# For all the anti-union people who trust the management......



## emt seeking first job (Aug 22, 2010)

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stor...spital-squandered-millions--exaggerated-debts

Yes, union officials could have squandered money also, however, in this instance it was the executives.

And people still question an employer buying uniforms ?

Why dont we do away with paid vacations ? Hey, save your money and take time off, why get paid for no work....?

(sarcasm)

My opinion stands, the best scenario is a union that represents the intrests of the employee.

Would anyone advocate a criminal not getting a lawyer because he appears guilty ?

It is up to arbitrators, judges, and attorney generals to ensure neither side abuses their power.

We live in an era unlike the 40s - 70s, executives and management have a wide latiitutde and are taking great abuses. There seems to be no more middle class.

The powers that be allow a pool of desperate people willing to work for cash off the books to come here, and skew the supply and demand.

Would anyone be surprised if Health Depatments either changed or stopped enforcing the rules/laws on ambulances and we have day laborers working the private services, and the owners squeezing out more profit ?


----------



## 94H (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> Would anyone be surprised if Health Depatments either changed or stopped enforcing the rules/laws on ambulances and we have day laborers working the private services, and the owners squeezing out more profit ?



I would be extremely surprised. Theres a difference between picking fruit or stocking shelves and driving and providing care. 

The Owners of my company will discipline people for bending the rules. Outright breaking of them is not something that is going to be encouraged.

Yes, the management tries to make as much money as possible, but not at the expense of people lives


----------



## Aidey (Aug 22, 2010)

The only thing a union could have possibly done in this situation is maybe act as a whistle blower. We have a union, and they have absolutely no power to tell the company how to spend their money aside from what they request for wages and benefits. Beyond that they can not regulate with the company does with its own money.


----------



## VinBin (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> The powers that be allow a pool of desperate people willing to work for cash off the books to come here, and skew the supply and demand.
> 
> Would anyone be surprised if Health Depatments either changed or stopped enforcing the rules/laws on ambulances and we have day laborers working the private services, and the owners squeezing out more profit ?



First, the pool of desperate people willing to work (I assume you mean illegal immigrants) generally find jobs because unions think its right for them to DECIDE the wage rate for their work. In other words, a union will set an arbitrary salary for someone fixing nuts into a assembly line, a low skill job. In a normal market, these individuals would be getting paid a lot less, where there are lots of low skilled workers and not enough spots, thus you get lower wages. There is a reason why US automakers have their hands tied, people on an assembly line making $30/hour with ridiculous benefits? When any business allows itself to be run in such a ridiculous manner, was it any surprise that all the US automakers failed? Should we be strict on illegal immigration? Of course! They drain a lot of public services, but to blame them because companies don't want to pay inflated salaries to their employees is short sighted. 

My problem with unions isn't mainly because they are corrupt, I agree there are lots of executives and individuals that are corrupt. It's that unions generally have individuals who have little oversight controlling large amounts of cash. Say what you want about financial companies, but at least there is some form of oversight via SEC, account rules, etc. Illegal activity is rampant in unions because they are not only connected with politicians but also act with little oversight. This is the same issue I have with fire districts that act as autonomous bodies with tax payer money.

Unions are not a good idea because they hurt the people they wish to help, it is known that unions drive up unemployment. Unions also skew the wage rate for the people they represent, forcing employers to SUBSTITUTE capital (machines) for people. Also, unions often are very short sighted in the things they work toward often ignoring long term consequences to their actions (higher wages now for more layoffs in the future). These are the MAIN reasons why unions are bad, corruption is just a byproduct of a system that allows individuals with no knowledge of finance to manage large amounts of money. 

And yes, I know they are good for those individuals who are represented by the union, they get paid inflated wages, why wouldn't they? And to answer your question of why ambulances would never consider what you are saying in your hypothetical question. Lawsuits?


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 22, 2010)

VinBin said:


> First, the pool of desperate people willing to work (I assume you mean illegal immigrants) generally find jobs because unions think its right for them to DECIDE the wage rate for their work. In other words, a union will set an arbitrary salary for someone fixing nuts into a assembly line, a low skill job. In a normal market, these individuals would be getting paid a lot less, where there are lots of low skilled workers and not enough spots, thus you get lower wages. There is a reason why US automakers have their hands tied, people on an assembly line making $30/hour with ridiculous benefits? When any business allows itself to be run in such a ridiculous manner, was it any surprise that all the US automakers failed? Should we be strict on illegal immigration? Of course! They drain a lot of public services, but to blame them because companies don't want to pay inflated salaries to their employees is short sighted.
> 
> My problem with unions isn't mainly because they are corrupt, I agree there are lots of executives and individuals that are corrupt. It's that unions generally have individuals who have little oversight controlling large amounts of cash. Say what you want about financial companies, but at least there is some form of oversight via SEC, account rules, etc. Illegal activity is rampant in unions because they are not only connected with politicians but also act with little oversight. This is the same issue I have with fire districts that act as autonomous bodies with tax payer money.
> 
> ...




