On 1 Jul 2005 05:02:19 -0700, maxwelton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>
>Wm James wrote:
>> On 30 Jun 2005 08:35:11 -0700, "Homer" <homer_raulks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> >I don't know-a decent wage, sensible hours, a safe working area and
>> >benefits--where do these peons get off asking for that?
>> >
>> >Right?
>>
>> Right. If I need a task done, and getting that task done has a value
>> to me of X dollars, then it's only worth X dollars. Either someone is
>> willing to trade their labor for that or they aren't. If they are,
>> fine, they get X dollars and aren't entitled to any more whether it's
>> enough for them to eat on or not. If they want better hours and a
>> better environment, and better benefits, fine! They can ask for that
>> up front or go sell their labor to someone else willing to trade it.
>
>Making the same argument on a global scale means a nations labour
>standards (40 hr. week, no child labour, time off) are irrelevent.
>This is one reason 3rd world countries are seeing the benefit.
My point was that in a free society, the trade between two parties is
the business of the two parties.
>> >No unions mean more profit to you, right, and a rule of absolutism....
>>
>> People start businesses to make profit, not to pay more than necessary
>> to vendors.
>
>Right and to put it in proper context businesses are vendors and vice
>versa. Each have customers each are customers, each have costs
>and each want to make a profit.
Exactly! And it's up to each to decide what they are willng to trade
of whatthey have for what they want. It's not the business of anyone
else to decide for them.
>> When I was in college, I was working nights in a refrigerated
>> warehouse. Miserable job, severe cold, hard work, unpredctable hours,
>> no benefits, threats and vandalism from the union because I wouldn't
>> join, I hated the job. One night I was working later than usual, and
>> glab to be fini****ng up the last truck because I had final exams the
>> next morning and needed the go, then another truck came in. I told
>> the boss I had final exams and needed to go, and he bluntly told me
>> "We aren't paying you to go to school, we are paying you to load the
>> trucks." My first thought was "What a jackass!" Then it occured to me
>> that he was right. My problems were not relevant. They were buying
>> labor to get trucks loaded. I owed them that labor, and they owed me
>> whay I agreed to trade it for. I never forgot that education.
>
>I agree it is a mutual agreement and it works as long as each side
>understands that the trade is mutual.
The problem with unions is that they get government backing and are
allowed to force a trade when it's not mutual. If government butts
out of it, then there's no problem. If a bunch of employees want to
start a club, so what? If they want to get together and sell their
labor as a bulk package and negotiate benefits, fine. If another
party want to trade with them on those terms, or not, no problem.
>I am not a big fan of unions nor of big business. As long as unions
>don't force themselves on anyone then I don't see any problem. They
>should be allowed to exist as long as companies are allowed to merge.
>Too many times with vendors/businesses anymore is they do things like
>not providing agreed upon service or adding fees before approval
>by the customer/employer. If there isn't a large enough supply of
>vendors then the customer loses due to lack of choice.
Unions attempt to regulate supply by using unconstituional laws and
blatent extortion to prevent the business they are attacking from
buying labor from people who are willing to sell it.
William R. James
|
