Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out, I'm wondering
what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their action.

The main reason people where I live are avoiding stores being struck is that
they are being intimidated by the picketers and this is likely to get worse
now that the maf......er Teamsters are involved.

If you'd like to see the contract that they are rejecting you can find it on
the KFI640 web site. I think you'll find it very interesting.

http://www.kfi640.com/main.html


  #2   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out, I'm wondering
what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their action.


The companies make billions in profits and want the employees to start
paying for healthcare when it was already there for employees for decades.
(ie - a pay cut, but in a sneaky manner)

Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next three years.

Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand over fist.

The main reason people where I live are avoiding stores being struck is that
they are being intimidated by the picketers and this is likely to get worse
now that the maf......er Teamsters are involved.


Where I live, most of the town supports or was at one time a member of
a union and they refuse to shop and support the companies or scabs.

The Teamsters got involved because the companies decided to try to break
the union, so the employees called in the Teamsters to get some hurt on
by not delivering the supplies.

  #3   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike



Obie said:

Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next three years.

Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand over fist.


They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
to uncrate and place in neat piles.

A more apt comparison is a bookstore.

  #4   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in
message
k.net...
Michael Mckelvy wrote:

If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out,

I'm wondering
what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their

action.

The companies make billions in profits and want the employees

to start
paying for healthcare when it was already there for employees

for decades.
(ie - a pay cut, but in a sneaky manner)

Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the

markup of
Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the

next three years.

Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money

hand over fist.

The main reason people where I live are avoiding stores being

struck is that
they are being intimidated by the picketers and this is

likely to get worse
now that the maf......er Teamsters are involved.


Where I live, most of the town supports or was at one time a

member of
a union and they refuse to shop and support the companies or

scabs.

The Teamsters got involved because the companies decided to try

to break
the union, so the employees called in the Teamsters to get some

hurt on
by not delivering the supplies.

Check the earnings statements. The companies are making a
whopping 1.3 to 1.5% profit.
Walmart is the 400 lb gorilla that is breaking the union. I
believe Trader Joes is a non-union store BTW. What health
benefits do they provide their employees?

The real issue for everyone is, WTF is going on with health care
costs? Allow imported pharmaceuticals.

ScottW


  #5   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
to uncrate and place in neat piles.


No, they sell fresh produce and many things that you can't get at the major
supermarkets.


  #6   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike



S888Wheel said:

They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
to uncrate and place in neat piles.


No, they sell fresh produce and many things that you can't get at the major
supermarkets.


The ones in Maryland don't sell fresh produce. Except for *packaged*
foods. Nor do they have anything not in the supermarkets. They have
more choices of some stuff, particularly frozen fish.

I guess they tailored the east coast stores to what they thought would
sell here.


  #7   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...
Michael Mckelvy wrote:

If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out, I'm

wondering
what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their action.


The companies make billions in profits and want the employees to start
paying for healthcare when it was already there for employees for decades.
(ie - a pay cut, but in a sneaky manner)

They want them to pay $5.00 per week towards their own healthcare, $15.00
per week for family coverage.

The union is also claiming that the stores want to cut 50% of their pension
benefits. This is a lie.

Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next three

years.

Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand over

fist.

You've seen their books?

The main reason people where I live are avoiding stores being struck is

that
they are being intimidated by the picketers and this is likely to get

worse
now that the maf......er Teamsters are involved.


Where I live, most of the town supports or was at one time a member of
a union and they refuse to shop and support the companies or scabs.

The Teamsters got involved because the companies decided to try to break
the union, so the employees called in the Teamsters to get some hurt on
by not delivering the supplies.

The Teamsters are involved because they lend muscle. They are thugs, they
have been keying cars of people who cross the picket lines.



  #8   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


The ones in Maryland don't sell fresh produce. Except for *packaged*
foods. Nor do they have anything not in the supermarkets. They have
more choices of some stuff, particularly frozen fish.

I guess they tailored the east coast stores to what they thought would
sell here.





I didn't even know they were on the east coast.
  #9   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

George M. Middius wrote:


Obie said:


Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next three years.

Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand over fist.



They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
to uncrate and place in neat piles.


Actually, they do have a bakery section and produce section. The meat is
pre-packaged, but it's not something they sell a lot of - it's there
mostly as specialty items like sausage and imported cheeses the grocery
stores don't carry.

The fact is, they operate a grocery store. They pay nearly the same
wages as the big chains. They operate on a 80-100% markup over cost,
as opposed to the local Ralph's at 225% right next door. The same
milk and eggs - half as much across the street. $2 a pound for butter.
Chicken Bullion $2.69 and $4.59(Ralphs) Same exact products.

Yet they make more than enough money to expand. That the large
chains are squabbling over a little pay when they are turning
billions in profits per year is silly.

  #10   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

S888Wheel wrote:

They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
to uncrate and place in neat piles.


I forgot to mention - it's all family owned, like In and Out Burger.
Both companies treat their employees well, pay the highest non-union
wages in the area, and generally run a fine, ethical business.

No shareholders, no board of directors, no earnings nonsense.

Unions really are only required when the management is unwilling
to run an ethical business, afterall.

In and Out is a good comparison. They pay $8-$9 an hour for the
exact same job that the other burger chains want you to do, yet
make enough money to expand roughly one new store every 2-3 weeks.
Oh - they charge less for a burger as well. Healthcare as well for
full-tiem employees(unheard of in fast food).

Compare that to McDonalds - minimum wage, pay increases every 6 months
of 25 cents(half what In and Out does every 3 months), a million rules,
more expensive food...

And they are closing locations in the U.S. Loosing money because they
are profit and shareholder driven. I'm amazed that they don't have a
union. The poor slobs working there certainly need one.



  #11   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...

Michael Mckelvy wrote:


If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out, I'm


wondering

what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their action.


The companies make billions in profits and want the employees to start
paying for healthcare when it was already there for employees for decades.
(ie - a pay cut, but in a sneaky manner)


They want them to pay $5.00 per week towards their own healthcare, $15.00
per week for family coverage.

The union is also claiming that the stores want to cut 50% of their pension
benefits. This is a lie.


Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next three


years.

Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand over


fist.

You've seen their books?


Kroger had enough money to buy Ralphs a few years ago. Hundreds of millions
in profits.

The Teamsters are involved because they lend muscle. They are thugs, they
have been keying cars of people who cross the picket lines.


In a perfect world, they would pay well and have no need for unions. BTW, I
talked to a trucker who was there - they drive the truck there, then wait for
the temp to show up and drive it in/unload it. He said that he only makes
$40-$45K a year.

Imagine how little they would be paid if they didn't have a union.

  #12   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


S888Wheel wrote:

They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
to uncrate and place in neat piles.


I forgot to mention - it's all family owned, like In and Out Burger.
Both companies treat their employees well, pay the highest non-union
wages in the area, and generally run a fine, ethical business.

No shareholders, no board of directors, no earnings nonsense.

Unions really are only required when the management is unwilling
to run an ethical business, afterall.

In and Out is a good comparison. They pay $8-$9 an hour for the
exact same job that the other burger chains want you to do, yet
make enough money to expand roughly one new store every 2-3 weeks.
Oh - they charge less for a burger as well. Healthcare as well for
full-tiem employees(unheard of in fast food).

Compare that to McDonalds - minimum wage, pay increases every 6 months
of 25 cents(half what In and Out does every 3 months), a million rules,
more expensive food...

And they are closing locations in the U.S. Loosing money because they
are profit and shareholder driven. I'm amazed that they don't have a
union. The poor slobs working there certainly need one.




In and Out also make a much better product than Mc Donalds. That doesn't hurt.
  #13   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net...
Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...

Michael Mckelvy wrote:


If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out, I'm


wondering

what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their action.

The companies make billions in profits and want the employees to start
paying for healthcare when it was already there for employees for

decades.
(ie - a pay cut, but in a sneaky manner)


They want them to pay $5.00 per week towards their own healthcare,

$15.00
per week for family coverage.

The union is also claiming that the stores want to cut 50% of their

pension
benefits. This is a lie.


Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next

three

years.

Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand

over

fist.

You've seen their books?


Kroger had enough money to buy Ralphs a few years ago. Hundreds of

millions
in profits.

IOW you have not seen the books.


The Teamsters are involved because they lend muscle. They are thugs,

they
have been keying cars of people who cross the picket lines.


In a perfect world, they would pay well and have no need for unions.


When is there a need for thuggery?

They do pay well, there is no need for unions. These people make approx
23,000 a year if they make the top pay rate for working 24 hrs a week. If
they don't think they are getting enough to live on they should retrain for
another line of work. There's no guarantee nor should there be that things
will stay the same.

BTW, I
talked to a trucker who was there - they drive the truck there, then wait

for
the temp to show up and drive it in/unload it. He said that he only makes
$40-$45K a year.

More than a lot of teachers. What's wrong with this picture.

Imagine how little they would be paid if they didn't have a union.

They also recieve full medical and pension benefits even though they aren't
full time employees.

You do realize that if they get paid more, your groceries cost more, don' t
you?

They are not being asked to take a pay cut.


  #14   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net...
S888Wheel wrote:

They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
to uncrate and place in neat piles.


I forgot to mention - it's all family owned, like In and Out Burger.
Both companies treat their employees well, pay the highest non-union
wages in the area, and generally run a fine, ethical business.

No shareholders, no board of directors, no earnings nonsense.

Earnings nonsense? It's earnings that pay the wages.

Unions really are only required when the management is unwilling
to run an ethical business, afterall.

Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take what is
offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being unethical.

In and Out is a good comparison. They pay $8-$9 an hour for the
exact same job that the other burger chains want you to do, yet
make enough money to expand roughly one new store every 2-3 weeks.
Oh - they charge less for a burger as well. Healthcare as well for
full-tiem employees(unheard of in fast food).

Compare that to McDonalds - minimum wage, pay increases every 6 months
of 25 cents(half what In and Out does every 3 months), a million rules,
more expensive food...

With oppurtunities for advancement and management and store ownership.

And they are closing locations in the U.S. Loosing money because they
are profit and shareholder driven. I'm amazed that they don't have a
union. The poor slobs working there certainly need one.

They are closing stores because they oversaturated the market. It's the
first time in their history that they ever lost money.


  #15   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net...
George M. Middius wrote:


Obie said:


Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next

three years.

Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand

over fist.


They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
to uncrate and place in neat piles.


Actually, they do have a bakery section and produce section. The meat is
pre-packaged, but it's not something they sell a lot of - it's there
mostly as specialty items like sausage and imported cheeses the grocery
stores don't carry.

The fact is, they operate a grocery store. They pay nearly the same
wages as the big chains. They operate on a 80-100% markup over cost,
as opposed to the local Ralph's at 225% right next door. The same
milk and eggs - half as much across the street. $2 a pound for butter.
Chicken Bullion $2.69 and $4.59(Ralphs) Same exact products.

Yet they make more than enough money to expand. That the large
chains are squabbling over a little pay when they are turning
billions in profits per year is silly.

It wouold be if it were true they were making billions.
Where are the figures for their profits, or are you just regurgitating the
union rhetoric?




  #16   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...
Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take what is
offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being

unethical.


If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to go
elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
be treated just as shabbily.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #17   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...
Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take what is
offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being

unethical.


If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to go
elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
be treated just as shabbily.

By what standard?

90% of the workforce is non-union.

The grocery clerks enjoy a much higher standard than most FULL TIME
employees.

If they are unhappy with their lot they need to get more education and
different jobs.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000

Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---


  #18   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...
Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take what

is
offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being

unethical.


If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to go
elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
be treated just as shabbily.

By what standard?

90% of the workforce is non-union.

The grocery clerks enjoy a much higher standard than most FULL TIME
employees.

If they are unhappy with their lot they need to get more education and
different jobs.



Easily said, not always so easily done.

That there are unions, and laws allowing unions, is the reason
wages are decent, even for non union companies.
Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
just to keep the unions out. Those companies
are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.

But, were it not for fear of unions, management would
not be so generous.

Management represents ownership. Ownership is a
conglomeration of many stock holding investors each owning a small interest
in the
business. Management represents a lot of amassed economic power.
Workers can only deal with the power of management on an equitable basis
if they are organized into one massed entity (the union), such as the
individual
stockholder interests are organized into one massed entity (management).




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #19   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...
Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take

what
is
offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being
unethical.


If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to go
elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
be treated just as shabbily.

By what standard?

90% of the workforce is non-union.

The grocery clerks enjoy a much higher standard than most FULL TIME
employees.

If they are unhappy with their lot they need to get more education and
different jobs.



Easily said, not always so easily done.

That there are unions, and laws allowing unions, is the reason
wages are decent, even for non union companies.


Prove it.

Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
just to keep the unions out. Those companies
are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.

No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
what.

The unions have a long history of corruption and mismangement of things like
pension funds.

The only reason the Teamsters exist is because of Mafia connections and
Mafia muscle.

They only succeed in keeping people who are willing to work out.

They never cease in trying to get more money for less work.

Grocery clerks are unsilled labor and are already being replaced. It takes
about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike are
going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
bidder.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
worth in the marketplace.

But, were it not for fear of unions, management would
not be so generous.

Management represents ownership. Ownership is a
conglomeration of many stock holding investors each owning a small

interest
in the
business. Management represents a lot of amassed economic power.
Workers can only deal with the power of management on an equitable basis
if they are organized into one massed entity (the union), such as the
individual
stockholder interests are organized into one massed entity (management).

Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid well, people
with skills that are readily available get paid less.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000

Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---


  #20   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
just to keep the unions out. Those companies
are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.


No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
what.


Reguardless, fear is all that most large corporations understand.

Like the second ammendment - just KNOWING that the people were given the
express (potential)ability to overthrow you does wonders to keep a
healthy balance of power and respect on both sides.

Grocery clerks are unsilled labor and are already being replaced. It takes
about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike are
going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
bidder.


Actually, no. More like 2 weeks. You must be fast, you must know how to
deal with errors, scan checks, deal with food stamps and WIC(one mistake
here legally requires you to be written up - two is mandated fired).
Then there's all the codes for produce and meat and...

It's not like taking orders for pizzas anymore. Then ethere's the butchers
and bakery. They aren't even trying to replace them it's such specialized work.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
worth in the marketplace.


True, but since the companies have an attitude of "we owe you nothing
other than a paycheck and you owe us everything(including your intelectual
property) in return", it's not surprizing that unions are so popular in the U.S.



  #21   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...
Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take

what
is
offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being
unethical.


If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to go
elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
be treated just as shabbily.

By what standard?

90% of the workforce is non-union.

The grocery clerks enjoy a much higher standard than most FULL TIME
employees.

If they are unhappy with their lot they need to get more education and
different jobs.



Easily said, not always so easily done.

That there are unions, and laws allowing unions, is the reason
wages are decent, even for non union companies.


Prove it.


Common sense. It follows from the precepts of Capitalism,
competition and human nature.


Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
just to keep the unions out. Those companies
are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.

No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
what.


A more crude way of saying exactly what I just said.

The unions have a long history of corruption and mismangement of things

like
pension funds.


So, corporations also have a long history of corruption, mismanagement,
stockholder fraud, bribery, and price fixing.


The only reason the Teamsters exist is because of Mafia connections and
Mafia muscle.

They only succeed in keeping people who are willing to work out.



Using your analogy, they can go find another job is one of the
90% (according to you) non union workplaces.

They never cease in trying to get more money for less work.


Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the USA.
You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.

Grocery clerks are unsilled labor and are already being replaced. It

takes
about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike are
going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
bidder.


Like the slaves of yore.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
worth in the marketplace.


What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
to negotiate.


But, were it not for fear of unions, management would
not be so generous.

Management represents ownership. Ownership is a
conglomeration of many stock holding investors each owning a small

interest
in the
business. Management represents a lot of amassed economic power.
Workers can only deal with the power of management on an equitable basis
if they are organized into one massed entity (the union), such as the
individual
stockholder interests are organized into one massed entity (management).

Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid well,

people
with skills that are readily available get paid less.



It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually registering
as a Republican.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #22   Report Post  
pyjamarama
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message ink.net...
Michael Mckelvy wrote:

Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
just to keep the unions out. Those companies
are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.


No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
what.


Reguardless, fear is all that most large corporations understand.

Like the second ammendment - just KNOWING that the people were given the
express (potential)ability to overthrow you does wonders to keep a
healthy balance of power and respect on both sides.

Grocery clerks are unsilled labor and are already being replaced. It takes
about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike are
going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
bidder.


Actually, no. More like 2 weeks. You must be fast, you must know how to
deal with errors, scan checks, deal with food stamps and WIC(one mistake
here legally requires you to be written up - two is mandated fired).
Then there's all the codes for produce and meat and...

It's not like taking orders for pizzas anymore. Then ethere's the butchers
and bakery. They aren't even trying to replace them it's such specialized work.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
worth in the marketplace.


True, but since the companies have an attitude of "we owe you nothing
other than a paycheck and you owe us everything(including your intelectual
property) in return", it's not surprizing that unions are so popular in the U.S.


"unions are so popular in the U.S.?"

This here U.S.?

Union membership has been in a 40 year downward death spiral and if
you remove federal employees from the mix, only about 8% of private
sector U.S. workers are union.

That strikes you as "popular?"

What would you call the other 92%? Really popular?
  #23   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net...
Michael Mckelvy wrote:

Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
just to keep the unions out. Those companies
are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.


No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
what.


Reguardless, fear is all that most large corporations understand.

Like the second ammendment - just KNOWING that the people were given the
express (potential)ability to overthrow you does wonders to keep a
healthy balance of power and respect on both sides.

Grocery clerks are unsilled labor and are already being replaced. It

takes
about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike

are
going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
bidder.


Actually, no. More like 2 weeks. You must be fast, you must know how to
deal with errors, scan checks, deal with food stamps and WIC(one mistake
here legally requires you to be written up - two is mandated fired).
Then there's all the codes for produce and meat and...

It's not like taking orders for pizzas anymore. Then ethere's the

butchers
and bakery. They aren't even trying to replace them it's such specialized

work.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
worth in the marketplace.


True, but since the companies have an attitude of "we owe you nothing
other than a paycheck and you owe us everything(including your intelectual
property) in return", it's not surprizing that unions are so popular in

the U.S.


They are not popular except with the very bottom end of the intellectual
scale. Those with the least skill are doing the most complaining and
expecting the most pay and benefits.

Of the entire workforce only 10-15% of it is unionized, this hardly
qualifies as popular.


  #24   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...
Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take

what
is
offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being
unethical.


If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to

go
elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
be treated just as shabbily.

By what standard?

90% of the workforce is non-union.

The grocery clerks enjoy a much higher standard than most FULL TIME
employees.

If they are unhappy with their lot they need to get more education

and
different jobs.


Easily said, not always so easily done.