Unions negotiate those wages, in the case of public safety, those people can not strike.

That is why people run through hoops and bounds and pay test fees, fingerprint fees, drug test fees, to be cops and fire fighters.

The company gets a stable workforce. Standards are held. 

It is not socialism. It is a system of checks and balances.

Why shouldnt front line workers share profit?

You can keep lowering salaries and always find someone willing to do it.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 22, 2010)

94H said:


> I would be extremely surprised. Theres a difference between picking fruit or stocking shelves and driving and providing care.
> 
> The Owners of my company will discipline people for bending the rules. Outright breaking of them is not something that is going to be encouraged.
> 
> Yes, the management tries to make as much money as possible, but not at the expense of people lives




Society could break down to one day the people stocking shelves are now providing pre-hospital care.

In my preofession now, driving instruction, there are already people without credentials offering that and the police and dept of motor vehicles ignore it.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 22, 2010)

Aidey said:


> The only thing a union could have possibly done in this situation is maybe act as a whistle blower. We have a union, and they have absolutely no power to tell the company how to spend their money aside from what they request for wages and benefits. Beyond that they can not regulate with the company does with its own money.



That is a lot to act as a whisteblower and to protect the jobs/careers of employees blowing the whistles !!!!

The nurses union is part of the lawsuit, they should have been doing something before it shut down.


----------



## looker (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> Unions negotiate those wages, in the case of public safety, those people can not strike.
> 
> That is why people run through hoops and bounds and pay test fees, fingerprint fees, drug test fees, to be cops and fire fighters.
> 
> ...


Why shouldn't front line worker share profit, well it's simple because you're a worker. That is right, you doing work for a company and for that you're getting paid. If you want to get much bigger share of profit either become more valuable to the company aka more education so you can move in to upper management or open your own business.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 22, 2010)

Education and investment capital may not be available to everyone.

In a global age, with 6 billion on the planet, there is always someone willing to do the job for three squares and a roof over their head.

Heck, I bet there are doctors in India that would work in the USA for food housing and $500 a month to send home.

This country has no tariffs, companies can manufacturer in foreign countries with no labor standards, using child labor even !!!

I HAVE HEARD STORIES FROM HEALTH CARE PEOPLE in private clinics, they were told to reuse same gloves for all patients in a day, unless soiled, they took short cuts on safety.

I even read about one place that re0used syringes. There are places that pay cash off the books for EEG, sonogram techs, etc.

The people that work there, no union, given a choice with $500 cash a week to feed their own family, or someone else taking their job, most will re-use syringes and keep their jobs !!!!

Dont you get it ?

Unions are not evil in themselves, what is wrong with labor laws, standards, and unions creating a middle class.

HOW DID THIS COUNTRY SURVIVE FROM 1945 through 1975........?

Dont you see a standard of living decline?

You dont think day laborers will be EMTS one day?

NYC certifies people in construction trades w/o checking lawfulness to work here....then you read about cranes falling down, retaining walls collapsing....


----------



## looker (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> Education and investment capital may not be available to everyone.
> 
> In a global age, with 6 billion on the planet, there is always someone willing to do the job for three squares and a roof over their head.
> 
> ...



It's the goal of any employee to get paid as much as possible. I have no problem with having minimum standards. Reusing gloves and syringes to me is a big No, NO. 

As for what is wrong with creating middle class, because not everyone can be middle class and not everyone can be wealthy. If tomorrow no one was willing to work as EMT for lower than $25 plus full benefits, guess what that is what they would get paid. You pay usually what the market says you should pay because below that qualified people are not willing to do that job. 

 What you want instead is forcefully force employer to pay you more just because in your mind you think you're worth more without having any special skills that makes you more valuable to the company and not easily replaceable with another Joe.


----------



## firecoins (Aug 22, 2010)

I went to St Vincents to get my medic in 2008.  It was always strange how they owed so much money.

St. Vincents hospital had unions.  I don't see what Unions had to do with this. They didn't help.  They didn't prevent management from stealing. How does this demonstrate a need for unions? They certainly did no save any jobs.  

Also St Vincents was owend the NY Archdioses. This wasn't a for profit company.  This wasn't GM.

I am capitalist.  Unions negotiate for higher wages and safer conditions. Thats fine.  Its important.  But if foreign firms oversees does not have to pay the same high wages or maintain safe working conditions, the US company will have adopt or die. The union jobs disappear first.  No way around it.

The US did very well between 1945 to 1975.  The economcy expanded. So did the Japanese without the inflated Union jobs.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 22, 2010)

Unions are not just about wages and benefits. They serve as a watchdog.

There is no way all EMTs will only accept any certain amount.

I know of one specific one, offered $16 to be a training officer at a private, he insisted on $20, they refused, he got a job in IT, and just vollies and instructs part time.

Yes, not everyone can be rich or even middle class, but there was a certain thing in this nation in the 1950s, certain values, not everyone was middle class. But there was a balance.

Also, if laws and unions enable people to get paid more, it keeps popular revolts from happening....

