# F#@% these union busters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 28, 2011, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896 "2011-02-28T08:41:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/241 "2011-03-02T22:04:26Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Why is the price of $1433? Why did it go up? What causes it to go down? Should we establish a rule that says its only work $1200? Should we have collusion and price fixing? > > If not for gold, why for labour? Labour is not a commodity. The market for gold is highly efficient, the market for labor much less so. Much of the value of Gold has nothing to do with its rarity relative to the demand created by its applications in technology and electronics. Gold is a store of wealth and that is where its value comes from. Labour on the other hand is a producer of wealth and for many people the only thing they have to trade for the income that will sustain them. These differences are so profound that you simply cannot compare labour to a physical commodity. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/242 "2011-03-02T22:31:26Z")
> [@Brad\_the\_Impaler](#): > > Oh my god, she’s a _ **teacher???** _ The horror of horrors.. Of course, you are the salt of the earth, I’m sure, so wouldn’t dream of taking more out of SS/Medicare than you put into it, right? > > And your tax free savings, thats a subsidy. Others are paying for what you don’t. But, it’s ok for your subsidy, not someone else’s right? > > I get it, you don’t like that they have a decent plan and you don’t. So, rather than try and CHANGE your lot in life, you’ll bitch and moan that they have it and you don’t. #1) I mentioned that she’s a teacher because one who teaches life skills should presumably know how to add. Socking away 11% of one’s income and then expecting to retire at the age of 52, while enjoying a 70% of full-salary pension for the rest of one’s life is clearly a RIDICULOUS, UNSUSTAINABLE, PIE-IN-THE-SKY model. Even a third-grader could be made to understand how the math doesn’t work. My friend actually does understand that it doesn’t work. She just can’t accept it. Her reaction to SB5 is to call the governor a heartless bastard when she SHOULD be criticizing her union for promising shit they couldn’t possibly delivery. #2) Retirement age for many civil servants is 25-30 years of service. That means that many retire in their 50’s. The average life span for an American is ~72, IIRC. Once again, no need to get emotional, just look at the numbers. You sock away 10-15% of your salary for 25 years…and then draw out 70% of your salary for 22 years? Gosh, that money manager had better kick some serious ass and grow the contributions exponentially in order to sustain that model! By contrast, according to my most recent SS statement, we can expect to receive an amount equal to **15%** of our current income if we retire at the age of 67, or 19% if we wait until 70. Hmm, 19% beginning at the age of 70 vs. 70% beginning at the age of 52. Quite a difference. And even the former is admittedly running out of dough as there’s a disclaimer at the bottom of our SS statement that reads: “Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes in the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76 percent of scheduled benefits.” #3) The only reason SS worked for so long is because our grandparents made a lot of babies. Now that we’ve quit making so many, we have had to face reality and admit that SS/Medicare is also unsustainable as it’s currently written. That is the major reason why the retirement age has been pushed back again and again. The unions, on the other hand, when faced with the same problem, have chosen to bury their head in the sand and say, “La La La.” Or better yet, “STRIKE!” #4) The money that I sock away into my personal IRA will, indeed, be taxed when I withdraw it. #5) Change my lot in life? We sock thousands of dollars away every year so that we can be self-reliant upon retirement instead of relying on the SS system. In fact, we fully expect to be ineligible for SS when we retire because we have been so diligent about saving on our own. #6) Listen, the organized labor unions can have it one of two ways. They can either see the writing of the wall and renegotiate their contracts to AGGRESSIVELY and PERMANENTLY pare back these back-breaking benefit plans OR they can simply wait for the states to declare bankruptcy. Either way, they can wave goodbye to their kick-ass benefits as they will dissolve in the blink of an eye. Ask my neighbor, the Delta pilot, or a GM worker how much they’re enjoying their kick-ass pensions. Ah, unions. Pricing Americans right of their own jobs for 40 years! ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/243 "2011-03-02T22:36:15Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Oh and make more money too. > > We have a huge unemployment problem. That would tell a realist that you can not just walk off a job. That would also tell you you can not make demands. Many highly educated and experienced workers are out of work. Well, the other side would argue that just means that if wages dropped to a market clearing price, then everyone who wanted a job at that price level would have a job. All we need is for these highly educated people to keep cutting their income expectations until someone hires them. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/244 "2011-03-02T22:42:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Are you seriously telling us that if we decided to just divvy up all the income that we’d have the same income we have now? Please tell me you’re kidding. Are you seriosly telling me that you think that this level of income disparity is necessary to achieve the level of productivity we currently have? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/245 "2011-03-02T22:53:45Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > A) Please don’t confuse “uninterested in the rat race” with “low income”. I’m already making quite more by myself than the average household in this country. > B) Given she’s three months old, unless you’ve recently invented a robot that can grab her toes and tell funny stories, there’s nothing money can buy that would interest her. > C) You’re a dick. :rolleyes: Welcome to the Pit, new member orientation is down the hall. It includes such topics as: 1.) Don’t play the sympathy card to a group of people who have no sympathy for you. 2.) Don’t be surprised if a group of strangers on an internet message board aren’t as polite as you’d like them to be. 3.) Rolleyes don’t strengthen your point. 4.) You’re a dick ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/246 "2011-03-02T23:04:03Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Hell, there’s a simpler market-oriented way to phrase it, and all you have to do is recall Henry Ford: the more money your employees have, the more products they can afford to buy, increasing everyone’s market and profits. While CEOs and such keeping a larger share of the profits than they can reasonably use is nice and all, in the long run too much of that strangles the market for goods and kills the economy just as sure as anything else. > > Again I look at my dad–he has never paid himself, good years or bad, more than around 2.5x the salary he pays his entry-level cashiers. If profits improve, everyone gets a raise. As a result, not only does he get the best employees available, but they shop at his store AND buy the higher-margin items as luxuries, meaning everyone wins. He COULD double his own salary by holding everyone to minimum wage, but any fool can see the other store in town does that–and their employees don’t shop there because they resent it, and they don’t make as much money in the long run. > > Someone wake me when the movers and shakers of the economy learn to plan on longer terms than “the next two quarters”. Look, what you said is 100% true on the upswing. All employers and managers struggle with how to reward and retain staff. So my question for your dad and his staff: when times are lean, and consumers aren’t spending, do his employees willingly take a pay cut? They were happy to share in the profits, are they just as happy to share in the losses? That point won’t seem to sink in to many in this thread. Employees lapped up the milk from 2002-2007, just as they did in the 1920s. Unemployment was low, salaries were high, everyone was happy. Well, times are tough, and sales are down. Ask your dad how his annual sales figures compare from 2006 to 2009. Then ask if his employees willingly took a pay cut to match. The auto workers union fought tooth and nail to get every penny they could from Ford/GM/Chrysler, as they should have while profits were high. When those three lost market share, and started running profits, the union held it’s ground, refused to see salary and benefits go down. Ditto for the airline industry. So the only real recourse is mass layoffs and hiring freezer, then try to get the expensive people with seniority to retire early. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/247 "2011-03-02T23:11:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Its like Godwin, but not connected to Nazis. I’m tempted to call it the “kumbaya” law: whenever we get into a discussion like this, some righty, sooner or later, is going to posture as a stern, hard-headed realist, and say something patently stupid, patronizing, and insulting. > > “Well, I suppose you want us to pay everybody $15/hr to play hacky-sack?” > > “Well, of course, we all want a free pony, but the real world doesn’t work like that.” > > \*\*Thankfully, tighty rightys don’t start doing that until they start to lose the argument. \*\*Unfortunately, that’s usually about page one. I have met a number of utter cynics in my life. I have yet to meet one who didn’t think of himself as a hard-headed realist. > > (I remember Kurt Vonneguts story (No not _Harrison Bergeron_, the other one…) about ethical suicide parlors next to Howard Johnson’s. A client is selecting his exit strategy from those offered, and asks the attendant, plaintively, “What are people _for_, anyway?”.) > > The labor movement is simply another of the struggles between property rights and human rights, as there are some among us who think property rights are the essence, the other rights are merely grace notes set to embellish the true gem, property. We were not founded by revolutionaries, the Founding Fuckups used such as Tom Paine to their ends, and discarded his revolutionary idealism at their first opportunity. They were not struggling to make men free, they were landowners and businessmen, anxious only to replace the class above themselves with themselves. > > Because they did not trust each other, they built all manner of safeguards into their governance, and almost inadvertently, accidentally, created the foundation for the greatest experiment in human liberty yet born. > > But seriously…voting rights for men without property? I suppose you’ll be wanting a pony next, and we’ll all sit around singing “Kumbaya”. **Le Jacquelope** , he wants his rhetoric back ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/248 "2011-03-02T23:13:23Z")