That there are unions, and laws allowing unions, is the reason
wages are decent, even for non union companies.


Prove it.


Common sense. It follows from the precepts of Capitalism,
competition and human nature.


Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
just to keep the unions out. Those companies
are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.

No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
what.


A more crude way of saying exactly what I just said.

The unions have a long history of corruption and mismangement of things

like
pension funds.


So, corporations also have a long history of corruption, mismanagement,
stockholder fraud, bribery, and price fixing.


The only reason the Teamsters exist is because of Mafia connections and
Mafia muscle.

They only succeed in keeping people who are willing to work out.



Using your analogy, they can go find another job is one of the
90% (according to you) non union workplaces.

They never cease in trying to get more money for less work.


Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the USA.
You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.

These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do with
productivity.

Grocery clerks are unskilled labor and are already being replaced. It

takes
about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike

are
going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
bidder.


Like the slaves of yore.

Slaves had no choice clerks do.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
worth in the marketplace.


What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
to negotiate.

Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of vandalism
are your idea of negotiation?

But, were it not for fear of unions, management would
not be so generous.

Management represents ownership. Ownership is a
conglomeration of many stock holding investors each owning a small

interest
in the
business. Management represents a lot of amassed economic power.
Workers can only deal with the power of management on an equitable

basis
if they are organized into one massed entity (the union), such as the
individual
stockholder interests are organized into one massed entity

(management).


Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without unions, they
are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.

Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid well,

people
with skills that are readily available get paid less.



It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually registering
as a Republican.

Unwarranted personal attack noted.

Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
I'm also not a Democrat.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000

Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---


  #25   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


They are not popular except with the very bottom end of the intellectual
scale. Those with the least skill are doing the most complaining and
expecting the most pay and benefits.

Of the entire workforce only 10-15% of it is unionized, this hardly
qualifies as popular.



It was a sad day when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Procalmation.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


  #26   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the USA.
You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.

These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do with
productivity.


You are absolutley flat out wrong.


Grocery clerks are unskilled labor and are already being replaced. It

takes
about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike

are
going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the

highest
bidder.


Like the slaves of yore.

Slaves had no choice clerks do.


Not if they are merely a product to be bid, as you allege.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what

you're
worth in the marketplace.


What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
to negotiate.

Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of vandalism
are your idea of negotiation?


No
Neither are extreme management tactics.
It happens



Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without unions,

they
are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.


The environment which allows this has evovlved, in large part, because
of unionism.


Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid well,

people
with skills that are readily available get paid less.



It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually registering
as a Republican.

Unwarranted personal attack noted.


The statement is warranted, and not an attack
Your brand of. Neanderthal conservatism is noted.


Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
I'm also not a Democrat.


I hate to ask what you are.
I have my suspicions you lean towards Fascism.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #27   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


They are not popular except with the very bottom end of the intellectual
scale. Those with the least skill are doing the most complaining and
expecting the most pay and benefits.

Of the entire workforce only 10-15% of it is unionized, this hardly
qualifies as popular.



It was a sad day when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Procalmation.


Your equating non-union with slavery shows a major disconnect with reality.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000

Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---


  #28   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the

USA.
You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.

These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do with
productivity.


You are absolutley flat out wrong.


Prove it.

Grocery clerks are unskilled labor and are already being replaced.

It
takes
about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on

strike
are
going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the

highest
bidder.


Like the slaves of yore.

Slaves had no choice clerks do.


Not if they are merely a product to be bid, as you allege.


If you don't like the conditions where you work you are free to get more
training or education in order to gain advancement. Slaves had no such
option.

You seem to be syaing that 90% of the workforce are slaves.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what

you're
worth in the marketplace.


What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
to negotiate.

Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of

vandalism
are your idea of negotiation?


No
Neither are extreme management tactics.
It happens

It happend only when unionists are on strike and not getting their way. The
Teamsters have a very long history of this.

What is extreme about trying to keep your business competitive by reducing
labor costs?

Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without unions,

they
are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.


The environment which allows this has evovlved, in large part, because
of unionism.


Popular myth.

Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid

well,
people
with skills that are readily available get paid less.


It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually registering
as a Republican.

Unwarranted personal attack noted.


The statement is warranted, and not an attack
Your brand of. Neanderthal conservatism is noted.

Once again name calling, the act of someone without a case.

I'm not a conservative, not a Republican, just somebody who has worked for
in a union shop and who is aware that they do more harm than good.

Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
I'm also not a Democrat.


I hate to ask what you are.
I have my suspicions you lean towards Fascism.

Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?

Did you graduate from the Trotsky school of intellectual dishonesty?


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000

Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---


  #29   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


They are not popular except with the very bottom end of the

intellectual
scale. Those with the least skill are doing the most complaining and
expecting the most pay and benefits.

Of the entire workforce only 10-15% of it is unionized, this hardly
qualifies as popular.



It was a sad day when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Procalmation.


Your equating non-union with slavery shows a major disconnect with

reality.


No, I am equating you with antiquated thinking, even for a reactionary right
winger.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #30   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the

USA.
You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.

These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do

with
productivity.


You are absolutley flat out wrong.


Prove it.



Reductions in the work week were won in ealry union contracts,
for example, by the ILGWU


If you don't like the conditions where you work you are free to get more
training or education in order to gain advancement. Slaves had no such
option.


That's a nice story book dream, reality is often quite different.
BTW, unionized workplaces frequently have such arrangements
in cooperatrive ventures with management.


You seem to be syaing that 90% of the workforce are slaves.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what

you're
worth in the marketplace.


What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
to negotiate.

Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of

vandalism
are your idea of negotiation?


No
Neither are extreme management tactics.
It happens

It happend only when unionists are on strike and not getting their way.

The
Teamsters have a very long history of this.


No, management has their own bag of dirty tricks.


What is extreme about trying to keep your business competitive by reducing
labor costs?

Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without unions,

they
are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.


The environment which allows this has evovlved, in large part, because
of unionism.


Popular myth.


No, its true. This is acknowledged by main stram historians,


Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid

well,
people
with skills that are readily available get paid less.


It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually

registering
as a Republican.

Unwarranted personal attack noted.


The statement is warranted, and not an attack
Your brand of. Neanderthal conservatism is noted.

Once again name calling, the act of someone without a case.


Your arguments speak for themselves, relevant to Neanderthal views.


I'm not a conservative, not a Republican, just somebody who has worked for
in a union shop and who is aware that they do more harm than good.


You lie about not being a conservative. This is in consideration of
my having heard your views on other political subjects otehr than
unionism.


Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
I'm also not a Democrat.


I hate to ask what you are.
I have my suspicions you lean towards Fascism.

Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?


No, and I am not a Liberal.
I voted for George Bush.
I support our President's war on terror.
I support his tax cutting economic policies.

I would calssify you as a Neanderthal reactionary conservative, with
leanings
towards Fascism. That is NOT because you disagree with me. And certainly
not because I am a Liberal

Did you graduate from the Trotsky school of intellectual dishonesty?


Talk about personal attacks!!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


  #31   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the

USA.
You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.

These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do

with
productivity.


You are absolutley flat out wrong.


Prove it.



Reductions in the work week were won in ealry union contracts,
for example, by the ILGWU


If you don't like the conditions where you work you are free to get more
training or education in order to gain advancement. Slaves had no such
option.


That's a nice story book dream, reality is often quite different.
BTW, unionized workplaces frequently have such arrangements
in cooperatrive ventures with management.


You seem to be syaing that 90% of the workforce are slaves.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for

what
you're
worth in the marketplace.


What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
to negotiate.

Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of

vandalism
are your idea of negotiation?

No
Neither are extreme management tactics.
It happens

It happend only when unionists are on strike and not getting their way.

The
Teamsters have a very long history of this.


No, management has their own bag of dirty tricks.


What is extreme about trying to keep your business competitive by

reducing
labor costs?

Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without

unions,
they
are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.


The environment which allows this has evovlved, in large part, because
of unionism.


Popular myth.


No, its true. This is acknowledged by main stram historians,


Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid

well,
people
with skills that are readily available get paid less.


It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last

step
in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually

registering
as a Republican.

Unwarranted personal attack noted.


The statement is warranted, and not an attack
Your brand of. Neanderthal conservatism is noted.

Once again name calling, the act of someone without a case.


Your arguments speak for themselves, relevant to Neanderthal views.


I'm not a conservative, not a Republican, just somebody who has worked

for
in a union shop and who is aware that they do more harm than good.


You lie about not being a conservative. This is in consideration of
my having heard your views on other political subjects otehr than
unionism.


Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
I'm also not a Democrat.

I hate to ask what you are.
I have my suspicions you lean towards Fascism.

Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?


No, and I am not a Liberal.
I voted for George Bush.
I support our President's war on terror.
I support his tax cutting economic policies.

I would calssify you as a Neanderthal reactionary conservative, with
leanings
towards Fascism. That is NOT because you disagree with me. And certainly
not because I am a Liberal

Did you graduate from the Trotsky school of intellectual dishonesty?


Talk about personal attacks!!






  #32   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the

USA.
You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.

These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do

with
productivity.


You are absolutley flat out wrong.


Prove it.



Reductions in the work week were won in ealry union contracts,
for example, by the ILGWU


If you don't like the conditions where you work you are free to get more
training or education in order to gain advancement. Slaves had no such
option.


That's a nice story book dream, reality is often quite different.
BTW, unionized workplaces frequently have such arrangements
in cooperatrive ventures with management.


You seem to be syaing that 90% of the workforce are slaves.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for

what
you're
worth in the marketplace.