That WOULD happen in Mexico, but instead they are invited to come here, no pressure on the wealthy there.

With all respect, you are not seeking a balance. You have this ideal that 'skilled' people can name their own salary, well what if the powers that be import a bunch of 'skilled' people who will work for less....

I really think there should be some sort of GLOBAL standards for labor. Do you realize imported goods are often from child labour?

Do you want EVERYTHING 'free market' ?

What about in the ER room, the patient who bids the highest gets to see the doctor first ?

Then your happy?

Do you realize not so long ago, before police jobs had unions, they paid :censored::censored::censored::censored:, they were far more corrupt, it was in fact a neccessity to put food on the table.....

I am not a socialist. I do think unions have potential to be corrupt, but then they should be subject to oversight.

Socialism/capitalism are ideals. Our system is great, (was better actually) simply becuase there were checks and balances and nobody operated in a vacumn.

A healthy middle class, as opposed to 10% wealthy ruling over 90% making sustinance wages protects against revolution better than a strong military....

Do you really think some 'management spy' is lurjing here, will contact you and say, "we will make you one of us as thanks for your support....?"


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 22, 2010)

firecoins said:


> I went to St Vincents to get my medic in 2008.  It was always strange how they owed so much money.
> 
> St. Vincents hospital had unions.  I don't see what Unions had to do with this. They didn't help.  They didn't prevent management from stealing. How does this demonstrate a need for unions? They certainly did no save any jobs.
> 
> ...



Japan is different, its mostly a single ethnicity, there was this culture for the "good of our people"...

The USA is really a coloney turned nation, its like the wild west...

SO YOU WANT THEIR TO BE A RELAXTION OF LABOR STANDARDS?

ALSO.....a non profit does not make a profit, but the executives who control it, THEY REMOVE personal profit in salaries , perks, contracts to friends and families...

A non profit is not always a volunteer organization.

There is no pure capitlism....

Are you a PURE capitalist ?

Do you want ER doctors or EMT to treat the patient whop bids the highest price to be treated first ??????????????????????????????????????????

Capitalism and socialism are ideals. They are not models for actual socities...

How about the second you are injured on the job, all you have is what you saved....no extra benefits...let workers compensation be EMPLOYEE paid, funnel more money into the hedge funds of the rich...


----------



## medic417 (Aug 22, 2010)

I was going to go into a long drawn on explanation but it is obvious that you have made your decision so I will only say that many years ago I saw how unions helped.  But through the decades the times have changed but unions have not stayed up and all to often they now actually hurt workers by costing jobs.


----------



## fortsmithman (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> Society could break down to one day the people stocking shelves are now providing pre-hospital care.



I'm a member of a paid on call/volly EMS Dept and for my full time job I'm a department manager at a grocery store.  So in my case you do have a guy who stocks shelves providing prehospital care in my town.


----------



## VinBin (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> Yes, not everyone can be rich or even middle class, but there was a certain thing in this nation in the 1950s, certain values, not everyone was middle class. But there was a balance.
> 
> Also, if laws and unions enable people to get paid more, it keeps popular revolts from happening....
> 
> ...



To be completely honest, I don't really follow your logic. You essentially threw together random stories about cops not being paid and something about fingerprinting and I don't really see how they support your argument. Also you never directly addressed my issues with unions leading to higher unemployment, inflated wages, lower efficiency, long term substitution of capital (machines), and short sighted approach that will eventually lead to loss of jobs for union members. And how about employers? Why should they be stuck with inefficient employees out of fear of having to jump through hoops to please the unions if they fire one of the "boys."

You seem to be obsessed with what you view as "fair" and right. Why don't they bring doctors from India to work for only food and housing? You would not get any doctors to come here for that. Believe it or not, doctors live a decent lifestyle in India and they come here because of relatively higher pay and opportunities (capitalism ideals) that America provides. Let me assure you that there are no doctors in India that are dying for a room and a hot meal...

Using random stories about private practices that reused syringes or corporations cutting corners does not support your argument, we are debating whether unions help or hurt society in general. You keep throwing around words such as "revolution" and "popular revolts." I don't really know what you are talking about. And also, the union DOES NOT lead to a strong middle class, if anything it costs people jobs so I suggest you modify that statement.

Let me assure you again that people with no knowledge of pre hospital care will NEVER be working in EMS. And medic417 is right, I was about to ask you to clarify your statement about how money is funneled into hedge funds. Then realized you have a very strong view that the corporations and the wealthy do not deserve to be rich, so lets leave it at this.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 22, 2010)

Aidey said:


> The only thing a union could have possibly done in this situation is maybe act as a whistle blower. We have a union, and they have absolutely no power to tell the company how to spend their money aside from what they request for wages and benefits. Beyond that they can not regulate with the company does with its own money.



