right to work

[bobevenson]

reasonvemotion wrote:

What is the cost of union membership?

Bobevenson wrote:

If you mean financial cost, I guess it depends on the union, but I guarantee you it's not free. If you mean psychological cost, how do you measure the loss of self-esteem?

I mean financial cost. Is it a percentage of the wage, I am trying to visualise how expensive or inexpensive it is to become a member. If one is forced to become a member, maybe the cost would be an issue for some and if the union doesn't perform can the person get their money back. That seems reasonable enough. Make the unions work harder for their members.

Oh, no, no, no, nobody every gets his money back. That would be more like the free market, where you hire somebody or fire him if you don't like the resullts. And the strong-armed government forces your employer to take the union dues right out of your payecheck and give it directly to the union just in case you ever do become unhappy with the union and would rather not pay it anything for doing such a lousy job. Unions are a lot like the government, they just keep going and going and going no matter how crummy their report card.

[reasonvemotion]

It is all about fee for service and there seems to be a gross imbalance here.

It should be choice of becoming or not becoming a member. As it stands, it all sounds rather dictatorial to me. Not good.

and

what happens to all these mandatory contributions?

[chaz wyman]

reasonvemotion wrote:

What is the cost of union membership?

Bobevenson wrote:

If you mean financial cost, I guess it depends on the union, but I guarantee you it's not free. If you mean psychological cost, how do you measure the loss of self-esteem?

I mean financial cost. Is it a percentage of the wage, I am trying to visualise how expensive or inexpensive it is to become a member. If one is forced to become a member, maybe the cost would be an issue for some and if the union doesn't perform can the person get their money back. That seems reasonable enough. Make the unions work harder for their members.

As I've not been unionised for some time, I seem to remember that subscription to my union was around £!0 per month. For that you get workplace insurance (the primary reason that it is compulsory- and insisted upon by employers), a vote, and access to a representative for breaches of your contract by the employer.

[chaz wyman]

It is all about fee for service and there seems to be a gross imbalance here.

It should be choice of becoming or not becoming a member. As it stands, it all sounds rather dictatorial to me. Not good.

and

what happens to all these mandatory contributions?

The point about it being compulsory is an insurance issue. You don't complain about car insurance.
You can look at it as the government releasing the employer of their responsibility, by placing the burden of insurance on the employer.
I imagine that is how the compulsory rule was implemented by the government who principally represent the employers, being themselves company owners.

[bobevenson]

It's time to draw a line in the sand. The sole function of business is to make a profit, thereby demonstrating it is doing something useful, not to provide jobs, insurance, or collect taxes for the government. If the government thinks some people need help of one kind or another, provide it directly to those people, but stay out of the way of companies out there trying to make a buck.

[The Voice of Time]

It's time to draw a line in the sand. The sole function of business is to make a profit, thereby demonstrating it is doing something useful, not to provide jobs, insurance, or collect taxes for the government. If the government thinks some people need help of one kind or another, provide it directly to those people, but stay out of the way of companies out there trying to make a buck.

"The sole function of business is to make a profit"?

You mean: the sole function of business is to make more money than other businesses? How does that help anyone? Unless of course you don't care about anyone, and really just want what they have in their pockets ^^

We have word for people like that... scum.

No, the sole purpose of business, its real purpose, is not to comparatively be better, but to serve society better, which it does by caring for it and striving to provide for it: be it inovation, productivity or organization. The first making better types of products or good new types of products, the second increasing the amount or quality of the produced products per unit of effort made, and the last making certain that society is organized to work as a whole and that it does not split apart. All of them are equally important, if improvements in product types are not made then society stagnates and will eternally have the same or worse conditions, if production is not increased then the pleasure of products are decreased by increasing need of effort into making them, and if organization does not occur then products are not delivered or consumed and are in the end: worthless of the effort being put into them.

[bobevenson]

No, the sole purpose of business, its real purpose, is not to comparatively be better, but to serve society better.