What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
to negotiate.

Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of

vandalism
are your idea of negotiation?

No
Neither are extreme management tactics.
It happens

It happend only when unionists are on strike and not getting their way.

The
Teamsters have a very long history of this.


No, management has their own bag of dirty tricks.


What is extreme about trying to keep your business competitive by

reducing
labor costs?

Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without

unions,
they
are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.


The environment which allows this has evovlved, in large part, because
of unionism.


Popular myth.


No, its true. This is acknowledged by main stram historians,


Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid

well,
people
with skills that are readily available get paid less.


It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last

step
in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually

registering
as a Republican.

Unwarranted personal attack noted.


The statement is warranted, and not an attack
Your brand of. Neanderthal conservatism is noted.

Once again name calling, the act of someone without a case.


Your arguments speak for themselves, relevant to Neanderthal views.


I'm not a conservative, not a Republican, just somebody who has worked

for
in a union shop and who is aware that they do more harm than good.


You lie about not being a conservative. This is in consideration of
my having heard your views on other political subjects otehr than
unionism.


Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
I'm also not a Democrat.

I hate to ask what you are.
I have my suspicions you lean towards Fascism.

Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?


No, and I am not a Liberal.
I voted for George Bush.
I support our President's war on terror.
I support his tax cutting economic policies.

I would calssify you as a Neanderthal reactionary conservative, with
leanings
towards Fascism. That is NOT because you disagree with me. And certainly
not because I am a Liberal

Did you graduate from the Trotsky school of intellectual dishonesty?


Talk about personal attacks!!



Notice there is no name calling.

Mainstream is not always a synonymn for accurate.

Keeping the Nation at Risk: How the Teacher Unions Block Reforms










Advanced Search
Help





Books
Policy Studies
Cato Policy Report
Cato Journal
Regulation Magazine
Cato Handbook for Congress
Cato Supreme Court Review
Congressional Testimony
Legal Briefs
Cato Audio
Cato's Letters
To Be Governed...
Events Archive





Make a Contribution
About Sponsorship
Alternative Giving Methods
Levels and Benefits





Pocket Constitution


Email Updates


Cato Audio


Cato Store


Cato on Your PDA


Cato University


El Cato




April 28, 2003
Keeping the Nation at Risk: How the Teacher Unions Block Reforms
by Myron Lieberman and David Salisbury
Myron Lieberman is chairman of the Education Policy Institute and
author
of a recent Cato Policy Analysis, "Liberating Teachers: Toward Market
Competition in Teacher Representation." David Salisbury is director of
the
Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute.
Twenty years ago this month, an ad hoc commission established by
then-Education Secretary Terrell H. Bell released a report entitled A
Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform. The report
quickly
became the most widely discussed educational reform blueprint in
American
history. One sentence in the report summarized the commission's take
on
the status of American education: "If an unfriendly power had
attempted to
impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists
today,
we might well have viewed it as an act of war."
Although the report generated a landslide of attention and multiple
reform
efforts, our education system is still in crisis. We have not solved
the
problems identified in the report because the teacher unions have
consistently blocked meaningful reforms.
Recent reports provide fresh evidence of our continuing educational
emergency. The U.S. Commission on National Security lately lamented
the
fact that U.S. students lag behind other countries in scientific
knowledge
and mathematics. Most recently, the Hoover Institution's Koret Task
Force
on K-12 Education released its findings after a review of the state of
American education 20 years since A Nation at Risk. The Task Force
found
that the performance of U.S. public schools remains stagnant. For
instance, about 80 million first graders "have walked into schools
where
they have scant chance of learning more than the youngsters whose
plight
troubled the Commission in 1983."
Certainly, we have seen changes in our schools during the last 20
years.
Teacher salaries have been raised, student-teacher ratios have been
reduced, annual per-pupil spending has increased by about 40 percent
(from
$4,700 per student to $6,600), and total annual expenditures have
grown by
nearly 60 percent in constant dollars, from about $180 billion to $280
billion.
Note, however, that those changes were supported by the teacher
unions.
The unions welcome reforms that lead to higher salaries and smaller
classes for teachers and more dues-revenue for the unions. At the same
time, the teacher unions oppose reforms that would empower parents or
allow private schools to compete on a level playing field for
students.
During the same 20 years, reformers have fought desperately for
reforms
that would give parents more power, or provide any support for parents
who
prefer a private to a public school. However, only a few states now
have a
significant number of charter schools and even fewer allow parents a
choice between a private and public school.
Everywhere pro-parent measures have passed, reformers have faced
intense
opposition by the teacher unions. With over 3 million members and
dues-revenues that exceed $1 billion a year, the unions are an
empire-like
force. Through strong-armed political tactics and hefty financial and
in-kind support to candidates who support teacher union positions, the
unions are a virtually insurmountable obstacle to reforms that are
essential to educational improvement.
A product of political compromise, A Nation at Risk carefully avoided
the
issue of teacher union power. In his letter to Secretary Bell,
Commission
Chairman David P. Gardner wrote: "Our purpose has been to help define
the
problems affecting American education and to provide solutions, not
search
for scapegoats."
But there is a difference between a scapegoat and an organization that
actively blocks reforms. By not criticizing union efforts to block
reforms
and announcing that it was not searching for "scapegoats," the 1983
commission reinforced the status quo. The subsequent 20 years have
demonstrated that this is no way to achieve educational reform.
Today, the unions are better prepared to block constructive reforms
than
they were in 1983. For example, teacher union membership and revenues
have
escalated, and the unions' stranglehold on education policy --
typified by
the failure to include private school choice in the No Child Left
Behind
Act -- is as strong as ever.
In their report released this month, the Hoover Institution's Koret
Task
Force correctly identified the teacher unions as one of the "powerful
forces of inertia" that underlies the public education establishment.
These forces proved more powerful than the Excellence Commission could
have foreseen in 1983.
Reformers who want to see schools improve in 2003 and beyond should
not
make the mistake of underestimating the opposition they will face from
the
teacher unions. Before significant reforms to our education system can
be
widely introduced, the power of the public education establishment,
mainly
the teacher unions, to block reforms must be curbed. Twenty years of
cosmetic change in education permit no other conclusion.
This article was published in the New York Post, April 21, 2003.

Support the Cato Institute
Send this page to a friend

Printer Friendly Version

1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842-0200 Fax (202) 842-3490
All Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute




October
19,
2003


The Real War On Terrorism Is In Pakistan, Not Iraq

by Leon Hadar

[Archives]





Saudis: We Are Good Soldiers

U.S. Challenging EU Defense Policy

Latest North Korea Threat Dismissed as Bluff

[Archives]





Information on Cato's Nov. 20 Monetary Conference,
co-sponsored by The Economist, and featuring Alan
Greenspan.





Chris Edwards will discuss international tax competition
on
CNN tonight between 6 and 7pm ET.
Jonathan Clarke will discuss Iraq on Fox News Channel
Sunday
at 8:15am ET.







Nine Myths About The New Economy

New Economy Index Home

Introduction

SECTION I
What's New About The New Economy?

