# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/321 "2011-03-03T19:47:06Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > People who tell anecdotes like these always forget to mention that she has a crack habit and slept with the whole football team at the same time. Now now, please leave your mom out of this. We’re trying to take the high road here. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/322 "2011-03-03T19:51:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Life isn’t safe. You need to plan for disaster. And first, plan to avoid it. That’s a helpful truism, but it’s a truism in conflict with “do these things, and your job is safe”. My argument was pointing out the flaws in that idea - if you’re specifying now that what you meant was rather that in such circumstances your job is not safe, then certainly my argument doesn’t apply. > [@](#): > > WHAT!!! You want protection from those who offer more value to your employer? WOW! Just WOW!!! Here’s an idea: be the one that offers more value. And have a backup plan. I don’t recall saying I wanted protection from those who offer more value. Here’s my helpful hint to you in return; sometimes, when your debate opponent says something so flabbergastingly unbelievable, it may be wise to think “Hey, I might have misunderstood” rather than skip straight to “yes, this person believes a flabbergastingly unbeliveable thing”. > [@](#): > > I disagree. There’s _always_ a way to be better. I’ve done it cleaning bathrooms. I’ve done it being a parking attendant. I’ve done it being a gopher on a construction site. I didn’t do it as a stock boy. I didn’t deliver as a dishwasher in a restaurant in high school and was not invited back after the holiday rush. And I shouldn’t have been. Question; did you leave those jobs at which you consider yourself to have been better of your own accord or through promotion? Did you leave those jobs you don’t feel you were better at as a result of being fired? If so in each case, what evidence do you have for your providing better/less value other than those end results? > [@](#): > > Then you need to put yourself in a better situation. I’ve been in jobs where there was a large degree of overlap between my strong suit and what the employer valued highly. I’ve been in jobs where what I had to offer really wasn’t of primary importance to them. I left those jobs. Good for them. And GREAT for me. You owe it to yourself to find a place in life where what you have to offer is valued. If you don’t, it might not be your _fault_, but you really can’t blame anyone else. I’m confused. Why were you in those jobs where what you had to offer wasn’t of primary importance in the first place? How on earth were you hired when you weren’t providing the best possible value for your employer? Logically speaking, you either provided the best possible value your employer felt they could expect - in which case what you had to offer was of strong importance - or they elected to hire someone who did not provide them with the maximum possible value, in which case applying onself to work is not a guarantee (or near-guarantee) to success. I mean, presumably for however long you were employed at those jobs you were keeping better value people out of that job, or you were the most valuable possible person. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/323 "2011-03-03T19:53:56Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Now now, please leave your mom out of this. We’re trying to take the high road here. Don’t talk about his mom like that! She didn’t charge the football team a dime. This is an example of the private charity to which righties are fond of alluding. ---
**Author:** ![jonesj2205](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecc23a/32.png) [@jonesj2205](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jonesj2205)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/324 "2011-03-03T20:32:27Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Incompetency must be documented through classroom observation, in case you were wondering. If administration has documented any of these things, they can dismiss the teacher and there is neither jack nor squat the union could do about it. Well in NY they can fight it for years costing the districts and states hundreds of thousands of dollars. > [@](#): > > Former MLK HS teacher Angela de Souza and lawyers for the state teachers union fought tooth and nail to dismiss her charges of incompetence – which came after she showed movies in class and said she didn’t know she was supposed to create a lesson plan. > > De Souza managed to stretch out the disciplinary process for nearly three years – during which taxpayers shelled out an estimated $240,000 for her salary, $35,000 for an arbitrator, and more than $100,000 for substitute teachers. > > SNIP > > One ex-teacher, Abraham Sorscher, fought the city for two years to hold on to his gig at Murry Bergtraum HS, even after he’d pleaded guilty to defrauding the federal school-lunch program. > > Although he was finally terminated in March, his salary alone for those two years cost $190,000. From [here.](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/it_fire_in_the_hole_uhLE6TtI3MOgGhTausDqAO) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/325 "2011-03-03T20:36:39Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That’s a helpful truism, but it’s a truism in conflict with “do these things, and your job is safe”. My argument was pointing out the flaws in that idea - if you’re specifying now that what you meant was rather that in such circumstances your job is not safe, then certainly my argument doesn’t apply. :rolleyes: Whether you realize or not, this childishness is beneath you. Really. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I don’t recall saying I wanted protection from those who offer more value. Here’s my helpful hint to you in return; sometimes, when your debate opponent says something so flabbergastingly unbelievable, it may be wise to think “Hey, I might have misunderstood” rather than skip straight to “yes, this person believes a flabbergastingly unbeliveable thing”. How about you just skip the drama and simply clarify or offer another interpretation for what you wrote. While I was surprised to see such a position come from you, it’s not out of character for this thread. And it’s not as if what you said appeared to be unclear. When I think something unclear, I ask for clarification. (As I will be doing down thread.) Perhaps the fault lies with what you wrote. Or the degree to which you now see it as being poorly crafted. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Question; did you leave those jobs at which you consider yourself to have been better of your own accord or through promotion? Both. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Did you leave those jobs you don’t feel you were better at as a result of being fired? Of my own accord and through being canned. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > If so in each case, what evidence do you have for your providing better/less value other than those end results? On _this_, I am unclear what you’re asking. Can you rephrase?. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’m confused. Why were you in those jobs where what you had to offer wasn’t of primary importance in the first place? How on earth were you hired when you weren’t providing the best possible value for your employer? These jobs had several dimensions to them. I was excellent at some and average at others (which I disliked). So, I learned that it behooved me to find a job that asked me to do more of what I excelled at and less—or none—of what I struggled through. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Logically speaking, you either provided the best possible value your employer felt they could expect - in which case what you had to offer was of strong importance - or they elected to hire someone who did not provide them with the maximum possible value, in which case applying onself to work is not a guarantee (or near-guarantee) to success. > > I mean, presumably for however long you were employed at those jobs you were keeping better value people out of that job, or you were the most valuable possible person. So what? Not every job is going to be a perfect, or even a great fit. Yes, there were times when the reality of the job was that someone else could probably do it better. Once that became evident I set myself looking for a job that valued what I excelled at, and didn’t ask of me things that I struggled with, or just disliked doing. This was one of the most valuable things I’ve learned in my career. some jobs were a pleasure to get up and go to. Others were like going to the dentist. And I always did better at the ones I liked. Even the cleaning bathrooms job was not bad as far as jobs go. Being a stock boy (twice) for the guys who owned stores in town—friggin hell. ---
**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, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/326 "2011-03-03T20:40:51Z")
Perhaps you could post your autobiography, with texts to explicate the releveance. Not that it’s not fascinating, but I fear that your many, many fans are miffed at having to wade through arguments to get more. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/327 "2011-03-03T20:45:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Perhaps you could post your autobiography, with texts to explicate the releveance. Not that it’s not fascinating, but I fear that your many, many fans are miffed at having to wade through arguments to get more. _Always_ keep thing wanting more… As one who fashions himself a performer, I know you share that sentiment. But that does not explain why you are SO stingy with actual humor. There must be another explanation. Now, what, oh what, could that be? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/328 "2011-03-03T21:02:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes: Whether you realize or not, this childishness is beneath you. Really. I honestly don’t mean any childishness. You made one point, and then you made one which seemed to be in conflict with it. On their own you could make a defensible argument of each, but I don’t see that you can use them together. Pointing out on one hand that doing certain actions leads to near-guarantee of job safety, and then pointing out that life isn’t safe and you should always plan for the worst, seem contradictory to me. > [@](#): > > How about you just skip the drama and simply clarify or offer another interpretation for what you wrote. While I was surprised to see such a position come from you, it’s not out of character for this thread. And it’s not as if what you said appeared to be unclear. When I think something unclear, I ask for clarification. (As I will be doing down thread.) Perhaps the fault lies with what you wrote. Or the degree to which you now see it as being poorly crafted. The interpretation I intended was simply to point out that you are always at risk from those who can do your job in a way that provides more value. To which i’m sure you’d agree. I didn’t intend to imply “that you are always at risk from those who can do your job in a way that provides more value - therefore, I want protection from those people”. I didn’t add any kind of editorialising or opinion of my own. Just pointing out that the risk is there, not declaring I want the risk removed. > [@](#): > > On _this_, I am unclear what you’re asking. Can you rephrase?. Sorry for being unclear. How is it that you know that it was your work to be valuable that ensured you kept those jobs, and your lack of that work that meant you didn’t keep the job you lost, other than the evidence that you kept those jobs and didn’t keep the other? > [@](#): > > These jobs had several dimensions to them. I was excellent at some and average at others (which I