How to save the Big 3 US automakers

[krischan]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

Why do you think that's fair?

I already told why. Both sides can build a cartel of their own. It works well here. They are on equal terms while it wouldn't be like that otherwise and it works quite well here.

The problem with the "market" is that there are these damn humans rights or people not obeying to the laws of the "market" if they are the goods which are traded on it, whether you like it or not. You simply cannot allow people to run their companies like a concentration camp just because the "market" has led to a weak worker's position, e.g. because of high unemployment.

If a lot of people are unsatisfied and desparate, they might overthrow the system and if radicals take the lead of the revolution, kill all the rulers and their helpers (imagined or real ones, the killings will go on until the mob is pleased), no matter if it violates the law or the "market" rules. It will simply happen.

Balanced relative to what? What is the proper balance? How do you know when there's an imbalance?

Things aren't balanced "in comparison" to something, so I don't get what you mean here. Perhaps you mean that I'm comparing two different things. I think I don't. The one party organizes itself and so does the other. Call it balanced, fair or whatever. It's OK for me that way.

Letting the "market" decide all the time seems to be the same as letting the most selfish and ruthless people decide all the time, That's inacceptable for me. I'm not saying that socialism is the best way, but the "market" isn't always the best solution *in my opinion* which is *not your opinion* so I think *we shouldn't debate that*.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

Letting the "market" decide all the time seems to be the same as letting the most selfish and ruthless people decide all the time, That's inacceptable for me. I'm not saying that socialism is the best way, but the "market" isn't always the best solution *in my opinion* which is *not your opinion* so I think *we shouldn't debate that*.

Market inarguably finds the most efficient distribution of resources. In that sense, there is no debate whether it is the best. Your disagreement with Moosashi is over whether or not efficiency is the most desirable quality of an economic system.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

Mossashi:

Why does the law exist? Laws always restrict freedom. Even good laws.

And who’s to say that a specific collective bargaining agreement isn’t good? If the agreement just sets the framework for negotiations, then it adds consistency to labor negotiations.

First, your buyers' club analogy is mixed up. Consumers are to producers what management is to workers. The way you're stating it is that consumers are to producers what workers are to management.

You’re looking at it too narrowly. Theoretically, there is no difference between a seller monopoly and a buyer monopoly. In either case, the focus of power on the one side distorts the Market and leads to inefficiencies. The fact is though that the case where there is a buyer monopoly is so rare that it is rarely mentioned. Consider another example: the foreign purchase of drugs from U.S. pharmaceutical companies. In this case, the buyer (Ex: Canada, England, etc.) has the monopoly power and the seller has to sell his goods for less than their true Market price.

Or look at Farm Co-ops. They act as a group as both as sellers (their crops) and buyers (their seed or equipment). Do you consider them to be in violation of Free Market principles?

- -
Dondrei:

These agreements spanned fifty years? That sounds pretty extraordinary. I'm surprised a company can actually bind future management and shareholders for such a span of time. And get away with it.

No, but you have to consider that once a concession is made, it is almost impossible to cut that out of future negotiations.

- -
krischan:

Letting the "market" decide all the time seems to be the same as letting the most selfish and ruthless people decide all the time, That's inacceptable for me.

If you feel that it’s unfair to the workers if a company can bargain for lower wages in a time of high unemployment, do you also feel that it’s unfair for an employee to bargain for a higher wage when his skill set is in demand? Both sides want to get the best deal out of the agreement (the most bang for the buck). The employer wants to hire the employee to do the most work for the smallest wage possible while the employee wants to work as little as possible for the most money. Both are only looking out for themselves and this is the case no matter what the Economic system is in place.

The only difference between Economic systems is who gets to decide the wage set for that employee. If the wage is set by a third party (ex. government), then there is a good chance that either the worker or employer will be dissatisfied with the agreement. In a Free Market, both sides will have to be satisfied or the agreement will not be made.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

I already told why. Both sides can build a cartel of their own. It works well here. They are on equal terms while it wouldn't be like that otherwise and it works quite well here.

