Why we still need socialism in 2008.

**PanzerJaeger** · 09-25-2007, 08:09

America, especially, needs more unionists. $100,000 plus benifits a year for screwing on the armrest of an Escalade is corporate fraud!

Unions had a place, but are now damaging industry in the West.

**HoreTore** · 09-25-2007, 08:14

Don't confuse the corrupt version of the union system in America with the real and important unions.

**CountArach** · 09-25-2007, 08:21

This makes me want to throw-up.

Unions had a place, but are now damaging industry in the West.

There we go... someone has played the predictable card. Stop de-humanising the economy. It is supposed to be run for the people, so let the people run it.

**Bellum** · 09-25-2007, 08:47

I'm not against unions. People have a right to organise for whatever reason they want. Companies shouldn't allow them to dictate their policy, however.

**CountArach** · 09-25-2007, 08:51

Originally Posted by Bellum

I'm not against unions. People have a right to organise for whatever reason they want. Companies shouldn't allow them to dictate their policy, however.

So you believe that a Company has the right to ignore Unions? If so, I fail to see what a Union would achieve.

**InsaneApache** · 09-25-2007, 09:14

I was a union man for many, many years. What I didn't like about the set up was the top down action. By that I mean orders from the hierarchy instructing us on industrial action. Woe betide anyone who disagreed.

Why we still need socialism in 2008.

What's with the 'we' business? I don't feel the need for a self-serving bunch of onanists telling me what to do.

Anyway, when I started my own business I banned unions. It was my business after all. If any of the staff didn't like that, they could sling their hook.

**CountArach** · 09-25-2007, 09:17

Anyway, when I started my own business I banned unions. It was my business after all. If any of the staff didn't like that, they could sling their hook.

Do Discrimation laws cover this in your country (UK if I remember correctly...)? They do here.

**Bellum** · 09-27-2007, 04:30

Originally Posted by CountArach

So you believe that a Company has the right to ignore Unions? If so, I fail to see what a Union would achieve.

None, if the powers that be have any sense. Lets not infringe on the rights of either the employees or the entrepreneurs. There is no reason why a union should be forced to be recognized by the state, but it should be illegal (as it infringes on rights guaranteed by the constitution of the US) to discriminate based on union membership.

Of course, these are the economic values I would choose to live by. What you do in your own country is of very little concern to me.

As far as corporations become militaristic and killing people and stuff...It's happened in America in the past, and it's horrible. That's not the free economy we try to work towards.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 09-26-2007, 03:38

Originally Posted by CountArach

...Stop de-humanising the economy. It is supposed to be run for the people, so let the people run it.

Basic disconnect. I do not believe that an economy is "run" despite the claims of various politicians that they're doing so. Economies happen as a result of the interplay of various market forces. Government, environment, people, etc. are all influences.

If "workers" wish to band together to perform some service or make some product, more power to them. Partnerships are a good thing. In this way, they own the means of production and can reap the rewards of their efforts directly.

If I use my resources to fund an organization and become an owner of that organization by so investing, I am seeking a return on investment. From that rubric, "workers" are a cost that must be borne. This does not mean that an absolute minimum wage is the goal, however, since this means a loss of quality applicants and a host of turnover problems etc. Compensation must be reasonable. Just as some of the capital has to be plowed back into the business for proper growth, some of it has to be plowed into the workstaff to minimize turnover and protect vital skills and knowledge -- that's just good long term thinking.

Nothing wrong with workers voluntarily banding together to encourage equitable treatment, nor with collective bargaining.

The assumption that the purpose of a workplace is to provide a livelihood for its workers is fatuous.

**Redleg** · 09-29-2007, 16:35

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Don't confuse the corrupt version of the union system in America with the real and important unions.

I find this statement very amusing - going to have to read the rest of the thread just to see if anyone pointed out the error in your statement here. If they didn't I might just have to. But here is a hint - the corruption of the present does not mean that the American version of the union system is not important or real, or that its impact on American History is less important then anything that went on in Europe in regards to unions.

**Rodion Romanovich** · 09-25-2007, 18:56

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

America, especially, needs more unionists. $100,000 plus benifits a year for screwing on the armrest of an Escalade is corporate fraud!

Unions had a place, but are now damaging industry in the West.

I agree, let's remove the unions, and use these instead:

**Crazed Rabbit** · 09-25-2007, 19:06

At the painting business I worked at recently, one of the older hands told me they used to be a unionized group, but they weren't anymore. He also said that being in a union shop will get you a certain wage depending on experience, but that not being union will get you paid what your worth.

Now, I don't think people (aside from public employees) should be barred from unionizing, but companies should be free to ignore any unions, fire employees trying to turn their business into a unionized one, and not have closed shops.

CR