disliked). So, I learned that it behooved me to find a job that asked me to do more of what I excelled at and less—or none—of what I struggled through. > > So what? Not every job is going to be a perfect, or even a great fit. Yes, there were times when the reality of the job was that someone else could probably do it better. Once that became evident I set myself looking for a job that valued what I excelled at, and didn’t ask of me things that I struggled with, or just disliked doing. So, it means that in your particular case you kept, for a period of time, a job that you didn’t excel at in all areas. You were able to hold down a job for which you were not the MVP, in other words. My point is that that contradicts the notion that people who do their best and ensure their value have near-guaranteed job security, because you, who did not ensure your maximum value on those occasions, successfully kept out such people from those positions for that period of time. Alternatively, you did \*not \*keep out such people, because though you did not give of your best you still provided _more_ value than anyone else - in which case, you were, effectively, the MVP. Which also contradicts the idea. ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/329 "2011-03-03T21:24:24Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Sadly, although I would love it to be true, this is not the case. I’ve had three companies shot out from under me, and I know of cases where a hard worker was axed pretty much at the whim of someone who didn’t like them. You certainly improve your chances of remaining hired and advancing if you are a “good worker” along these lines, but it’s by no means a guarantee that you’ll be properly promoted or even retained for your efforts. Son, there are few guarantees in life, and unions won’t provide them either. ETA I see there is an entire new page to read… ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/330 "2011-03-03T21:37:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Son, there are few guarantees in life, and unions won’t provide them either. That’s nice, but has nothing to do with what I wrote or why I wrote it. **magellan** was claiming that if you do a good job, your job was secure, and when I called him on this, he still maintained that it was mostly always the case. I’ve seen too many incidences where this was clearly _not_ true, especially in recent years, and I couldn’t let a statement so contradictory to my observations and experience stand. I didn’t bring this up as a pro- or anti-union point. It is, I maintain, the case regardless of your stand on unions. ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/331 "2011-03-03T22:03:44Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I have to agree with **CalMeacham** ; nice as it would be, fair as it might be, this doesn’t make your job safe. You’re still at risk from those who can offer more value - or who can convince employers they can. Even then, there’s a limit to which you can add new value in some jobs; congratulations, you may be punctual, dedicated, eager, and helpful, but that isn’t that useful if there are lots of other people out there who would also be those things and can push a button. There’s an upper ceiling to the value of service you provide when you push buttons, and it’d be pretty easy to hit. Or the value you provide is greater in so small a detail that it may be easily dismissed. Or you might have employers who value something other than job ability. So many things wrong with this: 1. No job is safe, ever, accept that. The largest union in the world can’t force people to buy something they don’t want. When that happens there is no job. As I’ve said a few times before, if your job is to push a button at a widget factory, and someone else comes up with a cheaper/better widget, your job is lost. So do you want the union to protect both you AND the widget you produce? Would you like the government to get involved and require everyone to buy 6 widgets at $10 each? > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > You’re still at risk from those who can offer more value - or who can convince employers they can. Even then, there’s a limit to which you can add new value in some jobs; congratulations, you may be punctual, dedicated, eager, and helpful, but that isn’t that useful if there are lots of other people out there who would also be those things and can push a button. Don’t be that guy. You wrote this, so you know it’s true. Don’t be the guy without any value. At the very least show up with doughnuts. Unions can not, and should not, protect those without value. You said it yourself, “there’s a limit to which you can add new value in some jobs.” Stop relying on unions to add value. Society has been mentioned in this thread a lot, and the general consensus within society is that they do not value that job. And just as they do not value VHS tapes, a person can not and should not expect compensation more than their value. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > There’s an upper ceiling to the value of service you provide when you push buttons, and it’d be pretty easy to hit. And so you said it yourself, there is an upper ceiling. What does the owner of the widget factory do when the value of his widget reaches and upper ceiling (which would be a cool widget)? He can’t demand more money than his widget is worth (to society). If people will only pay $2, that’s all he can get. But like I said, figure out a labeling scheme akin to “organic” and get people to a premium. Fill stores with $2 widgets and $10 Living-Wage ™ Widgets. If society values your button pushing prowess, they’ll pay the premium. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Or the value you provide is greater in so small a detail that it may be easily dismissed. Or you might have employers who value something other than job ability. Don’t tip blind people with paper bills, always use quarters. This is a very important less in life, don’t let your value be easily dismissed. Don’t be an unsung hero, there is no money in that. I think this is the most appropriate place to recommend that most of you read the book [Who Moved My Cheese?: An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life](http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-My-Cheese-Amazing/dp/0399144463/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299188186&sr=8-1) And this brings us to my biggest gripe with unions: Production of a widget requires that a guy sit and push a button, without that the machine stops working. The function is both vital, and dead simple. How much should that person be paid? The union method is to get someone in there, wait, and then go on strike. Without someone to push that button everything grinds to a halt. The union knows this, and holds that position hostage. Even though 100 people are willing and able to do that job for less. Then use that position as leverage to get a bunch of other wages elevated. That’s just how some jobs are. The person in that job needs to know that before signing up, before agreeing to the contract. A year of experience pushing that button does not make you a better button pusher. 30 years of dedication does not make you loyal. Showing up is essentially all you have to do. At some point the guy pushing that button needs to come to grip with the reality that he is not valued enough in society to demand more money. And maybe that’s the problem with all this: some jobs just don’t earn a “living wage.” I don’t know the solution to that. Traditionally these were jobs done by high school students, our spouses looking for extra income. If this is society’s problem, then society needs to address the fact that people should figure out early on how to increase their value, and stop relying on herd mentality to keep them safe. Kids going through highschool shouldn’t look out the window at a factory and say to themselves, “When I turn 16 I can drop out and get a life time job over there with a pension.” ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/332 "2011-03-03T22:12:35Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > You’re hilarious. > I taught in Texas for several years. At the time, and still for all I know, it was illegal for teachers to unionize. Pay scales were appallingly low across the state. Texas was also consistently in the bottom five states for academic achievement, but I digress. The lesson here is that Texans do not value education, and are not willing to pay a premium for it. If put to a referendum that would had a 2% income tax to fund teachers at [what ever value you feel you deserve] who would vote for it? Surely there are private schools in Texas that people could choose to send their kids too, if they valued a better education. And lastly, how many of those state funded teachers were forced to accept that appallingly low salary? If the salaries were so low, why were there so many teachers? Why did so many people want those jobs? Even more lastly, what is it you want unions to do? The solution I grew up with was that every three years teachers went on strike to demand more money. And to this day there is (are?) still a glut of kids coming out of teacher’s college desperate for a job. Those kids are then willing to work as subs, part-time, without contract, temp, what ever it takes. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/333 "2011-03-03T22:19:33Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > So many things wrong with this: > > 1. No job is safe, ever, accept that. The largest union in the world can’t force people to buy something they don’t want. When that happens there is no job. > > As I’ve said a few times before, if your job is to push a button at a widget factory, and someone else comes up with a cheaper/better widget, your job is lost. So do you want the union to protect both you AND the widget you produce? Would you like the government to get involved and require everyone to buy 6 widgets at $10 each? What part is wrong? We seem to be in perfect agreement. No job is safe, ever - I agree. I have expressed no opinion in this thread on unions. > [@](#): > > Don’t be that guy. You wrote this, so you know it’s true. Don’t be the guy without any value. At the very least show up with doughnuts. > > Unions can not, and should not, protect those without value. You said it yourself, “there’s a limit to which you can add new value in some jobs.” > > Stop relying on unions to add value. I’ve expressed no desire to be the person without any value. I’m not in a union, so i’m not sure how i’m relying upon them to add value, and since i’ve expressed no opinion on unions i’m not sure how you’ve concluded all this stuff about me. ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/334 "2011-03-03T22:34:28Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > What part is wrong? We seem to be in perfect agreement. No job is safe, ever - I agree. > > I have expressed no opinion in this thread on unions. I’ve expressed no desire to be the person without any value. I’m not in a union, so i’m not sure how i’m relying upon them to add value, and since i’ve expressed no opinion on unions i’m not sure how you’ve concluded all this stuff about me. Stop assuming everything is about you. There are other people reading this thread, to which you have willingly participated in. Trying to be “the guy in the middle” gets you shot from both sides. If it helps assume all those comments are directed at \*\*Gonzomax \*\* who has me on ignore. I neither know nor care if you’re in a union or not. The point remains: Stop relying on unions to add value. If your job (not you specifically) can be described as, “There’s an upper ceiling to the value of service you provide when you push buttons, and it’d be pretty easy to hit.” A union can’t and shouldn’t get you (not you specifically) more money. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/335 "2011-03-03T22:39:59Z")