SECTION II
New Economy Outcomes: Impacts on Americans

SECTION III
Foundations for Future Growth

Explaining the Productivity Paradox

The Knowledge Economy

Nine Myths About the New Economy

Data Sources

Endnotes

The Authors







Nine Myths About The New Economy
Almost everyone now agrees that the U.S. economy has undergone
fundamental
changes in the last 15 years, whether or not they refer to these
changes
as constituting a New Economy. However, too often the discussion on
either
end of the political spectrum has been driven by inaccurate
assessments
and selective choices of data-in short, by New Economy myths.
For many on the left, the New Economy represents a new threat to
economic
justice and social cohesion. These New Economy pessimists
emphasize-and
exaggerate-the down sides of the New Economy, while underestimating
the
benefits. They blame technology and globalization for downsizing,
stagnant
wages, growing inequality, and environmental degradation. Sometimes
this
leads to internally contradictory positions. They claim that if
companies
install technology, workers are laid off, but if companies don't
install
technology, they are milking profits and not reinvesting to raise
wages.
Pessimists correctly point out that economic change creates losers as
well
as winners, but their preferred solution is too often to slow or stop
the
processes of change. Thus, they prescribe trade protection, top-down
regulation, and spending on outdated industrial-era bureaucratic
programs.
Their "land of milk and honey" is made up of large organizations with
stable employment, stable markets, and stable competition, which are
unrealistic expectations in the context of the fundamental trends in
the
New Economy.
For many on the right, the dawn of a digital era automatically means
the
twilight of government. These New Economy optimists emphasize-and
exaggerate-the upsides of the New Economy, while overlooking its
problems.
While viewing it correctly as an era with great possibilities for
growth
and creativity, some on the right seek the elimination of virtually
all
regulation of technology, oppose government funding of research and
development (excluding defense), and argue that government should
simply
"get out of the way," a stance that leaves Americans to fend for
themselves during a difficult, often wrenching transition. Their "land
of
milk and honey" is made up of small firms and individual entrepreneurs
in
dynamic markets; higher income inequality that encourages hard work; a
vastly reduced role for government, including reduced roles in
technology,
education, and skill development; and little effort to expand the
winner's
circle so that all Americans share in the benefits.
New Economy Pessimists' Myths:
MYTH #1 The New Economy has facilitated the dramatic
deindustrialization
of America.
REALITY Manufacturing has not disappeared, it has been reinvented.
Between 1987 and 1996, inflation-adjusted manufacturing output in the
United States increased 27 percent. But because of investments in
technology, training, and new forms of work organization, U.S. firms
were
able to improve productivity even faster, which meant that
manufacturing
employment declined by only 1.4 percent.
MYTH #2 In the New Economy, globalization and corporate greed have
combined to produce stagnant wages for most American workers.
REALITY Slow growth in real wages is a result of slow growth in
economy-wide productivity.
While income inequality is linked to technological change,
immigration,
and the decline of unionism, total wage income in the economy is tied
to
productivity growth. From 1963 to 1973, business productivity grew 35
percent while wages grew 31 percent. Between 1985 and 1995,
productivity
grew 9 percent, while wages grew only 6 percent.48 Without faster
productivity growth, faster wage growth is impossible. Some argue that
wages have stagnated because corporate profits grew. In fact, if all
of
the increase in the share of national income going to corporate
dividends
went instead to wages, the latter would have increased only marginally
faster between 1978 and 1997-20 percent instead of 16 percent.
MYTH #3 In the New Economy, most new jobs are low-wage jobs.
REALITY Low-wage jobs are growing, but higher-wage jobs are growing
even
faster.
Between 1989 and 1998, high-paying jobs grew 20 percent, while
low-paying
jobs grew 10 percent. Middle-paying jobs showed no growth.
MYTH #4 Technological change kills more jobs than it creates.
REALITY Technology changes the composition of jobs and raises
productivity
and incomes, but it does not raise the natural rate of unemployment.
On
the contrary, the dynamic New Economy has reduced unemployment rates
to a
25 year low.
New technologies (e.g., tractors, disease resistant crops, etc.)
spurred
the decline in agricultural jobs. However, as food became cheaper
(American consumers spend less of their income on food than any other
nation) consumers spent their increased real income on other things
(e.g.,
cars, appliances, entertainment), creating employment in other
sectors.
The 30-year low for unemployment after the wave of corporate
downsizing
and technology introduction makes it clear that technology doesn't
reduce
the total number of jobs in the economy. As new information
technologies
begin to raise productivity growth rates, this same positive dynamic
will
continue, leading to higher incomes, not fewer jobs.
MYTH #5 Corporate reengineering has meant the downsizing of large
numbers
of middle class, managerial jobs.
REALITY In the last nine years, three million new managerial jobs have
been added (14.8 million in 1989 to 18 million in 1998).49
Despite the fact that New Economy organizations flatten hierarchies,
the
New Economy spurs greater demand for more managers who focus on
quality,
innovation, design, marketing, and finance.
New Economy Optimist's Myths:
MYTH #1 The U.S. economy is in the midst of unprecedented economic
boom
that began in the early 1980s.
REALITY Growth in per capita GDP, productivity, and wages since the
1980s
have lagged behind growth rates in the 1960s and early 1970s.
While job growth was stronger in the 1980s and 1990s than in the 1960s
and
1970s, productivity and per-capita GDP grew about half as fast.
MYTH #2 Income inequality is not a serious problem.
REALITY Between 1980 and 1996, real incomes went up 58 percent for the
wealthiest 5 percent of American households, but less than 4 percent
for
the lowest 60 percent.
Household income inequality has increased and has made it more
difficult
for many Americans to achieve the American dream. The strength of
America's economy has historically been that most Americans have felt
that
they can prosper if they get an education, work hard, and play by the
rules. If this compact is broken, our social fabric will start to
disintegrate.
MYTH #3 The dispersing tendencies of the New Economy mean the death of
large corporations and the twilight of government.
REALITY Large corporations and government are reinventing themselves
and
still play key roles in the economy, to say the least.
Because information technology lets firms reach larger markets and
take
advantage of economies of scale, the average size of firms in the New
Economy is growing, not shrinking. Moreover, just as the Internet did
not
mean the end of large companies like IBM, it also does not bode the
end of
government. Rather, it creates a requirement that governments
re-engineer
themselves to be faster, more flexible, and smarter.
MYTH #4 In the New Economy, a significantly growing share of the
workforce
are self-employed entrepreneurs.
REALITY Entrepreneurs represent about the same share of the workforce
as
ever.
Between 1975 and 1994, self-employment as a share of total employment
remained level at approximately 8.7 percent (10.6 million workers)-an
all-time low.






Index Home | Introduction
SECTION I | SECTION II | SECTION III
Productivity Paradox | Knowledge Economy
Nine Myths | Data Sources | Endnotes | The Authors


The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)
Technology, Innovation, and New Economy Project
600 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Suite 400, Washington DC 20003
Phone: (202) 546-0007

www.ppionline.org


The Redistribution of Wealth - Labor Union Style
Theoretical/Philosophical Issues | Politics/Government | Personal
Freedom Issues | Regulations | Countries and Regions | Thinkers | Free
Market Organizations | Do It Yourself | None of The Above |
Home Politics and Government ; Unions and Other
Organizations


Email login:

Password:




Search for:
BooksMagazinesDVD & VideoMusicMapsOut of Print
BooksBritish
BooksBritish MagazinesBritish DVD & VideoBritish Music
Keywords:






