“Deserve” meaning the employees have a right to share in the profits above and beyond the free choice of the owners and/or management of the company to grant it.
In my mind, the profit (or loss!) of a company belong to the owner(s) to do with as they see fit. If the employees “deserve” a share of those profits, why would they not “deserve” a share of the losses, when or if they occur?
I would say being laid off when business tanks counts as sharing the losses.
LOL
But the workers NEVER share in the profits unless the owners/management voluntarily decide to make it so. And they certainly share in the losses, in the form of layoffs, pay cuts, loss of benefits, etc. In the recent troubles that Delphi Parts has been going through, UAW workers took massive pays cuts (from $27/hr to $18.50/hr) in order to help the company stay in business and thus keep thousands of people employed.
How many execs took the same pay cut (roughly 30%)? How many execs turned down their multimillion dollar bonuses? How many turned down other perks to help keep the company afloat?
No worker ever shares in the profits of a company, as you say, “above and beyond the free choice of the owners and/or management”. It doesn’t happen.
Glad to hear it. That’s the way it should be.
I wouldn’t. Say Bob and John start a business. It makes a healthy return for awhile and all is well until a competitor comes along and grabs much of their market share. Huge losses mount up. John leaves the partnership and goes to look for another job leaving Bob stuck with all the losses to pay for out of his pocket. Did John share in the losses? I understand that John left voluntarily (to avoid paying those losses out of his pocket), unlike the hypothetical laid-off worker, but the result is the same. In the case of Bob & John, a civil lawsuit would be imminent.
You want workers to share in the profits, be immune from any liabilities, and continue receiving a regular paycheck, regardless of the situation. I’m not buying the fairness of that situation.
Bolding mine.
Who wants this? Who has been arguing for this? Where? On this board? In what post?
And in your example: a partner in a business can’t just walk away. He owns a stake in the company. How in the world is a hypothetical involving an ownership stake in the company at all comparable to a situation involving a worker, union or not?
Or are you just ranting?
One question: Where would the company’s profits come from if it had no workers? I don’t mean the current crew of workers on the shop floor, I mean no workers whatsoever.
I’m not ranting, just trying in earnest to answer your question regarding the term “deserve”. I took it to mean that the worker had a moral right to share in the profits of the company and took exception to that. You responded by saying that no worker anywhere got profits without the free choice of the employer, but failed to address the point of the right to do so. If I misunderstood Gonzo’s use of the term, then this part of the discussion is moot and I’ll back off.
You know, I would not have the house I live in if it were not for the workers who built it. However, I do not expect them to have any ownership rights whatsoever, nor would I expect them to share in the profit, if any, when I sell it.
What the heck are you talking about? No one’s talking about royalties, or worker ownership of a product. What does the construction of your house have to do with anything being discussed here? No one expects workers, or even the company owners for that matter, to get any money from the re-sale of any product.
But those workers *do *deserve to share in the profit of the initial construction of the home. Their investment of labor contributed to the construction just as much as the capital investment of the company’s owner.
Like Happy already said, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It’s not even a bad example, it’s no example at all.
Okay, fine, then where does the worker’s paycheck enter into all of this?
I disagree.
This is certainly true. However, that labor wasn’t given freely; it was paid for. If the workers managed to negotiate a share of the profits when selling their labor, then more power to them. Otherwise they don’t deserve anything that wasn’t in their contract.
This isn’t dodgeball, son, this is Great Debates. Answer my question.
I think a lot of people who oppose unions in practice don’t necessarily oppose them in theory.
I don’t consider myself to be anti-union, though I often find myself supporting positions that are characterized that way. For example, I think that companies should be able to permanently replace striking workers, and I have no problem with the law quoted up-thread that made it illegal for striking workers to block the access of replacement workers to places of business. For me, the strength behind a strike should come from the quality of the workers not from the law. I see strikes as a challenge from the workers to management: “You don’t want to pay us fair compensation for our labor? Then see how well you can do without us!” If management can meet that challenge, then I’m okay with that. If the labor situation is such that the striking workers can be readily replaced en masse by those willing to accept less, then the union shouldn’t call a strike.
The pro-union viewpoints expressed here have been really interesting to read, as it’s not something that I’m often exposed to; even when I was in a union I only met my rep once to (voluntarily) join and authorize dues payments. Regarding the EFC, most of the posts in favor seem to primarily take the position that since it strengthens unions that it’s therefore a good thing, rather than actually address the issues people have with the bill itself. Removal of secret ballots isn’t a “red herring,” and its not comparable to the public votes by legislators and judges. It exposes workers to increased intimidation and coercion from union organizers and supporters, regardless of whether such intimidation is uncommon or insignificant in comparison to that exerted by management. The bill strengthens unions. That may be a good thing, but it doesn’t do so in a manner that I approve of.
He can answer that if he wishes.How about you ANSWER MY QUESTION IN POST #108 FOUR DAYS AGO, FIRST.
How, in your opinion, does it do that? And not just specific tactics, but in general - how does the removal of the secret ballot in this instance expose workers to union intimidation, when open voting overall has not demonstrated the same inevitable tendency? Why is it not comparable to public votes of other organizations?
As regards the theme of your whole post: Company management wouldn’t be able to call in scabs with a minimum of fuss without laws like the one I quoted above. If there were no such law on the books, the striking workers would block the plant, and management would either have to call in the police or a private security firm to bust heads. Not exactly good for public relations. But, if there’s a law on the books, the company gains an unfair advantage. “We’ll call in scabs, and if you try to stop us you’re breaking the law.” The company can meet the challenge, as you say, precisely because the law guarantees it, not their own economic strength.
Flying Dutchman - I do apologize. The questions with real relevance keep getting in the way.
I’d be curious to know how a public vote on zoning, taking land in an eminent domain situation, school busing, or the location of a sex shop near churches and schools, or any of the zillion other divisive quality-of-life votes that a city/county/state rep must make are not comparable to the vote for or against a union. Can you explain what is it about voting on controversial matters that is different for an elected official than for a worker in a union vote?
LOL this is the burning question in Post #108 that you need answered?
Well, I don’t know what Olentzero drives, but I have 2 vehicles: a 1978 Chevy Blazer and a 1972 Cadillac Eldorado.
Yeah, well, you know… it’s a hard choice between playing a hostile game of “True Scotsman” and debating the nature of an upcoming law. I’m not sure how I’ll sleep tonight.