When you start having the three biggest automakers in the country colluding to lower labor costs, you run into antitrust issues. Fortunately unions have largely been exempted from antitrust issues, so they don't have to worry about it.

 

[krischan]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

The car companies are actually allowed to organize themselves here. It's more efficient if all companies of a certain branch (the Gesamtmetall syndicate in Germany) are negotiating with all workes at the same time (IG Metall).

I'm not sure about details in the US. It might be a bit different there.

I think that the lives of people are more than just wares to be offered on a market. I have no problem with these things having special protection and more support in comparison to other issues, so the rules about that are a bit different here.

Market inarguably finds the most efficient distribution of resources. In that sense, there is no debate whether it is the best. Your disagreement with Moosashi is over whether or not efficiency is the most desirable quality of an economic system.

Yes, that's what I meant. My desires are obviously different from his. We don't need a consensus and I doubt that there will be one.

 

[SnickerSnack]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

AreoJonesy

Employers have shaped up their act enormously, but unions still have the power they were previously granted by law.

I think that this is exactly what Tanooki was talking about. If I'm wrong, please explain how this fundamentally differs from what Tanooki said. Obviously, what he said differs in degree, but I'm not interested in that.

That hardly qualifies as refuting. And I'm not even making the same argument as Tanooki.

Sorry, I should have quoted you directly so it would be obvious that I meant a particular point, since you made more than one. But a refutation is a refutation. Whether you think it is a good one is irrelevant. If you don't think it is good, then it should be easy to explain why.

Moosashi

Of course. My main point is not that unions are wrong or bad (relative to management). My point is that there is no reason to tip the scales in their favor with Collective Bargaining. Collective Bargaining does more than guarantee the right of worker's to organize. Read some of my other posts about what Collective Bargaining actually is.

You may be right on this. You certainly seem more knowledgeable than I am. I was merely pointing out what I thought were logical flaws, not errors in fact.

My secondary point is that an organization of workers with the aim of cornering the labor market and fixing wages is in principle no different than a collusion of companies hoping to corner a production market with the hope of fixing prices. If you think there should be legal restrictions on the latter, you should be questioning why you're comfortable with laws actually encouraging and empowering the former.

I didn't espouse any viewpoint. I was merely adopting a contrary position, mostly in order to point out what I thought were logical flaws.

Don't tell me you buy into the widely discredited labor theory of value. You might as well be arguing that God created a flat earth 6000 years ago.
Consumers who aren't workers are professionals, businessmen, contractors, scientists, soldiers, and more. They derive their financial support by trading their scarce services for money.

I don't buy into any theory on the subject, as I don't know any of it.

The point is debatable (I'm right, BTW), but it certainly isn't absurd. Wages and prices are clearly two sides of the same coin. A lower wage is not a bad thing if prices are also proportionately low. Since workers are not the only consumers of the products they help make, more people are affected by high prices than low wages. Unions that have the power to legally coerce above-market wages do so at the expense of everyone who buys the products sold by that employer. You have the typical Leftist soft spot for workers, but if you do the math, unions with coercive power do more harm than good (and just to avoid the inevitable strawman I mean misunderstanding, notice that I am not against unions per se, but rather the coercive power granted them through Collective Bargaining- in the legal sense).

Oh, I'm a leftist? I thought I was being a gadfly. Apparently, I was doing a good job of it.

It's been given already in this very thread, and you can use Google as well as the next guy, but here you go anyway.

It's not my burden to find evidence for your claims, it is yours. Excuse me if I don't scour previous posts looking for evidence every time you say something.

It would be pointless for me to continue with this right now since you're obviously more knowledgeable. I'll look at the info you linked to. Aside from wikipedia pages explaining some of the things you referred to, is there any other source that explains what you're talking about well?