It is true; a company can't be told how to spend resources but, the books are opened up when the company swears it has no funds to pay benefits, wages and other negotiable items. A certain amount of company financials are opened up during all new contract talks. A company may well be running in the red and need financial relief or need financial relief for other legitimate reasons but, they will have to open the books in order to claim that hardship. Employers are afraid of organized labor mainly due the fact that no company wants to open up its books to anyone, let alone a third party negotiator or an arbitrator.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stor...spital-squandered-millions--exaggerated-debts
> 
> Yes, union officials could have squandered money also, however, in this instance it was the executives.
> 
> ...



...and a union would have done, what exactly, in this situation?



> Would anyone advocate a criminal not getting a lawyer because he appears guilty ?
> 
> It is up to arbitrators, judges, and attorney generals to ensure neither side abuses their power.


I didn't need a lawyer when I went to traffic court. I rarely get into trouble at work, and I don't need a union slug to represent me. I can articulate myself very well, thank you very much. 



> We live in an era unlike the 40s - 70s, executives and management have a wide latiitutde and are taking great abuses. There seems to be no more middle class.


...and unions have control over non-labor issues, how, again?



> The powers that be allow a pool of desperate people willing to work for cash off the books to come here, and skew the supply and demand.
> 
> Would anyone be surprised if Health Depatments either changed or stopped enforcing the rules/laws on ambulances and we have day laborers working the private services, and the owners squeezing out more profit ?



To be honest, for the vast majority of interfacility transports there would likely be no real big difference in the level of care or safety involved.


----------



## DrParasite (Aug 22, 2010)

I still like unions.  

The employer isn't looking out for the employee; he (or rather it) is looking out for the company only.  Similarly, a union isn't looking out for the company; it is looking out for the employee only.

There is corruption in upper levels of corporations, as well as in unions.  I know this might shock people, but there is corruption in public office and politicians as well.

Unions NEGOTIATE with management, to ensure that management plays fair.  Everyone blames unions for high wages, but the truth of the matter is that the COMPANY agreed to the wages.  The union asked, and the company agreed.  The fault DOES NOT REST SQUARELY ON THE UNION!!!

The other thing the union does is speak out against unsafe labor practices.  Basically those things that management wants you to do that is in their best interest (read:cheaper) but not in the best interest of you doing your job or your patients.    it can be as simple as telling management that doing the EMS job short 2 units will have a detrimental effect on patient care and response times, and they can't discipline employees for needing time to give report to nurses and turning over patient care.  

If you break the rules, the union won't save you, but they will make sure the employer dots the i's and crosses the t's.  but if the rules are unfair, or make it hard for you to do your job, then the union can discuss it with management, and have more clout than just an individual making a complaint.



> Also you never directly addressed my issues with unions leading to higher unemployment, inflated wages, lower efficiency, long term substitution of capital (machines), and short sighted approach that will eventually lead to loss of jobs for union members.


higher unemployment?  how have unions led to higher unemployment?  lower efficiency?  maybe, or maybe employees are happier when they know their jobs are secure, and they will work more efficiently knowing that if they work hard, they don't have to worry about being fired arbitrarily because they talk too much about how to make things better.

inflated wages?  see my above statement, they are agreed upon by the company, so it's hard to blame the union for them.  long term substitution of capital?  machines are better than people?  well, if a job (by a person) is no longer needed, the person should be retrained with new skills, or they should find another job.  

Here is what I do know: many jobs that do have unions involved are paid better, have better conditions, and typically have happier employees that stay longer at their jobs than non-union ones.  And these union jobs (all over) tend to have a line of people who want to get into the union, because it's better for the employee.  

As an employee, I know there are owners like Looker, who are willing to fire employees for anything, for making too much money, because they don't stay late for no extra pay, for anything.  Unions are needed because not every employer is good to their employees.  The employer is doing what is in its best interest, not what is in the best interest of the employee, and will screw the employee if it is in the employers best interests.  That's why unions are needed, to stand up for the employees because the employer won't.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> Why shouldnt front line workers share profit?



Sure, they can share the profits when they want to start sharing the risks also. Company make no profit, workers make no money.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> This country has no tariffs, companies can manufacturer in foreign countries with no labor standards, using child labor even !!!


Take an economics class to figure out why protectionism isn't a good idea. Revenge tariffs alone, however, should answer why this country has few to no tariffs. 



> I HAVE HEARD STORIES FROM HEALTH CARE PEOPLE in private clinics, they were told to reuse same gloves for all patients in a day, unless soiled, they took short cuts on safety.
> 
> I even read about one place that re0used syringes. There are places that pay cash off the books for EEG, sonogram techs, etc.
> 
> The people that work there, no union, given a choice with $500 cash a week to feed their own family, or someone else taking their job, most will re-use syringes and keep their jobs !!!!


India!=United States?


> Dont you get it ?
> 
> Unions are not evil in themselves, what is wrong with labor laws, standards, and unions creating a middle class.
> 
> ...


Times change. Here's an idea, the country was founded using state militias to do the fighting. Let's disband the army, navy, and air force and just let the national guard (the "organized militia") do all of the fighting! Same concept that you're arguing for.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> I really think there should be some sort of GLOBAL standards for labor. Do you realize imported goods are often from child labour?


Who will enforce this?