The Redistribution of Wealth -
Labor Union Style
Robert G. Anderson
The redistribution of wealth as well as the creation of wealth is a
natural development of the market process. Voluntary exchanges among
individuals as producers and consumers constantly bring about the
creation and redistribution of wealth.
The advancement in the material well-being of individuals that
results
from a developing social division of labor is one of the great
blessings
of a free market society. The specialization of individuals
producing
goods and services for trade in the marketplace has enhanced labor
output far beyond anything that was attained by individuals who
produced
exclusively for their own direct consumption.
With the market price system as their guide, entrepreneurs respond
to
their assessment of consumer desires by bringing together capital
and
labor in the production of goods and services. The future behavior
of
the consumers in the marketplace ultimately rewards or penalizes
these
entrepreneurs for their decisions. If the entrepreneur's judgment in
the
productive employment of capital and labor is correct, as evidenced
by
subsequent consumer buying, profits result. A lack of consumer
buying,
however, reflects losses to the entrepreneur for his erroneous
employment of these productive resources.
The natural market process is the motivating force for all
productive
effort, and countless daily activities of this type result in an
orderly
market price system. Such voluntary behavior by producers and
consumers
responding to market prices not only creates new wealth but results
in
the constant redistribution of wealth within a free society.
Competitive Allocation
There can be no reasonable objection to such redistribution of
wealth
when it results from voluntary exchange in a competitive
marketplace;
quite the contrary, such market processes are continually directing
productive resources to their highest use and thus bringing about
the
greatest material progress.
The redistribution of wealth by labor unions, however, differs
profoundly from the market process. Unlike the transfer of wealth in
a
voluntary exchange between a producer and consumer, the shift of
wealth
by labor unions is accomplished involuntarily, by force and
intimidation. Furthermore, the magnitude of the wealth transferred
by
labor unions as well as the extent of the burden upon those deprived
can
never be calculated. These are unseen effects of the labor union's
impact on the market.
An understanding of this distinction requires an awareness of
labor's
role in the marketplace. Contrary to the popular misconception that
conflict prevails between labor and capital in productive
employment,
these independent factors of production actually complement one
another.
A joining together of capital and labor by the entrepreneur stems
from
the exercise of his foresight in the anticipation of future consumer
behavior, and the two factors work together for the benefit of
consumers.
The Active Force
It is competition among entrepreneurs for capital and labor, not
competition between capital and labor, that is the active force in
the
free market. Within the context of a particular productive effort,
capital and labor join together in producing the output of goods and
services for the benefit of consumers. The ultimate valuation of
these
goods and services by consumers in turn establishes the value upon
the
specific productive factors employed.
It is true that capital frequently displaces labor in productive
activity, as new and better machinery is invented. But far from a
destructive, competitive force harming labor, such labor saving
devices
are the primary ingredient for material progress. Increases in both
the
quantity and quality of productive capital-tools and machinery
contribute to an increase in labor's productivity.
The value of labor is dependent upon "getting more goods out of the
woods in a given period of time." When capital is employed in
production
the output of labor is enhanced. While greater work effort can
increase
production, the history of man's material progress has primarily
occurred through the use of capital-more efficient tools. It is an
obvious truism that a man working with a machine can produce more
than a
man with his bare hands, and on a greater scale the observation that
the
great consuming nations are the great producing nations is directly
related to their abundance of capital.
It is equally true that labor competes with labor. Just as
entrepreneurs
bid against one another for productive labor, so too does worker bid
against worker for productive employment. This competition among
entrepreneurs, and among workers in the labor market, is a continual
force that directs productive resources to their highest and most
efficient use.
Competition therefore, rather than being destructive, can thus be
seen
as a guiding force toward the attainment of efficiency in the
employment
of productive resources. The substitution of capital for labor,
which
increases the productivity of labor, makes the labor correspondingly
more valuable to competing entrepreneurs. This combination of
greater
capital employment coupled with competing entrepreneurs seeking
competing workers, results in ever-increasing benefits for labor.
The Exploitation Theory
The historical evolution of the union in the labor market had its
intellectual roots in Marxian theories of exploitation. Arguing from
the
defunct labor theory of value as its premise, the exploitation
theory
held that an inherent conflict existed between labor and capital.
The
labor theory of value erroneously assumed that the source of
economic
value was labor input. The returns paid to capital and the
entrepreneur,
therefore, were necessarily assumed to come from an exploitation of
the
labor employed in production. Interest and profits were considered
"unearned," and the increment paid to them created "surplus value,"
a
capitalist accumulation of productive resources in fewer and fewer
hands.
Modern marginal utility theory as well as actual experience in the
labor
market has totally demolished this fallacious labor theory of value
and
its erroneous conclusions. It is now well-recognized that the true
source of value is subjective, that it is the individual tastes,
preferences, likes and dislikes of consumers which give economic
value
to productive resources. The reason that productive resources have
value
is because of the contribution they make in satisfying the desires
and
demands of consumers.
Entrepreneurs try to anticipate what these future consumer values
will
be and to direct market resources into productive activity to
ultimately
meet these values. The pursuit of profit is the motivating force for
this risk-taking activity. This return of profits to the successful
entrepreneur resulted from his bringing together independent factors
of
production into a complementary state, today. To this end, the
factors
land, labor, and capital were drawn together for the present benefit
of
consumers.
Contributing Factors
While labor is an important part of productive activity, it is
certainly
not the sole contributing factor to productive output. Compensation
to
the entrepreneur and to the owners of capital and land for their
roles
in bringing about desired goods and services for the consumer must
also
be paid. What this payment will be to each contributing factor of
production is consumer-determined by the resources they willingly
exchange for the end-product of the productive enterprise.
The rent for land, the interest for capital, the wages for labor,
and
the profits for entrepreneurs are determined by market forces. That
is,
the given supply of each factor of production relative to the demand
for
this factor determines its market price. And since it is the final
judgment of the consumers on the worth of the productive output
which
gives value to these productive resources, the greater the quality
and
quantity of output that these productive resources can generate, the
more valuable they are in terms of market prices.
It is for this reason that an increasing abundance of land, capital,
and
successful entrepreneurs improves the returns to labor. As the total
supply of these other productive factors increases, relative to the
supply of labor, the greater will be labor's share of the total
returns.
The higher and higher wages earned by labor, therefore, have evolved
from the greater productive output made possible by a declining cost
of
interest, rent, and entrepreneurial expertise as the supply of each
of
these has increased.
While the concept of labor unions originated in a labor/capital
conflict
theory that has long since been refuted, and the advancement of
living
standards can be directly identified with the market process, the
labor
union continues to exist today as an imposing force.
The historical growth of unions to their present influence in the
labor
market has little, if anything, to do with their economic role. An
understanding of labor union growth requires an understanding of how
the
power of legal, government-sanctioned monopolies can displace the
market
force of competition.
The role of law in a market society is to protect life and property.
This function is vital to the preservation of peace and harmony
among
the members of society. Such a role demands equality before the law
if
legal justice is to prevail. To violate this principle of
universality
guarantees injustice.
Special Powers of Coercion Promote Growth of Unions
It is an historical fact that the growth and presence of labor
unions
can be traced directly to violations of these legal concepts. Prior
to
1930 fewer than four million members of the labor force were
unionized
in the United States. Beginning with the passage of the
Norris-LaGuardia
Act in 1933, and the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, unions
acquired special-interest legal advantages denied to any other
institutions or individuals. There is no question that a definite
correlation can be found between the preferential legal treatment
accorded unions at that time, and the twenty-one million union
workers
in today's United States labor force.
The growth of union membership during the past forty years would
never
have been possible without these special powers of coercion.
Competitive
free-market labor long ago would have displaced this inefficient
structuring of unionized labor had not unions possessed their legal
advantages. Modem unionism has been the offspring of a statist
society
of legal privileges.
It must be pointed out that modern unionism is not synonymous with a
voluntary association of workers. It is frequently argued that
unions
are simply a cooperative arrangement of workers engaging in
collective
negotiation with their employer or employers. To believe that this
is
all that constitutes modern unionism would be exceedingly naive
because
it ignores reality.
Certainly there can be no moral objection to workers creating a
voluntary, private association as their representative in employment
negotiations with their employers. From an economic viewpoint,
however,
such a collective approach can never serve the individual workers
interests as effectively as he can serve himself. The
collectivization
of individual workers is not consistent with the competitive
conditions
that exist between workers for available jobs offered by employers.
The
establishment of a union of workers must subordinate the interests
of
the individual worker to the group.
It became obvious very early in the history of the labor union
movement
that the competing threat from workers in the free labor market
would
lead to the demise of unionism. The survival of labor unions in a
competitive labor market would prove impossible as long as freedom
of
entry by new workers was allowed in the union labor market.
Furthermore,
the more productive workers within the union itself would inevitably
discover the price they were paying as members of the collective
group.
Violence and Privilege
The survival of unions was dependent upon the use of both private
violence and legislated favoritism. It is no accident that the
entire
history of union growth is marked with examples of violence. To
survive
and grow, unions systematically resorted to physical attacks on
persons
and property. Efforts at retaliation by employers led to mass
conflict.
Public opinion, swayed by a belief in labor/capital conflict
theories,
passively tolerated and sanctioned this union violence.
As long as the general belief was that outbreaks of violence were
caused
by employers fighting to preserve their power over exploited
workers,
the political climate was established for the creation of pro-union
legislation. Union propaganda had successfully molded public opinion
into believing that unions were the means by which working
conditions
were improved.
It is a simple truism that ideas determine actions. While truth will
ultimately prevail in the intellectual battle of ideas, the belief
in
fallacious ideas meanwhile will chart our directions, and lead us to
the
disastrous consequences of these erroneous ideas. And so it has been
with the labor theory of value and its concomitant conclusion of
exploited labor under capitalism.
Arguing from these intellectual errors, the union was seen as a
device
to combat socialism and preserve capitalism from its inherent,
self-generated defects. Believing that the individual worker was
defenseless against the exploitation of the employer, the union has
presented itself as a "progressive friend" of labor. By banding
together, the workers would be a "countervailing power" within the
labor/ capital conflict environment that was believed to exist, Such
fallacious beliefs have, indeed, caused needless turmoil among men
and
destruction of property. Armed with the passive support of public
opinion and enabling legislation, unions have inflicted massive
violence
upon persons and property in their attainment of monopoly power in
the
labor market.
It is imperative to recognize the true nature of modern unionism.
The
union today is a legal cartel. It is as reactionary an institution
as
the guild of medieval times, but more insidious in its violence. Its
violence against competing workers (scabs), and its intimidation
against
employers (strike), are matters of historical fact. The ominous
presence
of union labor today is mute testimony to the triumph of monopoly
violence over peaceful competition.
The economic impact of the union as a legal cartel is no different
from
that of any other monopoly. Its preservation of power is dependent
upon
government legal protection, and/or private violence. The power of
the
labor union is particularly significant because it relies on both of
these sources-all the power the law allows plus what can be usurped
through private violence.
Granted legal immunity from the judicial injunction, and exempted
from
jury trial in the United States, the legal power of the union
against
employers is awesome. By the execution of the strike and the illegal
use
of private violence to restrict replacement of striking workers, a
union
can effectively enforce its monopolistic wage demands against an
employer.
A Progressive Force?
The redistribution of wealth by legal plunder or private violence is
nothing new in the history of mankind. What is new, however, is to
refer
to unions as a "progressive" force as they engage in the destruction
of
the peace and harmony of the capitalist order.
The growth of union power in the private labor market was in direct
proportion to its effective use of the law and private violence. The
abdication by professional managers of responsibility to corporate
owners of broadly-held stock companies made the task of unions even
easier. Rather than resist and risk bad publicity by replacing
striking
workers with new workers, the professional managers of large
corporate
employers yielded to union demands for higher wages. The unions thus
succeeded in acquiring for their workers a wage rate higher than
would
have been attainable under conditions of a free, competitive labor
market.
This situation can be clearly seen wherever labor unions are present
in
a labor market. Union wage rates are significantly higher than the
wages
paid for similar labor that has not been unionized. The tragedy has
been
to ascribe this differential to the union's ability to raise the
general
wage rates of all labor, rather than to the use of their monopoly
power
in raising the wages of just some of the union workers in the labor
force.
The direct economic impact of a legal cartel is clearly visible. By
forcefully preventing entry of any competitive supplier, the cartel
is
able to command a monopoly price for its services. The result is
that
the consumer of goods and services offered by a cartel is prevented
from
acquiring alternative goods and services from competitive sources.
This is precisely the case with employers acquiring union labor. The
supply of workers bidding for the jobs offered by employers is
restricted by the union. Furthermore, no individual is permitted to
negotiate directly for himself with an employer of union labor. The
employer is forced to negotiate exclusively with the union for his
labor
requirements. Irrespective of market labor supply factors that would
contribute to the determination of a market wage rate, the employer
is
forced to negotiate fixed wage rates with the union.
Above-Market Wage Rates
The legal advantages and private violence of the union are exercised
in
acquiring wage rates higher than would be paid by the market. The
employer, in the interests of short-run peace and a return to
productive
activity, is intimidated into accepting the wage demands of the
union.
Regardless of any changes in the market forces of supply and demand,
the
employers are bound to their fixed wages with the union.
While the union, in the exercise of its powers as a cartel, succeeds
in
acquiring the payment of wage rates above the prevailing market
rate, it
cannot insulate itself from the inexorable forces of economic law
that
must follow from such action. Other consequences, less visible and
unseen by many, inevitably result from such forceful intervention in
the
market.
The most obvious market response is that the quantity of labor
demanded,
as with any economic good, will be less at a higher price than at a
lower price. Many consumers will be unwilling to voluntarily
exchange
the greater resources required at the higher price. How many
consumers
will refuse to exchange is dependent upon the subjective valuations
of
the consumers for the particular economic good. While this knowledge
can
never be known with certainty, the magnitude of these marginal
consumers
is the determining factor in establishing what the economist calls
elasticity or inelasticity of demand. Economic theory can only
inform
us, however, that all things being equal, fewer consumers will
exchange
at a higher price than at a lower price. The quantity of the change
is
dependent upon the price change and the values of the consumers.
The Employer as Consumer
In the labor market it is the employer who is the consumer. When the
price of labor (wages) is increased, the quantity of labor demanded
by
employers will decline. The extent of the decline, as with any
economic
good, is determined by the amount of the increase in the price of
labor
and the number of marginal employers (consumers) in the particular
labor
market. The higher that wages are forced above the market rate, the
greater the decline in demand for the labor by these consuming
employers. President Calvin Coolidge put it well, "as more and more
workers lose their jobs, unemployment results!"
The surplus labor, unemployment, is an inevitable result when
employers
become unable to recover from consumers the higher cost of their
productive output. The force of the unions can increase wage rates,
but
that same force cannot be imposed upon the buying decisions of the
consumer. As employers raise their asking prices to cover the
union-imposed labor costs, many consumers will cease to buy the
goods
and services offered. The resultant decline in consumer buying
requires
a curtailment of production from the level that had prevailed.
For some employers, this necessity for reducing production levels
may
prove fatal. At lowered levels of production the employer may be
operating so far below his breakeven point that he has no
alternative
but to cease production entirely. More typically, it will mean a
reduction in unit efficiency for employers, as the more efficient
employers are transformed into less efficient employers. The decline
of
their efficiency in production means that fewer workers are
required.
At the higher wages acquired through union force, both the
unemployed
and those within the free labor market are attracted to the higher
paying jobs in the union labor market. However, this additional
supply
of labor can have no competitive impact on the union labor market.
The
employers are bound to their fixed union wage scale and are
forbidden to
employ competing labor at lower wages.
Unemployment
The failure of the union-imposed wages to adjust to the competitive
conditions of the market leads to both unemployment and a distortion
of
labor allocation. The magnitude of the unemployment and distortion
is
dependent upon the difference between union-imposed wages and the
market
wage. The unions are well aware of this consequence and their
propaganda
constantly seeks to conceal their role as its cause. Their public
image
as the "friend of labor" forces them to perpetuate the myths that
unemployment and the misallocation of labor is caused by the
capitalist
business cycle and greedy, profit-seeking employers.
While the rhetoric of the union claims no limit to what it can
accomplish for the worker in terms of higher wages, the economic
limitations of massive unemployment from exorbitant wage demands is
understood. The long-term survival of the union depends upon a large
membership, and the preservation of a large membership of workers
requires the economic survival of the employers. It is a constant
balancing act, therefore, as the union demands wages above the
market,
but not so high as to destroy the entire market for the union labor,
and
with it, the unions themselves.
A Free Market Sector
The capacity of the union to accomplish this feat, almost with
impunity,
lies in an institutional requirement that is essential to union
success.
The union must have a concurrent free labor market existing beside
it. A
competitive labor market that responds to changing forces of supply
and
demand is needed to absorb the unemployed that are driven out of the
union labor market.
Less than one-quarter of the labor market is unionized in the United
States today. Furthermore, not all union labor is earning above
market
wage rates. It is probably a safe assumption that fewer than twenty
percent of those in the United States labor market are receiving
wage
rates above what could be acquired under free market conditions.
It is this small minority of union workers receiving above market
wage
rates that generates the insidious redistribution of wealth in the
labor
market. The Tanstaafl principle (There ain't no such thing as a free
lunch) has no better demonstration than by this example somebody
pays.
There are two groups that pay directly-those who are employed in the
free labor market, and those who consume union labor market goods
and
services. Ultimately, everyone pays indirectly in the form of a
lowered
standard of living resulting from the disruption of the productive
system and reduction of the incentive to the accumulation of
capital.
Workers who would be employed in the union labor market, if freedom
of
entry prevailed, have no choice but to compete in the free labor
market
where supply and demand forces still determine wages. Their bidding
in
competition with the existing supply of free market labor causes the
wages of free market labor to fall. The result is that wages in the
free
labor market are lowered because of the entry of the unemployed
workers
forced out of the union labor market.
This shift of wealth, higher wages to union workers at a cost of
lower
wages to free market workers, is a subtle, but nevertheless very
real,
redistribution of wealth. It is, indeed, an exploitation of labor by
labor, that is, a forced transfer of wealth from the free labor
market
to the union labor market in the form of differing wage payments.
Also harmed are the consumers of goods and services produced by
union
labor. The law of costs ultimately requires that the higher union
wages
must be borne by these consumers if production is to continue.
Future
production at the above market labor costs imposed by unions, exacts
its
toll in the form of consumer prices higher than would prevail in a
competitive market. Once again, a forced redistribution of wealth
occurs
as the consumer must pay the higher costs of union labor, but of
what
magnitude can never be known. The competitive market price in the
absence of the union labor is unknown.
While such redistribution of wealth by the force of union power
represents exploitation and injustice, the capacity of unions to
transfer wealth to themselves is limited by the ultimate consumer.
If
union wage demands become too excessive, employers are destroyed by
the
failure of consumer buying. In the so-called private sector labor
market
it is a continual balancing act that is pursued by the union.
There is, however, a new and far more effective labor market that
unions
can exploit. This is the so-called public sector labor market, the
labor
market composed of government employees.
Unlike the private labor market that survives by its capacity to
produce
goods and services that are voluntarily acquired by consumers in
willing
exchange, the public sector labor market is supported by the taxing
power of government. The law of costs does not apply to government
activities as it does to private employers in a competitive free
market.
As a matter of fact, cost has nothing to do with the price of
government
activities. More often than not, government-provided services are
offered free of price to the consumer. The costs of these government
services are generally imposed upon the taxpayer.
Monopoly, Bureaucracy, and Union Power in Public Sector
Union power in the public sector labor market is further enhanced by
the
monopoly structure of government - provided services, and the
bureaucratic system of government management. Market competition in
the
form of freedom of entry in supplying alternative sources of goods
and
services to the consumer is generally prohibited by the force of
law.
Unlike the private labor market where higher union labor costs
invite
competition from free labor market employers, the public sector
labor
market is protected by legal monopoly. Competitive alternatives to
the
consumer are denied by the force of law. Whether it is policemen,
firemen, teachers, sanitation workers or clerical government
workers,
the determination of public sector wages is more a political or
bureaucratic decision than a market-determined decision by
consumers.
Resistance to union wage demands in the public sector stems more
from
political considerations than from productivity considerations. It
is
usually the vocal outcry of the constituency, not the bureaucratic
manager, that objects to the excessive wage demands of the unions in
the
public sector. After all, the bureaucratic manager himself is a
worker
in the public sector labor market, and any union gains for his
subordinates accrue to him as well. The bureaucratic manager has
even
less incentive to resist union demands than his counterpart in the
private sector market-the professional manager of the large
corporation.

