Originally posted by inimalistBut why should a company lose money by work that isn't needed?
what do you mean by fine?the benefit of the union would be that if that if the majority of workers aren't happy with 70% layoffs, they can do something about it.
if the workers don't care why would I care. A union is simply about workers having a voice....
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
So you're saying if it was made by different labor you wouldn't buy it. But obviously if all things were considered equal you would.I have a bluetooth that is voice activated. It was $129 in the store. The store has to charge higher because of the land and building, maintenance, worker, insurance costs, etc.
I found it online. It was only $60 brand new. Online can charge less because it has much lower overhead.
I'm sure you know which one I bought.boxing
The internet has absolutely nothing to do with this, unless those e-companies are creating inhumane conditions... They are cheap because they are efficient not because they use slave wages.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, excuse me, I "obviously" would? No, I wouldn't. I try and buy things from my local stores whenever they have a product I want; I avoid buying things made in inhumane conditions. That is not something that I made up, I do it and lots of people do it. Hell, if what you're claiming is true, no meat could market itself as "humanely raised", for a price markup. Obviously people will pay depending on the conditions something comes from.The internet has absolutely nothing to do with this, unless those e-companies are creating inhumane conditions... They are cheap because they are efficient not because they use slave wages.
I said you would if all things were considered equal, why wouldn't you? That was my point in the beginning I never said anything about inhumane conditions.
Price, quality, service. Pick two. People can get away with higher markups by promise of quality or service. Or the quality isn't as good or it is cheaper.
But if all is equal and one is cheaper, it will sell more, period. Pretty simple.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I said you would if all things were considered equal, why wouldn't you? That was my point in the beginning I never said anything about inhumane conditions.Price, quality, service. Pick two. People can get away with higher markups by promise of quality or service. Or the quality isn't as good or it is cheaper.
But if all is equal and one is cheaper, it will sell more, period. Pretty simple.
Originally posted by King KandySo a product that is cheaper is unethical?
but it won't, period. People will pay more for a product that comes from "ethical" conditions.
With all the illegal work out there being contracted by average Joes I disagree. I see lots of people hiring work under the table, not just companies.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
So a product that is cheaper is unethical?With all the illegal work out there being contracted by average Joes I disagree. I see lots of people hiring work under the table, not just companies.
Originally posted by King Kandy
It's not the cheap labor its the low wages, aka slave wages. If you're hiring an illegal immigrant you should give them minimum wage.
Most don't. Most people (not just companies) hire work illegally for lower prices all the time. It's "unethical" but they still do it.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Oh I know that. But my point is *most* will pay even less from an "unethical" source. But if they were both "ethical" and legal everyone would, people aren't going to waste money.
Unions aren't always ethical either. They're simply providing worse work for a higher price. In many cases.
There is a bond between consumers, capitalists, and workers. Consumers don't get the lowest price they want (which for most would be next to nothing), capitalists don't get the lowest costs they would want, and workers don't get the highest wages they want. It is subjective, but one would need to be on all sides to understand better.
Originally posted by The Dark CloudBased on?
Without unions, there is no middle class
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Unions aren't always ethical either. They're simply providing worse work for a higher price. In many cases.There is a bond between consumers, capitalists, and workers. Consumers don't get the lowest price they want (which for most would be next to nothing), capitalists don't get the lowest costs they would want, and workers don't get the highest wages they want. It is subjective, but one would need to be on all sides to understand better.
There are many different types of unions so the level of corruption most assuredly varies from one type to another. I'm sure that there are significant differences between the teacher's union, the dentist's union, and the pipefitters union. Some unions can protect workers from unsafe working conditions by giving them an option other than quitting and allowing someone who doesn't mind working in any condition as long as they get some scraps of money. Honestly the truly lazy probably aren't that interested in unions or work in general for that matter. I do recall a fellow worker who was lazy as hell and in no danger of getting fired but he was the bosses friends son....That type of thing can happen in non-union jobs as well though. Pros and cons....
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Unions aren't always ethical either. They're simply providing worse work for a higher price. In many cases.There is a bond between consumers, capitalists, and workers. Consumers don't get the lowest price they want (which for most would be next to nothing), capitalists don't get the lowest costs they would want, and workers don't get the highest wages they want. It is subjective, but one would need to be on all sides to understand better.
Based on?
And unions are about leveraging the workers numbers to be on closer to equal footing in wage negotiations.
You are obviously right that they make the labor more expensive (though not necessarily worse), but like you said, that's how it works, everyone is trying to get the best deal with the power they have, which then comes to the balance you mentioned.
You personally seem to be on the side of the companies and would prefer if they got better deals, but since you brought up this theory, I don't see why and how you can say that it is bad that unions get the workers a better deal from time to time.
Many claim to be about that, but many leverage power and end up trying to control the company without any of the risk, the company takes the risk so they are going to have the most rights. It goes without saying that it is the company's company.
Workers have the rights provided to them by law. An individual has the right to negotiate better deals, but really, especially in America, if they aren't getting it, where are they going to get it?
Originally posted by The MISTERI think that unions have a stated purpose, better conditions and pay... it's just how they go about it. Many things have good intentions at first.
There are many different types of unions so the level of corruption most assuredly varies from one type to another. I'm sure that there are significant differences between the teacher's union, the dentist's union, and the pipefitters union. Some unions can protect workers from unsafe working conditions by giving them an option other than quitting and allowing someone who doesn't mind working in any condition as long as they get some scraps of money. Honestly the truly lazy probably aren't that interested in unions or work in general for that matter. I do recall a fellow worker who was lazy as hell and in no danger of getting fired but he was the bosses friends son....That type of thing can happen in non-union jobs as well though. Pros and cons....
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Many claim to be about that, but many leverage power and end up trying to control the company without any of the risk, the company takes the risk so they are going to have the most rights. It goes without saying that it is the company's company.Workers have the rights provided to them by law. An individual has the right to negotiate better deals, but really, especially in America, if they aren't getting it, where are they going to get it?
The company owns the company, sure, but it still has to deal and negotiate with it's employees and suppliers.
Would it make you feel better if you thought of the union as a company? A labour company renting out it's workforce to companies, both companies trying to get the best deal? Because that's in essence (though in practice convoluted) what's happening.