Go ahead and read this article by David R. Francis about the decline of union influence and every place he writes about how much "corporations" are benefitting, just replace that word with "shareholders". And remember that half of American households own stock.
I support the right of any group of workers to unionize, but I also support the right of employers to fire those workers and replace them with other workers, if they can do so. The power of organization should come from the value of the workers themselves, and the value of the workers depends on the price their labor can demand in a free market. If someone else can do the work better or cheaper, why should we have laws that require the employer to employ less than the best?
every place he writes about how much "corporations" are benefitting, just replace that word with "shareholders". And remember that half of American households own stock.
While you are at it, replace "shareholders" with "workers". This is one of the great anomalies of our corporate society today. A good deal of the money in the stock market is either pension money, 401(k) money, or individuals buying mutual funds or stock. Yet, many managers manage to the benefit of the "shareholders" and the detriment of the "workers" even though they are largey one-in-the-same.
Normally I loathe unions... but there's one case that comes to mind in which I don't think the union is being treated fairly.... and that's with General Motors and the UAW.
GM claims their losses are the result of health care costs when, at best, health care costs are but one component among many.... but you won't hear GM talk about the management changes it must make or how management salaries and benefit packages will be cut .... no.. according to GM, it's all the health care costs imposed by union contracts. Well... that's bullsh!t.
I mean, is it the UAW's fault or health care costs that the Chevy Cavalier was left to rot on the vine for 10 years without any improvements to bring it up to par with its competition (to say nothing about quality improvements)?
Are health care costs and the UAW to blame for GM's parts quality problems? No. Workers can assemble crappy parts perfectly, but well-assembled crap is still crap.
Are health care costs and the UAW to blame for the erosion of GM's brand reputation and subsequent increases in rebates and other incentives (that also lower residual value)? No.
The problem with many US auto makers like GM isn't only health care costs, its all the benifits they ceeded to the unions when times were going very good. Now they don't sell cars to make a profit they sell cars to support their welfare system. As for the general decline of GM cars, thats a direct repsonse to ignoring what the consumers want and thinking they can tell consumers what they want. In the GM case, both sides played a pretty big part in screwing over the product.
Similar things happen here in LA where because of the contracts, its actually cheaper to not hire additional firemen when needed and have the existing firemen work paid overtime.
GM could still be selling cars for a profit if they didn't ignore what consumers wanted.
All in all, I'm glad I bought an Accord.
I'm confused. Is it toungue in cheek? Are you saying that you support the right of workers to unionize and the right of management to break the union?
irishlass: A union made up of workers that do good work for a fair wage won't get fired, because it won't be in the best interests of the employer. A union that gets fired either isn't doing good work, or is demanding a wage that's above market price.