> Do you want EVERYTHING 'free market' ?


For non-natural monopolies (natural monopolies are things like utilities, in contrast to things you can buy in stores), yes. 



> What about in the ER room, the patient who bids the highest gets to see the doctor first ?


Concierge medicine? Those with enough money just call their PMD to come take care of them if it's something like a sniffle. Something serious, and they're already going to be triaged to the front of the line anyways. 



> Then your happy?
> 
> Do you realize not so long ago, before police jobs had unions, they paid :censored::censored::censored::censored:, they were far more corrupt, it was in fact a neccessity to put food on the table.....


Strange, the police are actually still pretty corrupt. Blue wall of silence and all. 


> I am not a socialist. I do think unions have potential to be corrupt, but then they should be subject to oversight.
> 
> Socialism/capitalism are ideals. Our system is great, (was better actually) simply becuase there were checks and balances and nobody operated in a vacumn.
> 
> ...



Especially with that last line, you need to check the tightness of your tin foil hat.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 22, 2010)

fortsmithman said:


> I'm a member of a paid on call/volly EMS Dept and for my full time job I'm a department manager at a grocery store.  So in my case you do have a guy who stocks shelves providing prehospital care in my town.



[sarcasm]Well, since you stock shelves , you're obviously unworthy of working on an ambulance. After all, we don't want your kind, shell shelves, around here. [/sarcasm]


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 22, 2010)

Ever think of when anarchism or darwinism comes into play ?

An overly greedy upper class ?

a CHARASMATIC LEADER CAN RALLY THE UNDERCLASS to revolt...is that what anti union people want.

The upper rich are rich in ANY system.....

Having a union prtecting people, letting people share alittle, not all, but a little of the wealth helps avoid that.

There are no more benevlent "owners' these days.

Henry Ford's concept for the model A, price the car and pay the workers in a manner that they could aspire to purchase what they made......

Henry Ford was STILL VERY RICH even though he 'over-paid' his workers.....


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 22, 2010)

fortsmithman said:


> I'm a member of a paid on call/volly EMS Dept and for my full time job I'm a department manager at a grocery store.  So in my case you do have a guy who stocks shelves providing prehospital care in my town.



I meant the people stocking shelves refered to by another poster, I will bump it in my next post.

Thats my whole point. Stocking store shelves should be a unionized job done by a legal worker.

Some places it is not.

The difference is a society where people know the guy stocking shelves since he has been there for years, he knows where things are, instead of the day laborer who doesnt know/care to help the customer....


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 22, 2010)

*This was where i got the stocking shelves from:*



94H said:


> I would be extremely surprised. Theres a difference between picking fruit or stocking shelves and driving and providing care.
> 
> The Owners of my company will discipline people for bending the rules. Outright breaking of them is not something that is going to be encouraged.
> 
> Yes, the management tries to make as much money as possible, but not at the expense of people lives




This is where I got the stocking shelves from.

I can remember an era where stocking shelves was a career middle class job.

And picking fruit was done by high school or college students on break......


----------



## firecoins (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> Japan is different, its mostly a single ethnicity, there was this culture for the "good of our people"...


I am sure Japan is very altruistic society.  



> The USA is really a coloney turned nation, its like the wild west...


I do not knwo what this means. Nothing resembles the Wild West in any cpacity. There is fraud in Japan and everywhere else.



> SO YOU WANT THEIR TO BE A RELAXTION OF LABOR STANDARDS?


There needs to be LABOR for their to be LABOR Standards. 



> ALSO.....a non profit does not make a profit, but the executives who control it, THEY REMOVE personal profit in salaries , perks, contracts to friends and families...


St. Vincent's was run into the ground by bad management.  Unions did nothing. Sorry thats the fact. Not much of a watchdog. I could have told you in 2008 there were problems there that made no sense.  I would put past the Unions that they were in on it.



> A non profit is not always a volunteer organization.


DUH. I did not need you tell me that. 



> There is no pure capitlism....
> Are you a PURE capitalist?


 There is no such thing as a pure captialist.  I am a libertarian yes. 



> Do you want ER doctors or EMT to treat the patient whop bids the highest price to be treated first?


They are. The richest have internists.  They don't go the ER for nonsense.


----------



## Aidey (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> That is a lot to act as a whisteblower and to protect the jobs/careers of employees blowing the whistles !!!!
> 
> The nurses union is part of the lawsuit, they should have been doing something before it shut down.



They could only do something if they knew about it, and what makes you think they knew about it? The union DOES NOT have the ability to monitor what the company spends where. 



emt seeking first job said:


> Unions are not just about wages and benefits. They serve as a watchdog.



Yeah, for working conditions. Not for the budget.



rescue99 said:


> It is true; a company can't be told how to spend resources but, the books are opened up when the company swears it has no funds to pay benefits, wages and other negotiable items. A certain amount of company financials are opened up during all new contract talks. A company may well be running in the red and need financial relief or need financial relief for other legitimate reasons but, they will have to open the books in order to claim that hardship. Employers are afraid of organized labor mainly due the fact that no company wants to open up its books to anyone, let alone a third party negotiator or an arbitrator.



