Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sorry but I could never agree to increasing the power of labor unions. There is a lot of corruption among them. I witnessed their corruption personally during my professional career. What RD Kirk proposes seems a bit more reasonable.
There's certainly a deal of corruption among them, but unions are basically the reason the middle class grew in the 50s-80s because they remove some of the disparity in negotiations by putting more power in the hands of the workers rather than it all sitting on the employer side of the table. And objecting to that because some union officials are corrupt is rather strange, especially considering the massive corruption and exploitation from corporate lobbying.
Tax credits aren't breaks, they're payments. So you're ok with government money going to corporations, but oppose taking care of the citizenry with it?
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying with that, he entered into contracts with small businesses so they would sell on his site and then he competed with them by offering their products at discounted price and forcing them to eat the losses until they sold their companies to him. It was totally exploitative and anticompetitive, and he did it by abusing contract law. Apparently you're ok with immoral predatory business practices, though.
It's not a matter of talent, no one becomes wealthy on their own and just about everyone who becomes super wealthy is either a matter of generational wealth or employing unfair business practices and exploiting the legal system. The idea that we have some kind of meritocracy is a complete myth, and at a certain level the only way to achieve levels of wealth is by exploiting the masses.
That was a statement of the moral bankruptcy, where we accept people amassing wealth and create myths about self-made men while the reality is that the way they got there is directly related to the existence of poverty right alongside such egregious wealth.
IF you employ enough people that them forming a union is a viable option, the only reason to resist is if you're intent on exploiting the unequal position that exists in negotiations between large scale employers and their employees who are likely living paycheck to paycheck.
So socialism is bad, until it's for multinational corporations?
Sure, but that doesn't absolve Bezos of abusing the law to enrich himself. Talk about victim blaming.
Generational wealth is nothing more than an unearned benefit, and more than likely can be traced back to past misdeeds and ill-gotten gains. At any rate, if we were aiming at a meritocracy we would be resetting the game every once in a while rather than letting a handful of oligarchs continually enriching themselves because their pedigree.
If your company is large enough that a union is a real possibility, then the only reason to oppose organized labor is because you are looking ot exploit your employees by taking advantage of disproportionate bargaining power. I'm not spinning a narrative, I'm just pointing out the whole purpose of unions is to prevent employers from exploiting their employees through unequal access to market power.
I worked as an industrial engineer for a few years. There was a medium size logistics company contract that I was working with during the time that their people decided to unionize. When negotiations began the teamster‘s reps decided to agree to a plethora of things that the people did not want because it would cost more than they would make in dues. The people did not get an increase in pay because they were already paid at the higher echelon of the area. They did not negotiate their 401k into the contract. The company had a great matching program which they lost and they were not able to add to it. The drivers had set routes weekly. They would be paid for 40 hours even if it took them less. You guessed it they lost that too. Thats just a few. This is just an example. I also worked a contract for Ford. What a mess.
That's quite the yarn. Though not sure what it's supposed to prove, exactly? It's not as if union reps have the power to finalize contracts without a vote of the membership, so how did they agree to things the members didn't want exactly?
Yarn? Now you are being disingenuous. If you want to have a civil conversation you don’t insult the people you are talking to. What I stated happened and something that I witnessed. Also, the card that workers sign at the beginning of the process allows the union to legally represent the worker. The union negotiators do have the legal power to sign the contract. By the way, the union reps got the workers to vote for the contract by telling them that it was a temporary contract and further negotiations would happen.
What other reason could a business owner have in oppoing unions, other than an intention to take advantage of their employees disadvantaged bargaining position? Unions simplify the bargaining process by negotiating a single contract instead of having to negotiate with every single employee, so what possible reason besides an intent to exploit their employees could there possibly be to oppose them forming a union?
