"Unions are Evil"

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Both my parents are in unions and they are both worse off because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"why dont they just leave"

Presumable they wake up in the morning and decide (explicit or implicit) that it is worth going to work and it is worth being in the union so they do.

[ACPlayer]

If a corporation charges a monopolistic, usurious price it is a good business, if a union member charges a monopolistic, usurious price for its services one hears complaints.

If a corporation tries to negotiate a higher prices from its customers, it is a good business, if the employees try to band together to negotiate a higher price for their services, the country is going to hell.

Internal union politics may be terrible for the members (however, if the member is paying the dues it cant be toooo bad) but then internal company politics are pure hell. I know.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a successful company called Enron headed by a widely respected White House pal and confidant Ken Lay ... rest of well known story ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. The market punished the fraud and now the company is out of business.

FWIW, Ken Lay was a big pal of the Democrats, too. If you're implying that government corruption played a big part in the Enron debacle, I hope you realize that the solution isn't to simply replace government thug group A with government thug group B.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both my parents are in unions and they are both worse off because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"why dont they just leave"

Presumable they wake up in the morning and decide (explicit or implicit) that it is worth going to work and it is worth being in the union so they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely they have decided that it is worth it. That's not an interesting question at all. It's much, much more interesting to look at how coercion affected their decision making process.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If a corporation charges a monopolistic, usurious price it is a good business, if a union member charges a monopolistic, usurious price for its services one hears complaints.

[/ QUOTE ]

The price charged is not the issue - it's how they are able to command the price. If the price is commanded via truly voluntary negotiation, then there can be no reasonable objection. If the price commanded is supported by coercion (such as legislation giving unions monopoly power, or legislation giving a (eg) utility company monopoly over a market), then it is reprehensible.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both my parents are in unions and they are both worse off because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"why dont they just leave"

Presumable they wake up in the morning and decide (explicit or implicit) that it is worth going to work and it is worth being in the union so they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC, that facile argument could be applied to non-union low wage workers.

The point is that they would be better off without the union. Why? Because they are skilled, non-lazy workers.

Unions are certainly good for workers that are unskilled, lazy or incompentent. But unions are a bad deal for highly skilled, competent, hard-working people. Any union that represents skilled labor (like a teacher's union) is a detrimental influence that hurts the workers, and the consumers alike.

natedogg

[superleeds]

I think you'll find it was the law that punished them. The market, in fact, allowed them to defraud their customeres and employees for as long as they did, because, part of their crime was their manipulation of the market.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find it was the law that punished them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law may have punished them, but the market destroyed them. The law doesn't mandate that their stock drop to 0.30.

Also, you're conflating the concepts of "government" and "law".

[ QUOTE ]
The market, in fact, allowed them to defraud their customeres and employees for as long as they did, because, part of their crime was their manipulation of the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can substitute "government" for "market" with no problem.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The law may have punished them, but the market destroyed them. The law doesn't mandate that their stock drop to 0.30.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Why exactly did the market react when it did? Because their crimes were being exposed? Or was it just a normal everyday market adjustment thing?

The market became exposed to the fact that a stock they thought was worth something was in fact worth considerably less. A fact made clear to them by a legal investigation, not because California could suddenly buy cheaper electricity thru a competitor of Enrons'.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you're conflating the concepts of "government" and "law"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the government creates the law.

[ QUOTE ]
You can substitute "government" for "market" with no problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

When they suppress supply to increase demand, that's manipulating the market. When they bribe politicians to pay higher prices for a commodity readily available for less, that's manipulating government. I'm sure Enron were guilty of both, but they are different.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
Unions are a bad deal for the union members. The union, like any organization, eventually evolves to the point where its only purpose is to further *itself* as an entity.

Both my parents are in unions and they are both worse off because of it.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about this one Nate. Public school teachers AFAIK make a lot more with benefits and all than private school teachers. Teaching is a good skilled position and all, but there is a very large supply of people that want to be teachers. As far as other types of union jobs go, I don't know if you are calling something like a longshoreman unskilled, but without unions I don't see them making the kind of money they make.

Sure, Unions support their own interests and do things like take the members dues and spend it on political contributions for things the members don't support, but higher wages for it's members is in the unions interest.