The wage costs of public sector workers, like any and all costs of
government, ultimately are borne by the taxpayers. Whereas the union
redistributes wealth to its workers from expropriating the resources
of
consumers and free market labor in the private sector, the
redistribution of wealth to the public sector worker comes primarily
from increased taxation.
Not confronted with the problems of competitive workers or unwilling
consumers, the public sector union can significantly increase the
magnitude of its wealth redistribution. The only effective
limitation to
such union power is the same force that limits the whole of
government-the private wealth of the citizenry that can be seized by
government taxation.
Government labor unions have been quick to observe this massive
increase
in their power to redistribute wealth, and naturally have urged an
expansion in public sector unionization. To this end, the growth of
government in economic affairs has opened a new source of labor
union
power in the forced redistribution of wealth.
It is a sad commentary of our age that the combination of economic
ignorance and mans blind pursuit of power has brought us to this
point.
Any reversal in this state of affairs can occur only if we improve
our
economic understanding and structure our legal institutions to
safeguard
our lives and property from such private power abuses.
The hope of the future is in changing ideas. Unions exist today as a
monument to intellectual error. They are the product of a statist
society that permits the private abuse of power in the forcible
redistribution of wealth. Any return to a free society demands the
realization that competition and freedom, not legal privilege and
violence, are the way to general prosperity for all.


At the time of the original publication, Mr. Anderson was
Executive
Secretary and Director of Seminars, The Foundation for Economic
Education.



Reprinted with permission from The Freeman, a publication of The
Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., July, 1979, Vol. 29, No.
7.