It doesn’t seem particularly unreasonable to assume that posts with quote-response format are specifically directed at me. Given that you actually pointed to one quote of mine as having “so many things wrong with this” i’m pretty sure that part at least must have been directed at me. Now knowing this, i’m happy to no longer assume such posts are directed towards me. Could you point out which questions or statements _are_ directed at me, so I can respond? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/336 "2011-03-03T22:50:25Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Now you aren’t even funny; you’re just wrong. > In non-union states, like Texas, teachers can be dismissed at the whim of the board or (in larger districts) the personnel officer. > Even in very strong union states like the one where I teach, all that it requires for a teacher to be dismissed is for administration to actually do their job and document the teacher’s shortcomings. Yes! It’s a simple, easy process in most places, like [Chicago](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-0230-cps-dismissal-gfx.eps-20110226,0,3378793.graphic), [New York](http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/784/how-to-fire-a-dcps-teacher), [DC,](http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/784/how-to-fire-a-dcps-teacher)[Florida](http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article987898.ece), [Indiana](http://www.ibj.com/how-hard-is-it-to-fire-a-teacher-really/PARAMS/article/23257), or [Colorado](http://commongood.org/colorado-dismissal.html). Just follow a few dozen steps, attend six or eight hearings, and spend a few hundred hours of administrative and legal time spread out over a couple years, and it’s a piece of cake! Which state do you live in? ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/337 "2011-03-03T23:09:34Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Could you point out which questions or statements _are_ directed at me, so I can respond? Statements don’t need to be directed at you for you to respond. You’ll notice you entered this thread in post [274](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13527286&postcount=274) by responding to statements made by \*\*magellan01 \*\* that were not directed at you. ---
**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, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/338 "2011-03-03T23:13:04Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > The interpretation I intended … You’ll also notice that I’m not the only one misinterpreting your posts. That one was directed at you, but there is no need to respond, simply improve your performance lest disciplinary actions be taken. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/339 "2011-03-03T23:14:37Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Statements don’t need to be directed at you for you to respond. You’ll notice you entered this thread in post [274](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13527286&postcount=274) by responding to statements made by \*\*magellan01 \*\* that were not directed at you. That’s true, but as I pointed out, so far as I can tell we’re in agreement. Obviously i’m wrong, because otherwise you wouldn’t have quoted my post, so I need to know on what points you’re disagreeing with me specifically so I can respond. Edit; Where did you misinterpret my posts? I thought you were saying that you weren’t responding to me specifically - that in fact _I_ was misinterpreting \*your \*posts. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2011, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896/340 "2011-03-03T23:50:29Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > And this brings us to my biggest gripe with unions: > Production of a widget requires that a guy sit and push a button, without that the machine stops working. The function is both vital, and dead simple. How much should that person be paid? > > The union method is to get someone in there, wait, and then go on strike. Without someone to push that button everything grinds to a halt. The union knows this, and holds that position hostage. Even though 100 people are willing and able to do that job for less. Then use that position as leverage to get a bunch of other wages elevated. No, no, no. If there are enough people willing and able to do the job, the managers can just hire them and let the union go en masse. There is no legal protection from that for unions. The fact that does not tend to happen suggests one of three things: 1. Management is retarded 2. Unions have a perfect monopoly on the supply of labor for certain jobs 3. Those jobs (including the startup and training costs) are generally priced by the labor market fairly near to what the union demands. > [@](#): > > And maybe that’s the problem with all this: some jobs just don’t earn a “living wage.” I don’t know the solution to that. Traditionally these were jobs done by high school students, our spouses looking for extra income. That’s at least part of the problem. In the absence of a truly robust societal safety net (and in this instance, “truly robust” is the unworkable “everyone unemployed gets a wage that enables them to feed, clothe, and house themselves indefinitely”), society needs to make SOME provision for the fact that there are jobs that need doing that aren’t really profitable enough for someone to make a living doing them. One of the ways we can make that provision as a society (in the absence of borderline-socialist taxation and the aforementioned welfare plan) is to have union-subsidized jobs driving up the lower-end prices of labor, increasing the overall costs of some items that we want but don’t really want to pay for. It’s not a good solution, but it’s the best we have that doesn’t involve magical creation of white-collar jobs for everyone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-these-union-busters/572896.md?page=18)