We went through that with our last contract negotiation. They were trying to cut our wages/benefits by 3-4%, but then when they were forced to show us the books turns out that their profit was in the double digit millions.


----------



## Aidey (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> Education and investment capital may not be available to everyone.
> 
> In a global age, with 6 billion on the planet, there is always someone willing to do the job for three squares and a roof over their head.
> 
> ...





emt seeking first job said:


> Unions are not just about wages and benefits. They serve as a watchdog.
> 
> There is no way all EMTs will only accept any certain amount.
> 
> ...





emt seeking first job said:


> Ever think of when anarchism or darwinism comes into play ?
> 
> An overly greedy upper class ?
> 
> ...





Does the name Glenn Beck mean anything to you? Because you are channeling him big time.


----------



## looker (Aug 22, 2010)

DrParasite said:


> Here is what I do know: many jobs that do have unions involved are paid better, have better conditions, and typically have happier employees that stay longer at their jobs than non-union ones.  And these union jobs (all over) tend to have a line of people who want to get into the union, because it's better for the employee.
> 
> As an employee, I know there are owners like Looker, who are willing to fire employees for anything, for making too much money, because they don't stay late for no extra pay, for anything.  Unions are needed because not every employer is good to their employees.  The employer is doing what is in its best interest, not what is in the best interest of the employee, and will screw the employee if it is in the employers best interests.  That's why unions are needed, to stand up for the employees because the employer won't.



I am sure the employees are happier, they are getting paid above market rate. Who would not be happy with that? So yes they stay longer with same company as they are getting paid higher compare to other places. 

Maybe i missed it but when did employees start taking risk that I as owner take? Last time i checked, the main reason anyone is in business is to make money and not to make employees rich. If an employee is not happy with their pay, they are welcome to change employer, make them self more valuable by getting education or by opening their own business where they can pay set their own rules. The bottom line is that i am in business to make money and not to make someone else rich.


----------



## VinBin (Aug 22, 2010)

emt seeking, this isn't meant to offend you but I have a very hard time following your arguments. You seem to make discontinuous statements that don't always defend your main argument.

DrParasite, it is generally accepted that unions will lead to all those negative events that I stated (higher unemployment, greater inefficiency, long term substitution of wage labor with capital/machines, etc). For instance, higher unemployment is because unions generally ask for a higher wage rate than is the "market rate" (ex. you see some assembly line workers making upwards of $30/hour). What this does is it sets a price floor similar to minimum wage. At this wage, which is HIGHER than market wage, there is HIGHER supply (employees)  and LESS demand (employers). Thus while in a normal market setting you could hire so many people, with a union in place the company will choose to hire LESS. 

Also in the longer term, companies will invest in capital (machines) that can do the work with less money (ex. UScan and self scan at the grocery store taking the place of people). All in all, what seems like a great deal for the union will eventually come back to bite them (and those they claim to speak for).


----------



## John E (Aug 23, 2010)

VinBin said:


> DrParasite, it is generally accepted that unions will lead to all those negative events that I stated (higher unemployment, greater inefficiency, long term substitution of wage labor with capital/machines, etc). For instance, higher unemployment is because unions generally ask for a higher wage rate than is the "market rate" (ex. you see some assembly line workers making upwards of $30/hour). What this does is it sets a price floor similar to minimum wage. At this wage, which is HIGHER than market wage, there is HIGHER supply (employees)  and LESS demand (employers). Thus while in a normal market setting you could hire so many people, with a union in place the company will choose to hire LESS.



I'm curious, just who exactly is doing this "general acceptance" that you refer to?

Have you ever worked on an assembly line? Where are you coming up with your figures? Please define exactly what a "normal market setting" is.

And most importantly, given that you're from St. Louis, what high school did you go to?

Thanks

John E


----------



## thatJeffguy (Aug 23, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> Ever think of when anarchism or darwinism comes into play ?
> 
> An overly greedy upper class ?



When "workers" seek more money they always claim it's "fair", yet when their bosses seek more money it's "greed".



> a CHARASMATIC LEADER CAN RALLY THE UNDERCLASS to revolt...is that what anti union people want.


I'd be happy if every single union disbanded.  If I were magically put in charge of Ford, GM or any other big union company my first job would be to fire every single union employee, them offer them a contract on my terms.  If they didn't like it, they'd of course be willing to go out and open their own auto manufacturing company with a hundred years of reputation to back them up.  Those that didn't do that would be welcome to work for me and I'd reward them for their individual success and discipline those that needed it.  I've never felt the need for a "union", even in 'this business' of ours.  I'm educated, articulate and able to act calmly under pressure. I feel that the most a union would do is take my hard earned money to cover the asses of the uneducated, inarticulate, chronically lazy complainers and malingerers.



> The upper rich are rich in ANY system.....


Good for them!



> Having a union prtecting people, letting people share alittle, not all, but a little of the wealth helps avoid that.