United They Fall : Unions Won't Prosper if American Corporations
Don't










Advanced Search
Help





Books
Policy Studies
Cato Policy Report
Cato Journal
Regulation Magazine
Cato Handbook for Congress
Cato Supreme Court Review
Congressional Testimony
Legal Briefs
Cato Audio
Cato's Letters
To Be Governed...
Events Archive





Make a Contribution
About Sponsorship
Alternative Giving Methods
Levels and Benefits





Pocket Constitution


Email Updates


Cato Audio


Cato Store


Cato on Your PDA


Cato University


El Cato




January 12, 2003
United They Fall : Unions Won't Prosper if American Corporations Don't
by Stephen Moore
Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow
at
the Cato Institute.
Last week the machinists' union indignantly rejected the latest
contract
offer by bankrupt United Airlines, complaining that they were being
unfairly rushed into a bad deal. One could only wonder whether the
union
bosses have lost all sense of economic reality.
With $2 billion in debt and daily operating losses in the millions,
United
has to cut costs dramatically in the next several months or the
airline
will be out of business. The unions are hardly innocent victims of the
demise of United, which not that long ago was a financial titan among
airlines. In fact, the extravagant pay scales union members enjoy is
one
reason for United's swift plummet toward insolvency. Through
collective
bargaining, United pilots and mechanics have extracted pay structures
that
are by leaps and bounds the highest in the industry. Such costs have
made
the airline hopelessly uncompetitive against discount rivals like
Southwest and JetBlue. Federal officials cited out-of-control salaries
as
a primary explanation for turning down United's recent $1.8
billion-dollar
loan guarantee request.
It would appear that the pilots and mechanics will soon discover an
important lesson: The alternative to accepting reduced salaries will
be no
jobs at all.
The United labor fracas raises the question of whether unions have so
outserved their usefulness that they are now doing more harm than good
for
American workers. The unions are already losing hundreds of thousands
of
members every year, and their recent behavior suggests that labor
bosses
are intent on accelerating their own demise.
Consider, for example, the narrowly averted New York Transit strike,
in
which the union was demanding massive pay increases from an
all-but-bankrupt municipal agency. New York City is facing its worst
fiscal crisis since the late 1970s (when President Ford allegedly told
the
city to "drop dead"). Yet the comatose transit union, whose workers
already receive about 30 to 40 percent more compensation than
comparably
skilled private sector workers, demanded even more concessions from
the
city. Lord knows where the money was supposed to come from.
Then there is the headline-grabbing case of the dockworker strike on
the
West Coast this past October. The dockworkers, who with overtime can
earn
six-figure salaries, were essentially striking against the evils of
technological progress. The union's beef was with the decision to
automate
the tabulation of containers moving in and out of ports. This would be
the
economic equivalent of the accounting profession trying to block the
introduction of calculators.
"I'm not talking about Star Wars," one industry executive pleaded.
"I'm
talking about everyday technology. Think supermarket scanners. FedEx
or
UPS tracking systems. Simple information management." Said another:
"The
top ports in Asia, and in Europe, are at least a decade ahead of us.
Our
ports literally cannot keep up."
Before President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act to suspend the work
stoppage, the American economy was losing an estimated $1 billion a
day in
output and, throughout the economy, thousands of union and non-union
jobs
were put at risk.
In each of these cases, the labor unions' irrational objections to
technological change and economic reality have needlessly reduced the
profitability and the competitiveness of American firms. The Luddite
attitude of "man versus machine" will not protect jobs or raise wage
scales. Just the opposite: Throughout the last century,
computerization
and technological progress have been the driving force behind the
increased productivity of workers and their higher salaries. For
example,
one study recently found that when an employee works with a computer
in
front of him, his salary is likely to be $10,000 to $20,000 higher
than if
he is without one.
One of the most baffling and self-defeating of union tactics is the $1
million TV and radio campaign by the Communications Workers of America
against Verizon, the Baby Bell of the Northeast. As even the most
casual
investor knows, the last three years have been brutally unkind to the
telecom industry. In 2000, the telecom sector contracted by 28 percent
and
bled almost $1.7 trillion in lost share values. Overall telecom
expenditures are down 45 percent this year--a cut in capital
investment of
over $30 billion. More than half a million telecom workers have lost
their
jobs. That hasn't deterred the CWA from spending members' dues
blasting
Verizon's planned cutbacks of about 3,500 jobs in the New York region.
The union complains with some validity that the firm is paying
million-dollar bonuses to management even as it executes its
downsizing
plans. Those bonuses do seem unwarranted given the wobbly financial
condition of the industry. But the larger economic reality here is
that
Verizon is losing revenue as government regulations force it to lease
phone lines to competitor companies at fire-sale rates. The firm is
losing
hundreds of thousands of phone lines to competitors, and its landline
business is surrendering market share to cell phones, e-mail, and
cable
telephony.
Meanwhile the incendiary union ads heap abuse on Verizon and
characterize
management as a gang of corporate crooks. How is this going to help
communications workers? The strategy makes about as much sense as Kobe
Bryant and Allen Iverson running TV ads encouraging fans not to go to
NBA
games. It is precisely such self-destructive union policies that have
made
new age industries, including high tech, fiercely anti-union.
Over the past 30 years, union membership as a share of the workforce
has
fallen by half. Only one in six workers today is a dues-paying union
member, and the percentage of private sector union workers is much
lower
than that.
In fact, pollster Scott Rasmussen has pointed out that on Election
Day,
three times as many voters were stock owners than union members. These
workers understand that their 401(k) plans and their IRAs are
dependent on
the profitability of American industry. This reality--that workers can
prosper only when the companies they work for do--has eluded many
union
officials.
Support the Cato Institute
Send this page to a friend

Printer Friendly Version

1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842-0200 Fax (202) 842-3490
All Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute

































  #33   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

They really are just more of the same arguments, from the same doctrianire
voices.
They ignore U.S. history from 1850 to 1950.
Historically, Unionism has improved the wages and working conditions
of the American worker.
Although you are not a union member, and neither am I, unionism
has created the environment which allows you to enjoy
a good standard of living, a reasonable and safe work environment, and many
of
the legal protections you now enjoy.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #34   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


They are not popular except with the very bottom end of the

intellectual
scale. Those with the least skill are doing the most complaining

and
expecting the most pay and benefits.

Of the entire workforce only 10-15% of it is unionized, this hardly
qualifies as popular.



It was a sad day when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Procalmation.


Your equating non-union with slavery shows a major disconnect with

reality.


No, I am equating you with antiquated thinking, even for a reactionary

right
winger.

There's nothing antiquated about realizing that the economydoes better all
around when people get appropriate compensation for the labor they perform.

It's not how much you money you make, it's how much you can buy with it.


The more it costs in labor the more it costs at the check out line.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000

Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---


  #35   Report Post  
Michael Mckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

They really are just more of the same arguments, from the same doctrianire
voices.
They ignore U.S. history from 1850 to 1950.
Historically, Unionism has improved the wages and working conditions
of the American worker.
Although you are not a union member, and neither am I, unionism
has created the environment which allows you to enjoy
a good standard of living, a reasonable and safe work environment, and

many
of
the legal protections you now enjoy.

There is ample evidence that these things would have evloved without unions.
People want a safe environment to work in and vote with their feet when such
is not provided.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000

Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---




  #36   Report Post  
GeoSynch
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

'Bolshevik' Yustabe wrote:

Michael Mckelvy wrote:


Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?


No, and I am not a Liberal.
I voted for George Bush.
I support our President's war on terror.
I support his tax cutting economic policies.


Come off it, Sackman - you're spinning like a top.
Mikey made a monkey out of you on this thread.
You're arguing sheer mendacity or you're on the
verge of supporting socialism. Which is it? ;-)


GeoSynch


  #37   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

GeoSynch wrote:
'Bolshevik' Yustabe wrote:


Michael Mckelvy wrote:



Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?



No, and I am not a Liberal.
I voted for George Bush.
I support our President's war on terror.
I support his tax cutting economic policies.



Come off it, Sackman - you're spinning like a top.
Mikey made a monkey out of you on this thread.
You're arguing sheer mendacity or you're on the
verge of supporting socialism. Which is it? ;-)


GeoSynch


I don't think that socialism never brings to much trouble in USA so
please Geo keep on speaking what you really know.

Lionel

  #38   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike


"GeoSynch" wrote in message
ink.net...
'Bolshevik' Yustabe wrote:

Michael Mckelvy wrote:


Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?


No, and I am not a Liberal.
I voted for George Bush.
I support our President's war on terror.
I support his tax cutting economic policies.


Come off it, Sackman - you're spinning like a top.
Mikey made a monkey out of you on this thread.
You're arguing sheer mendacity or you're on the
verge of supporting socialism. Which is it? ;-)


GeoSynch



The concept of unionism is not Socialism.
Although, in the past, Socialists have tried to infiltrate unions,
sometimes successfully. At its core, unionism is basedupon
capitalistic principals.

Coprorations are a conglomeration of individual investm,ents
amassed to form one large enterprise, larger than on any of the
individual investors could intiate. This brings economy
of scale, and masses the corporate entity's
economic power.

The labor union does the same thing for the employee.

BTW, I am slightly right of center!!
GeoSynch calls me a Bolshevik, and Sanders calls me a Reactionary!!!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #39   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"GeoSynch" wrote in message
ink.net...

'Bolshevik' Yustabe wrote:


Michael Mckelvy wrote:


Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?


No, and I am not a Liberal.
I voted for George Bush.
I support our President's war on terror.
I support his tax cutting economic policies.


Come off it, Sackman - you're spinning like a top.
Mikey made a monkey out of you on this thread.
You're arguing sheer mendacity or you're on the
verge of supporting socialism. Which is it? ;-)


GeoSynch




The concept of unionism is not Socialism.
Although, in the past, Socialists have tried to infiltrate unions,
sometimes successfully.


The above reminds me the old American's paranoia. I thought that it was
now only Muslims and French ! (LOL)
Need more Rosenberg ?

I don't like what I'm going to say but it's not more stupdid than what
you have said :
The mafia has also successfully infiltrate the unions sometimes... ;o)

  #40   Report Post  
GeoSynch
 
Posts: n/a
Default O.T. Grocery clerks strike

Lionel wrote:

I don't think that socialism never brings to much trouble in USA so
please Geo keep on speaking what you really know.


So, how are you getting along with all those Muslims who have in
recent years seemingly invaded your country?

I hear they like to overturn cars just for the fun of it.


GeoSynch


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"