Wildberry

He gave me an irrelevant example in the sense of no conviction. I'm sure dead bodies in woods would be really good to be blamed on the Unions as well, but I'm sure he could've done better if the vicious stuff was really their bread and butter.

It's perfectly reasonable to want a better example. However, part of your response "It's just the "they're all the same" attitude that gets to me - whether it is assuming the best or the worst, as it was in this case." suggested that his answer was bad only because it was merely an example.

If you're talking to AJ, why are you quoting me? onder:

What, you've never addressed two people in one post before? I quoted you because I was talking to you as well in that post.

 

[llad12]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

In case you haven't been keeping up:

Bush gives automakers $17.4 billion lifeline

In return, automakers must have restructuring plans in three months

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration came to the rescue of the troubled U.S. auto industry Friday, offering $17.4 billion in loans in exchange for concessions from carmakers and their workers.

"Allowing the auto companies to collapse is not a responsible course of action," President George W. Bush said. He said that a bankruptcy was unlikely to work for the auto industry at this time and would deal "an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans" across the economy.

MSNBC

The auto industry is not going down on Bush's watch.

Damn Republican Socialists ... :wink:

 

[Johnny]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

Saying that unions are no longer needed is like saying that The Netherlands no longer needs the Deltaworks because the country hasn't been flooded in so long. If unions where no longer needed then the members would have left them by now and they would have dissapered. The companies are constantly "testing the electric fences" and everytime they do, they prove that the unions are still needed.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

Wildberry

It's perfectly reasonable to want a better example. However, part of your response "It's just the "they're all the same" attitude that gets to me - whether it is assuming the best or the worst, as it was in this case." suggested that his answer was bad only because it was merely an example.

That wasn't my intention - in fact, the example wasn't bad, as it illustrated it was reasonably expected that the Unions were behind schemes like the one. I just wanted an example with a more direct relevance, where the vicious part was clearly shown, since I correctly assumed from his accounts that such were relatively easy to extract.

What, you've never addressed two people in one post before? I quoted you because I was talking to you as well in that post.

But the posts from 74 to 77 had nothing to do with the non-violent record of Finnish labour unions, or even the vicious nature I was discussing there. The quote was not relevant to what you were saying, nor had I addressed what AJ said in one way or another.

Consumers who aren't workers are professionals, businessmen, contractors, scientists, soldiers, and more. They derive their financial support by trading their scarce services for money.

Don't the consumers you mention also produce their services via work? Or does work in the sense it is used here only apply to hired (possibly physical) labour, as per the portfolio of the "working class"?

 

[Moosashi]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

In many cases the person doing the work might not be aware of the danger that they are in, either through lack of skills/training or not being in possession of all the facts.

True, and there are other potential reasons for why a mutually agreeable labor contract might not be mutually advantageous. But unless your default assumption is that people are generally not rational or self-interested, you can't use the mere possibility of an information asymmetry in particular cases to argue that workers should generally have coercive power in negotiations.

Are you also saying that all the staff shouldn't be able to get together and say "Hey! This is dangerous! We won't work until you fix it."?

They definitely have the right to do that. And then management should have the right to either correct the problem or fire them and hire other workers who are willing to take the risk. Under American Collective Bargaining, management cannot offer a take-it-or-leave-it deal (not to mention all the coercive OSHA regulations).

Again - for the large part American Unions tend to behave very differently to European Unions. This sort of behavior is less common in Europe (though the French unions are pretty extreme sometimes).

I'm more taking issue with Wildberry's attitude that because he hasn't heard of any underhanded behavior on the part of unions in Europe, it must not exist.

 

[Moosashi]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

Tell that to the big 3 "hey guys. We know you're not selling more cars but if you had more money you would employ more people right?"

Savings are not put on more workers. If there is more work to do then the profit made from doing the additional work will pay for the workers.

It's called capital investment. It leads to greater employment. This is a fact.