"share"?  Come on, this isn't second grade.  If I'm in the sand box at recess and I've got a toy that was bought legally with capital owned by the individual that spent it, it's my right to decide who and how plays with my bull dozer.  I've no need to work for an employer that "shares" with me or that is compelled to "Share the wealth" with the non-productive slackers.  I'll work hard.  If the remuneration for my hard work is on par with my expectations, I'll stay.  If it's not, I'll speak with my boss and attempt to secure those remunerations or benefits for myself based solely on my labor and industry.  If he doesn't offer what I want, I'll seek employment elsewhere.



> There are no more benevlent "owners' these days.


Try putting down "Greed!" and reading the newspapers a bit.



> Henry Ford was STILL VERY RICH even though he 'over-paid' his workers.....


"even though"?  "over paid"?  Geez, you really don't get it.

Henry Ford paid his workers well *and demanded much* of them.  Work hard, make money.  Be a slacker, be unemployed.  It's always wise to pay your employees more than the competition *as long as* you have higher standards than the competition.  

Search youtube for "Milton Friedman", sit back and absorb his wisdom and awesomeness.


----------



## VinBin (Aug 23, 2010)

John E said:


> I'm curious, just who exactly is doing this "general acceptance" that you refer to?
> 
> Have you ever worked on an assembly line? Where are you coming up with your figures? Please define exactly what a "normal market setting" is.
> 
> ...



John, it's not _my_ general views. Its what is concluded from applying basic economic principles (supply and demand). I would be hard pressed to find anyone that took an intro to economics class that would argue that comparing two economies, one with unions and one without the one with unions will have higher unemployment. But don't take my word for it, consider that this is a principle that is clearly stated in many intro economics textbooks.

"Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist and advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, *provided evidence that unionization frequently produces higher wages at the expense of fewer jobs*, and that, if some industries are unionized while others are not, wages will decline in non-unionized industries.[5] By raising the price of labour, the wage rate, above the equilibrium price, unemployment rises. This is because it is no longer worthwhile for businesses to employ those laborers whose work is worth less than the minimum wage rate set by the unions.[6] As such, Governments may seek to reduce union powers in order to *reduce unemployment*." 


Bolded by me to add emphasis, and taken from Wikipedia (all sources cited in article). 
Also consider these:
Summers, OBAMA's economic advisor: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/01/summers-vs-obama.html
A little case study of unemployment related to higher minimum wage (similar to how unions ask for higher than market wages): http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/153901_unemploy26.html
Interesting read on the causes of unemployment: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Unemployment.html

"Another *cause of long-term unemployment is unionization*. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy. Also, those who lose high-wage union jobs are often reluctant to accept alternative low-wage employment. Between 1970 and 1985, for example, a state with a 20 percent unionization rate, approximately the average for the fifty states and the District of Columbia, experienced an unemployment rate that was 1.2 percentage points higher than that of a hypothetical state that had no unions. To put this in perspective, 1.2 percentage points is about 60 percent of the increase in normal unemployment between 1970 and 1985."  -Quote from Summers (Obama's economic advisor).

Whether I worked in an assembly line, farm or a spaceship is of no issue on whether unions help or hurt the economy. And in reference to the "normal market condition," since I was comparing unions, I meant a firm that wasn't unionized.

And to answer the most important question of all, I didn't go to high school in St. Louis, did you grow up there?


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 23, 2010)

VinBin said:


> John, it's not _my_ general views. Its what is concluded from applying basic economic principles (supply and demand). I would be hard pressed to find anyone that took an intro to economics class that would argue that comparing two economies, one with unions and one without the one with unions will have higher unemployment. But don't take my word for it, consider that this is a principle that is clearly stated in many intro economics textbooks.
> 
> "Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist and advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, *provided evidence that unionization frequently produces higher wages at the expense of fewer jobs*, and that, if some industries are unionized while others are not, wages will decline in non-unionized industries.[5] By raising the price of labour, the wage rate, above the equilibrium price, unemployment rises. This is because it is no longer worthwhile for businesses to employ those laborers whose work is worth less than the minimum wage rate set by the unions.[6] As such, Governments may seek to reduce union powers in order to *reduce unemployment*."
> 
> ...




How dare you apply any of that book learnin to the emergency service sector.


----------



## John E (Aug 23, 2010)

Wow, 2 Milton Friedman followers in the same thread, whoda thunk it.

Quoting Mr. Friedman is all well and good but extrapolating his ideas into saying "it's generally accepted" is a bit of a stretch.

Even if your thesis is correct, and I don't believe it to be so, where would we find ANY economy with a fully unionized work force and one with a fully, non-unionized work force to compare? Anything else is extrapolating from inconclusive data. One need look no further than the situation our current economy is in to know that economics is more philosophy than it is a science.

Having said that, since when did unemployment become the only judge of whether a unionized work force is better or worse for the overall economy?

None of the sources you quoted said anything about the effects of unionization other than on effects it allegedly has on unemployment. 