So, what happens then? Are the state negotiators awaiting at the table for the Teacher’s Union people, and then Luigi from the Union saunters in and says: “Pretty nice state you’ve got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it!” ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/249 "2011-03-02T23:14:50Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > "If a manager doesn’t want to work at a union facility, they should chose to go elsewhere, where they aren’t expected to uphold the contract that they company willingly signed. " > QFT. This bears repetition as it is a point that anti-union people consistently ignore. Management willingly signs these contracts. They found it acceptable when they signed it and I see no reason why they should not be held to the terms to which they agreed. They agree to the “overpaid” payscales. They agree to seniority. They agree to everything in the contract or they wouldn’t sign it. If management is falling down on the job and negotiating unfavorable contracts, then the Board of Directors and stockholders should be looking at replacing management. And yes, part of the market place. Just like when Walmart doesn’t want a union it closes the store. It can choose to open in butt-fuck-nowhere or some other shit-hole. Again going back to the point that **John Mace** made that eventually there won’t be a job to negotiate over. ---
**Author:** ![3\_20\_59\_or\_bust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/47e85d/32.png) [@3\_20\_59\_or\_bust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3_20_59_or_bust)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/250 "2011-03-02T23:15:02Z")
> [@PunditLisa](#): > > #1) I mentioned that she’s a teacher because one who teaches life skills should presumably know how to add. Socking away 11% of one’s income and then expecting to retire at the age of 52, while enjoying a 70% of full-salary pension for the rest of one’s life is clearly a RIDICULOUS, UNSUSTAINABLE, PIE-IN-THE-SKY model. Even a third-grader could be made to understand how the math doesn’t work. My friend actually does understand that it doesn’t work. She just can’t accept it. Her reaction to SB5 is to call the governor a heartless bastard when she SHOULD be criticizing her union for promising shit they couldn’t possibly delivery. > > #2) Retirement age for many civil servants is 25-30 years of service. That means that many retire in their 50’s. The average life span for an American is ~72, IIRC. Once again, no need to get emotional, just look at the numbers. You sock away 10-15% of your salary for 25 years…and then draw out 70% of your salary for 22 years? Gosh, that money manager had better kick some serious ass and grow the contributions exponentially in order to sustain that model! > > By contrast, according to my most recent SS statement, we can expect to receive an amount equal to **15%** of our current income if we retire at the age of 67, or 19% if we wait until 70. > > Hmm, 19% beginning at the age of 70 vs. 70% beginning at the age of 52. Quite a difference. And even the former is admittedly running out of dough as there’s a disclaimer at the bottom of our SS statement that reads: “Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes in the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76 percent of scheduled benefits.” > > #3) The only reason SS worked for so long is because our grandparents made a lot of babies. Now that we’ve quit making so many, we have had to face reality and admit that SS/Medicare is also unsustainable as it’s currently written. That is the major reason why the retirement age has been pushed back again and again. The unions, on the other hand, when faced with the same problem, have chosen to bury their head in the sand and say, “La La La.” Or better yet, “STRIKE!” > > #4) The money that I sock away into my personal IRA will, indeed, be taxed when I withdraw it. > > #5) Change my lot in life? We sock thousands of dollars away every year so that we can be self-reliant upon retirement instead of relying on the SS system. In fact, we fully expect to be ineligible for SS when we retire because we have been so diligent about saving on our own. > > #6) Listen, the organized labor unions can have it one of two ways. They can either see the writing of the wall and renegotiate their contracts to AGGRESSIVELY and PERMANENTLY pare back these back-breaking benefit plans OR they can simply wait for the states to declare bankruptcy. Either way, they can wave goodbye to their kick-ass benefits as they will dissolve in the blink of an eye. Ask my neighbor, the Delta pilot, or a GM worker how much they’re enjoying their kick-ass pensions. > > Ah, unions. Pricing Americans right of their own jobs for 40 years! What a crock of shit. 1. Besides your one friend, how many union members actually retire “in their 50’s”? 2. How many draw pensions for 22 years? 3. How many put in 11% and draw out 70%? I’d love to read your cites with actual percentages because I just happen to be in a union myself and I: 1. will be eligible for retirement at age 70. 2. would have to live to age 92 to get 22 years of pension (Lord, let’s hope so) 3. pay in 6% and would draw out around 40% of a full salary pension And I have a better plan than a lot of union members, I know that. When I see your cites for all union members in the US that match up with your little scenario, I’ll be happy to hand you back your big-ass brush. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/251 "2011-03-02T23:18:34Z")