Those events are as isolated on the union side as they are on the company side.

I don't know. It seems that virtually every strike I've ever heard of at least has a picket line. "Picket line" is military term for a line of troops used to sense and repel covert enemy incursions. Unions use them to harass and embarrass consumers and "scabs" (a plainly derogatory term). Intimidation is a form of coercion.

 

[Moosashi]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

I already told why. Both sides can build a cartel of their own. It works well here. They are on equal terms while it wouldn't be like that otherwise and it works quite well here.

In the U.S. cartels on the management side are illegal unless expressly authorized and heavily regulated by the government (and they are always bad for the economy and consumers legal or not). Cartels of workers - unions - are not illegal, and are in fact given power to coerce their employers into granting concessions that they would not have freely agreed to. As I've stated several times before, Collective Bargaining is not merely the right of workers to organize. It is much more detailed and specific, and gives legal sanction to coercive negotiations in favor of unions.

As to my question about fairness, perhaps I should have been more specific. You claimed to think it fair that unions have the power to lock out workers. Why do you think its fair for one group of people to use force to prevent other people from freely negotiating a labor contract?

The problem with the "market" is that there are these damn humans rights

You advocate for human rights and oppose freedom. How ironic.

Things aren't balanced "in comparison" to something, so I don't get what you mean here.

You can't say unions having more coercive power than their employers results in greater balance without first being able to define and recognize imbalance.

Yes, that's what I meant. My desires are obviously different from his. We don't need a consensus and I doubt that there will be one.

The trade-off is not as clear as you think. Perhaps we both have the welfare of workers at heart, but there is always a cost to your nice, compassionate ideal policies. Giving some workers the power to coerce higher wages and better working conditions from their employers comes at the expense of other workers who are looking for jobs. Raising the cost of labor to the employer (however nice and happy you think those higher costs are) reduces the number of workers the employer can hire and raises unemployment. Personally, I don't think it's very fair that some people are denied a job entirely so others can have more cushy ones. Do you?

 

[vdzele]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

If they could only adjust interest rates a bit more, perhaps going in the field of negative numbers, that will help I am sure.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

I'm more taking issue with Wildberry's attitude that because he hasn't heard of any underhanded behavior on the part of unions in Europe, it must not exist.

I'm talking my country. And yes, I've done (for my level of education) some pretty extensive research on the history of the unions here, and I'm pretty sure that since a lot of my sources from the past were inherently hostile to labour unions, they would've dug it up for me.

After the war, some of the Communist-overtaken unions tried to bring about a revolution with spurious and useless striking. Even then, though, they didn't incite violence (although they might've tried). Like I said, I only vouch for what I know, but I know they have a clean record here. It, as far as I can tell, invalidates the assumption of violent and vicious behaviour being intrinsic to the concept of a Union. Unless, of course, you're saying Finnish labour unions are not unions precisely for the reason they're not violent.

 

[Moosashi]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

I'm talking my country. And yes, I've done (for my level of education) some pretty extensive research on the history of the unions here, and I'm pretty sure that since a lot of my sources from the past were inherently hostile to labour unions, they would've dug it up for me.

After the war, some of the Communist-overtaken unions tried to bring about a revolution with spurious and useless striking. Even then, though, they didn't incite violence (although they might've tried). Like I said, I only vouch for what I know, but I know they have a clean record here. It, as far as I can tell, invalidates the assumption of violent and vicious behaviour being intrinsic to the concept of a Union. Unless, of course, you're saying Finnish labour unions are not unions precisely for the reason they're not violent.

You should be immediately skeptical of anything that (1) contradicts human nature and (2) has a history of association with communist propaganda. Also, it is illogical to think that because your research shows that management was hostile to labor, labor was not hostile to management. Unless you believe workers are angels and managers devils, you should expect that both sides engage in foul play, whether you find reference to it in the history books or not.