I'm proud to be a union member, but unlike you and I'm guessing most of the others who seem to take particular delight in bashing working people here, I've worked in industries that abuse their workers and I've seen first hand why workers need the help of labor unions. I've also traveled around this world a bit and I've seen firsthand just how desperately working conditions can be. I've also read a bit about what life was like here in the U.S. before the growth of labor unions. If you enjoy things like a 40 hour workweek, being paid for working overtime, workplace safety regulations,OSHA, health care, and a few other things like that, thank a union member, without us, you wouldn't have them.

I've also seen firsthand how the industry I work in, the entertainment industry, can be extremely profitable and very heavily unionized. I make a very good living and so do the people who employ me. They take more risks, albeit with other people's money and they make more, I and my fellow crew members do the heavy lifting and we earn a nice paycheck for doing so. It's a symbiotic relationship, neither party could exist without the other.

As for Mr. Ford, he was a pretty bright guy, notwithstanding his virulent anti-semitism, he realized that if his workers couldn't afford to buy the products that they produced, he couldn't sell as many cars. He was demonized by his fellow automobile manufacturers, the ultimate irony, the company he left behind is today, more profitable, more environmentally conscious, and they didn't need to be bailed out by the government last year. And they've run a union shop for a very, very, long time.


----------



## firecoins (Aug 23, 2010)

Milton Friedman is nice.  John Keynes is also nice.  I prefer Friedman but Keynes was right in the short run. 


Unions are both good and bad.  In their best uses , they make sure their membership gets paid a fair share, in safe working conditions and have ways to handle disputes with management.


----------



## looker (Aug 23, 2010)

John E said:


> Wow, 2 Milton Friedman followers in the same thread, whoda thunk it.
> 
> Quoting Mr. Friedman is all well and good but extrapolating his ideas into saying "it's generally accepted" is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> ...



So you want to compare union shop to nonunion shop in the same industry? How about GM vs Toyota. I will let you guess which is unionize shop and which is not.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 23, 2010)

John E said:


> I'm proud to be a union member, but unlike you and I'm guessing most of the others who seem to take particular delight in bashing working people here


Sorry. I stopped reading here. Since when did the concept that only real work involved digging a ditch or working on an assembly line. People with jobs are "working people" be it the janitor all away to the CEO. To say that an assembly line worker "works" but a physician or nurse doesn't because of the type of work involved is simply an abuse of the English language and an abuse that needs to stop.


----------



## VinBin (Aug 23, 2010)

John E: I actually listed more sources than Friedman (I can't say I'm a "follower"). Those who believe that unions lead to higher unemployment include *Summers *(Obama's economic adviser), *Mankiw *(Harvard professor whose books on Economics are used in almost every Intro Econ class), *Anderton *(One of the prominent economists in UK), and ANTI-Friedman economists such as *Paul Samuelson *who agree that unions often drive wages up and hurt those who are NOT part of unions. And this is anything but a complete list, just the most famous that I am familiar with, I still bet that you can walk up to 99% of economists and they would agree.

It's clear that I'm not going to change your mind, seeing that you are obviously in a union and happy with the pay and benefits. I do agree that for those IN the union, the situation is favorable. JPINFV is absolutely right, I have often heard from union supporters this strange view that only union jobs that involve manual labor as being "true" jobs. Unions act as bullies to not only employers but also non union members (I have witnessed this in the fire service).

And yes, Ford has made quite the turnaround in the last couple years, but it was one of the most inefficient companies for many many years. Don't make the mistake of thinking it was somehow "much better" than the other US car companies.

A little bit of light reading regarding the auto industry and unions:

http://topnews.us/content/28082-ford-union-workers-reject-companys-efforts-reduce-labor-costs
Note the points about how the move to save 7,000 jobs was rejected. Although we all know Ford didn't file for bankruptcy, it was very very close to doing so. 

And in case you wanted to know the most comical invention ever, consider the idea of "Jobs bank" program, one of the bigger criticisms of the UAW:

"One of the benefits negotiated by the United Auto Workers was the jobs bank program, under which *laid-off members received 95 percent* of their take-home pay and benefits. More than 12,000 UAW members were paid this benefit in 2005. In December 2008, the UAW agreed to *suspend the program as a concession to help U.S. automakers during the auto industry crisis*."

You don't have to believe any of these things I say, simply learn about how employment is influenced by different factors. I can guarantee you even those who are Keynesian will confess that unions overall have a long term detrimental effect on the economy and the firms that have to put up with them.

What ends up happening is a sort of dilemma where those IN the union will do everything in their power to preserve their inflated wages and benefits while the employer will becomes increasingly UNABLE to compete in a marketplace that thrives on efficiency. Whenever you distort the normal supply/demand something has to give, and in this case its those individuals who COULD have had a job being jobless and the long term substitution of labor for capital by the employer. The more you get into the culture of unions, it is clear that it is run like a "good ol boys" clubhouse with undue privilege and perks for those IN it.

John, when did WE say anything to "bash working people"?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Aug 23, 2010)

Thread closed before it gets any worse.


----------

