 times better now? No.... in fact, that same gun is now at least 20 years old. But now a purchaser is very limited in where he can get his guns so he must pay the price or not buy one.

Think of the 87 ban as the same as a factory voting to go union. The product is not better, but the supply is now limited to that one source so the price goes up.


I bet most union gun owners here like to shop for good deals. Imagine of there were 3 shops in town, and one got $75 a case for .223 while the others got $95 for the same product, with all other factors being equal you will buy from the $75 dealer. Now imagine of the $75 guy raises to $125.... you will shop elsewhere. But how would you like it if the government stepped in and said "thats a union gun shop, so you must buy it from him"? Then once he realizes you can't go elsewhere he goes to a cheaper ammo, raises prices every now and then, maybe even cuts down on the number of rounds in the case, all while you have no choice but to buy from him. Of course you wouldn't stand for it.... but somehow union members think expecting an employer to do so is perfecty fine just because it puts $$ in thier pocket.

Quoted: Quoted: My experience with health and dental insurance is that they take your premiums and then refuse to pay when you file a claim. WRT health insurance, this is one place unions still do good work.  For individual employees, getting ripped-off by an insurance company is normal.  For us, we switched from Blue Cross after they denied every single claim over a four year period.*  They didn't pay out a penny.  Golden Rule is looking just as bad, and the local hospital won't even take it after Golden Rule refused to pay on dozens of valid claims.  With a union, you can negotiate with the health insurance company as a group.  When Joe Worker calls, for example, Blue Cross, they don't give a damn.  I know, I've been there.  If a union called that represented a much larger group of workers, they would. * In defense of Blue Cross, they did give us about 2% total of what we paid in premiums back when we canceled our account.  Of course we had to agree not to sue them, but we couldn't afford to do that anyway.z UAW is currently, and has been for a few years, screwing retirees out of health insurance.  This will be the second time prescription drug costs have tripled due to negotiations with GM.  New deductibles that they didn't have before and they dumped Blue Cross who paid for almost everything while pitching it in their magazines as getting rid of a company that didn't make payments.  The current company only pays if medicare covers it, and they are switching again to an even worse plan.  If the retiree doesn't qualify for medicare to pay a claim, the insurer won't pay now, but the new plan will still require a portion to be paid by the patient.  That means people like my grandfather, that actually planned for retirement, and has assets that provide income other than the pension which is half of what he even gets from Social Security, are getting screwed.  My Grandfather's medical costs will more than triple this year due to the change.  Of course active employees aren't getting the shaft like retirees.  The union doesn't care about workers at all, but most union members don't understand. My grandfather's only use for the retirement benefits was the health insurance, and now that is pretty much gone.  They just dropped dental totally, and the propaganda they send is making it obvious they will be totally dropping the prescription drug coverage soon.  But of course reading the magazines and fliers would make you think they are making positive changes.  Only if you actually read the book-like legalistic agreements do you find out that you are getting screwed. The Union is itself a money-making organization, or business if you will.  The more money active dues paying members make, they more money the union makes.  It's a great relationship, until you retire and are dead weight.

It's not a sustainable model, much like Social[ist] Security.

If you think about it, though, from a contractual standpoint, that's pretty fucking bait-and-switch on the part of the ins company.  Your grandpa paid over a # of years for "coverage x" and now he's getting "coverage y".  I'm sure they have some fine print covering them on that, but it surely does suck.

Quoted: They aren't my buddies. Free market? There are many jobs out there at $9/hr. Maybe that's all I'm worth... more likely, it's all they are willing to pay. I just can't see how anyone can make a living on $360 a week. It might be alright for a kid living at home, but it's not enough to support a family. You can see the attraction toward a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, there are people "earning" the higher wages who really aren't worth it.

All someone is willing to pay is all something is worth.... that is a basic tenant of economics. Let those who work hard and do quality earn what people who value that are willing to pay, and let the slackers work for whoever is stupid enough to hire them.

Quoted: Oh, and you don't want to compare "less than favorable conditions" with me..trust me on that. And there are people here doing what you do making well over $120,000 a year without a union, because thats the rate the free market calls for.

Really? Sounds good to me... are you hiring? I need a change.

My outfit is www.goarmy.com but the big money is at www.kbrjobs.com,send in a decent resume and they will fly you to TX for your interview and send you over very, very fast. Plus the first $80,000 is tax free.

Whats your specific trade? I can get some info from the guys here.

I see what you mean about less than favorable conditions.

Thanks for the link (I'm too old for the first option, BTW). I'm a Steamfitter by trade.

The union I belong to is a combined local with fitters and plumbers, and most of our work is at a commercial level rather than residential, i.e. chemical plants, treatment stations, etc., as well as new installation of boilers and related piping systems.

Quoted: Labor is a product, just like any other product. As such, the market should dictate the price.

Here is your first problem.  "Labor" is not a product, it is a person performing a skilled/unskilled, professional/unprofessional, or however you want to differentiate it task.  It is the "work" that is done to make or bring a product to market.  

Quoted: But when the government steps in and says "If 51% of your employees vote to form this group, then you must deal with this group for all the labor you purchase" that places an artificial control on the labor pool, and suddenly the purchaser is no longer free to shop around, so the seller (now just the union instead of all the sources) can either buy or not buy..... and not buying means closing up shop.

The "labor" is forming a group for collective bargaining, to make conditions better for the members, etc.  After the current contract is up the employer is free to fire all the employees and not have the union there.  They can rehire and train new employees.  

Somewhere in there you lost that the company has made a legal contract with the union for the union members labor.  No one forced the company to sign that contract, and many have fired complete unions along with moving their manufacturing to foreign countries.