 

[krischan]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

As to my question about fairness, perhaps I should have been more specific. You claimed to think it fair that unions have the power to lock out workers. Why do you think its fair for one group of people to use force to prevent other people from freely negotiating a labor contract?

Not the unions are allowed to lock out workers, but the companies are allowed to do that when the contracts with the unions are to be negotiated again. Of course, if a union member decideds to continue to work while the other union members have voted for a strike, he will be thrown out of the union.

BTW, the German unions aren't communistic at all. All they care for is good wages, safe jobs and good working conditions.

 

[Johnny]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

I don't know. It seems that virtually every strike I've ever heard of at least has a picket line. "Picket line" is military term for a line of troops used to sense and repel covert enemy incursions. Unions use them to harass and embarrass consumers and "scabs" (a plainly derogatory term). Intimidation is a form of coercion.

It is illogical to think that because your research shows that Unions where hostile to management, management was not hostile to unions. Unless you believe management are angels and workers devils, you should expect that both sides engage in foul play, whether you find reference to it in the history books or not.

 

[krischan]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

You should be immediately skeptical of anything that (1) contradicts human nature and (2) has a history of association with communist propaganda.

I don't think that communist propaganda is worse than any other propaganda. That doesn't make me a communist BTW, the McCarthy era is over.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

You should be immediately skeptical of anything that (1) contradicts human nature and (2) has a history of association with communist propaganda. Also, it is illogical to think that because your research shows that management was hostile to labor, labor was not hostile to management. Unless you believe workers are angels and managers devils, you should expect that both sides engage in foul play, whether you find reference to it in the history books or not.

The police sided with the management and did the shooting for them. The workers had no guns. What's illogical about that?

What contradicts human nature? Not being violent? If so, I think I got where you get these notions of union violence.

As to the Communist propaganda, you should take note that at least 60 years of the history of Finnish unions have been a tug-of-war to get the unions wrested away from them, so the association not exactly a one-way street. Or is it me you're referring to?

Concerning the history books, you do know that doing research cannot be based on second-hand sources or accounts? I went straight for the contemporary. I've sat months in the archives of national papers that wanted everything and everyone that even had a tint of reddish out the country, and the staff of which personally took part in mugging Left-wing activists and driving them to the eastern border, reading decades of multiple papers. And even they had nothing.

The problem in your perception is that Finland had just buried some 40.000 Reds in the year 1918. It took some time before the winners started considering shooting at them as foul play at all.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: How to save the Big 3 US automakers

Saying that unions are no longer needed is like saying that The Netherlands no longer needs the Deltaworks because the country hasn't been flooded in so long. If unions where no longer needed then the members would have left them by now and they would have dissapered.

But they *are* disappearing. At least in the US. And manufacturing jobs are leaving the areas that used to be heavily unionized.

I think this is largely because so much information is available about companies and it's hard for them to engage in some of the shady practices that necessitated unionization.

I think that this is exactly what Tanooki was talking about. If I'm wrong, please explain how this fundamentally differs from what Tanooki said. Obviously, what he said differs in degree, but I'm not interested in that.

Tanooki said unions were no longer needed. I was saying that the balance of power is in favor of the union. And part of my reasoning is that public companies are under pressure from the shareholders. I draw no conclusions about the necessity of unions, but I do think saying they are no longer needed at all plays into the point Johnny was getting into in the post I quoted above.

My problem is that we gave unions new rights to deal with things that should have been covered under laws against employers. Now we no longer need to bind employers legally as public opinion does that very well in the information age. But there has been no similar reduction in union power.

It's like employers had all the guns, so we decided to use the law to give workers some guns to fight back. Employers then decided they no longer needed to be armed because it's bad business, but no one took the guns from the unions. So now they have an upper hand. Especially for public companies.

Besides, how else could toll takers end up making $71,000/yr on average?
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/multimedia/m/20960151/dozens_of_toll_takers_may_lose_jobs.htm?seek=10.149