I assume you’re on a bus to Madison, a suitcase full of incindiary devices and Maoist literature? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/252 "2011-03-02T23:20:36Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are union shops OK? companies where unions are allowed? yes. Places where you have to join a union? no…absolutely not. How can a sane person think otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/253 "2011-03-02T23:27:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, what happens then? Are the state negotiators awaiting at the table for the Teacher’s Union people, and then Luigi from the Union saunters in and says: > > “Pretty nice state you’ve got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it!” Uh, yes, that’s pretty much what happens, the word you were looking for is “strike.” ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/254 "2011-03-02T23:32:35Z")
Okay, so let’s agree that unions represent a way to balance the power between management and labour. Given that laws prevent multiple companies from colluding, why are unions allowed to represent workers at multiple companies? Auto workers and airline workers as two examples. The various airlines aren’t allowed to ban together and control wages, but the unions/workers are. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/255 "2011-03-02T23:47:43Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > …Given that laws prevent multiple companies from colluding… The Republican Party has been outlawed? Well, personally, I think that’s a bit extreme… ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/256 "2011-03-03T00:25:50Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Okay, so let’s agree that unions represent a way to balance the power between management and labour. > > Given that laws prevent multiple companies from colluding, why are unions allowed to represent workers at multiple companies? Auto workers and airline workers as two examples. > > The various airlines aren’t allowed to ban together and control wages, but the unions/workers are. Are you just determined to be stupid? Unions don’t control any such thing. It’s completely in the hands of management; if they don’t like the terms of the contract, including the wages, they are free to refrain from signing the contract. What is it about “mutually agreed to” that you are unable to understand? Is it the big words or is it the ideas behind the big words that you need help with? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/257 "2011-03-03T00:32:16Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Are you just determined to be stupid? Unions don’t control any such thing. It’s completely in the hands of management; if they don’t like the terms of the contract, including the wages, they are free to refrain from signing the contract. > > What is it about “mutually agreed to” that you are unable to understand? Is it the big words or is it the ideas behind the big words that you need help with? It was the part about ‘general strike’ that confused me. You know, when a group of people block access to facilities, shut down operations, sabotage production. Is that what makes someone “free to refrain from signing?” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/258 "2011-03-03T00:56:33Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > … sabotage production… WTF? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/259 "2011-03-03T01:04:08Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Are you just determined to be stupid? Unions don’t control any such thing. It’s completely in the hands of management; if they don’t like the terms of the contract, including the wages, they are free to refrain from signing the contract. > > What is it about “mutually agreed to” that you are unable to understand? Is it the big words or is it the ideas behind the big words that you need help with? Wait a second, you called me stupid because as you said management enters into contracts freely. But this entire thread is about how unions are needed because labour can’t enter into contracts freely, remember? Some how you claim that management has all the control. That with 5 people applying for each job wages will fall because people are desperate. So which is it? Are you willing to state that unions can never be stronger than the company? That management can never be coerced? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/260 "2011-03-03T01:05:10Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > It was the part about ‘general strike’ that confused me. You know, when a group of people block access to facilities, shut down operations, sabotage production. Is that what makes someone “free to refrain from signing?” For many unions, striking is illegal. Blocking access to facilities is illegal and would result in the police arresting and detaining the offenders, so that the employer can continue business activities. Sabotaging a business is also illegal, and the police would apprehend and arrest any offenders. Not sure how a union could make a business stop operations as it’s up to management/the employer to determine whether or not he has the personnel to continue business operations. No worker is obligated to work for an employer, you know. So basically you got nothin’. You have bogeymen: fictions meant to cause fear; nothing more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896.md?page=14)