The way you prove that you're serving society better is by making a profit. Companies that lose money or go bankrupt are being told by the public in no uncertain terms that they are not serving society very well. The free market is ruthless and automatically fires people by not buying their products or services, but anything operated by the government doesn't need to make a profit or serve society at all. Unfortunately, you can't fire bureaucrats, and the government never goes bankrupt. That fundamental difference between government and the free market is something socialists just don't seem to understand.

[chaz wyman]

The world Bob wants to live in , is with us already. Businesses like Kmart have the pleasure of being able to pay the lowest wages possible, and to make profits on the suffering of others.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/lette ... 00773.html

I just think that workers who have achieved a certain level of rights, like the crumbs off the edge of a table ought to also achieve our support in some way.

[bobevenson]

The world Bob wants to live in , is with us already. Businesses like Kmart have the pleasure of being able to pay the lowest wages possible, and to make profits on the suffering of others.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/lette ... 00773.html

I just think that workers who have achieved a certain level of rights, like the crumbs off the edge of a table ought to also achieve our support in some way.

First of all, you apparently don't even realize that K-Mart is virtually out of business. A far bettter choice would have been Wal-Mart. It doesn't matter what wages a comany offers to potential employees, nobody is putting a gun to anybody's head. Both parties come to an agreeable and beneficial decision, so what the heck is your problem? Oh, I know, let the government run Wal-Mart to benefit the employees and forget about any profits or accountability to the shareholders. I forgot, under your system there are no shareholders, and Wal-Mart is run just like the U.S. Postal Service that is on the verge of bankruptcy because it has never been accountable to anybody, including your precious Wal-Mart workers!

[chaz wyman]

The world Bob wants to live in , is with us already. Businesses like Kmart have the pleasure of being able to pay the lowest wages possible, and to make profits on the suffering of others.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/lette ... 00773.html

I just think that workers who have achieved a certain level of rights, like the crumbs off the edge of a table ought to also achieve our support in some way.

First of all, you apparently don't even realize that K-Mart is virtually out of business. A far bettter choice would have been Wal-Mart. It doesn't matter what wages a comany offers to potential employees, nobody is putting a gun to anybody's head. Both parties come to an agreeable and beneficial decision, so what the heck is your problem? Oh, I know, let the government run Wal-Mart to benefit the employees and forget about any profits or accountability to the shareholders. I forgot, under your system there are no shareholders, and Wal-Mart is run just like the U.S. Postal Service that is on the verge of bankruptcy because it has never been accountable to anybody, including your precious Wal-Mart workers!

Do you have a job?

[bobevenson]

The world Bob wants to live in , is with us already. Businesses like Kmart have the pleasure of being able to pay the lowest wages possible, and to make profits on the suffering of others.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/lette ... 00773.html

I just think that workers who have achieved a certain level of rights, like the crumbs off the edge of a table ought to also achieve our support in some way.

First of all, you apparently don't even realize that K-Mart is virtually out of business. A far bettter choice would have been Wal-Mart. It doesn't matter what wages a comany offers to potential employees, nobody is putting a gun to anybody's head. Both parties come to an agreeable and beneficial decision, so what the heck is your problem? Oh, I know, let the government run Wal-Mart to benefit the employees and forget about any profits or accountability to the shareholders. I forgot, under your system there are no shareholders, and Wal-Mart is run just like the U.S. Postal Service that is on the verge of bankruptcy because it has never been accountable to anybody, including your precious Wal-Mart workers!

Do you have a job?

Do you actually have a question?

[chaz wyman]

Do you actually have a question?

Yeah - do you have a job?

[bobevenson]

Do you actually have a question?

Yeah - do you have a job?

Do you wear boxer shorts or jockey shorts?

[chaz wyman]

Do you actually have a question?

Yeah - do you have a job?

Do you wear boxer shorts or jockey shorts?

Neither. Do you have a job??
I'll take that as a no.

[bobevenson]

Neither.

Actually, that's what I figured, but I guess you don't mind answering irrelevant questions.