Why Unions Keep Losing

And all that stuff exists because you have among the highest taxes in the developed world. When you soak the rich you cripple the middle class, and destroy the working man.
Oh and larger argued for lowering taxes.

 

umm... this is sheer garbage, and I am fairly certain you know it's garbage. Nobody with an ounce of integrity would write what you wrote here. It's BS, and more BS, and more BS. From start to finish, it's BS.

I tagged you correctly from the get-go. Obfuscatory BS. You never attempt to explain anything, but you sure do know how to lay it on real thick.

 

You must be a paid shill for a right wing think tank. You have always posted against the working class, the people in favor of the rich and tyranny. Never ends. Some people are willing to sell their soul. Some people are willing to act as a third party "ZOMBIE PERSON" to post for the Neoconservative Koch Brother, Cato, Heritage foundation" It is no different than an Internet Rush Limbaugh... Pay me enough and I will write whatever you want... Americans are Gullible enough to believe the garbage.
Continue on !!!! Sure your kids would be proud !

 

This is strikingly inconsistent with reality. Didn't you even notice the recent reports of the UK as the global centre for corporate tax avoidance?

The problem with the UK is its low wages. It has a pre-welfare poverty rate even worse than the US. Of course this doesn't snugly with your ideological bias...

 

I see you're struggling. That upsets me. I'd much prefer relevant critique, rather than churlish grunt.

Happy of course to help. Did you perhaps fail to understand 'right to manage' (which suggests bargaining purely over wages, with the firm moving up its labour demand and shedding labour) or 'efficient bargain' (where we see bargaining over both wage and employment, such that wages and employment increase and profits falls)?

 

And that is when you lost the argument.

 

So all these American workers, our middle class, are simply a bunch of brain washed drones.

Of course I imagine YOU do not include YOURSELF in this insulting condescension for lack of a reasoned intellectual response.

 

Id imagine he means the ones who are vehemently anti union, yet remain a member of the workforce, as that is not the only means of wealth generation.
By workforce, I mean someone who is working on someone else schedule, and rules....an Employee.

See, I bet you wont find a need to unionize in companies like google, some brokerage firm, etc.
The need arises from people who's skills put themselves in habitually poor working conditions...Not everyone can change what they are marketable in, and in those cases can even you explain why they should be anti union, and remain stuck with consistent danger of unemployment, or hazardous, unfavorable, underpaid (sometimes unpaid, continuing work at home for free) working conditions?
Remember they cant change their body or brain now, perhaps due to some ailment, or permanent/temporary situation...So saying just get a new skill is not feasible.

 

Not really. One aspect of right wing think tanks is their total disregard of labour economics. They effectively assume labour markets work the same way as chocolate bars. Anything more realistic will lead to uncomfortable conclusions!

 

Well he didn't make that distinction and again workforces in general are rejecting union certifications. I don't get your "yet remain a member of the workforce", they should not work unless the vote for a union?

OK that applies to union and non-union. I am in the workforce but I don't work a schedule set by my employer.

You think union is a guaranty for your future employment? You are kidding aren't you. And it's a feasible as you want to make to be and a union is not going to help you there. Who's working at home for free? I work from my home when not traveling and get still get paid.

 

No really that is where he lost the argument.

 

Noticed you couldn't dispute the point I made! Mises.org falls foul of it. Their understanding of labour markets is often child like. That's deliberate mind you.

 

Well, then I can see the point of the OP if instead it claimed "why union membership is decreasing",you would have a point. But he claims they are losing..which they are not, there membership may be decreasing not because of republican interference, but because more companies are adapting Democrat, and union policy them selves...Seems the union movement would be a success if everyone had a job like yours, correct?

 

I think ya’ll are making this too complicated.

There are people who would rather follow the crowd and have the hard things done for them by others. Such people likely benefit from unions today.

Then there are those who want to make their own way and succeed on their own merit beyond what collectives can offer. Individualists you might say.

It seems less people now want unions. That’s a hopeful sign to me that more people in the workforce desire to accomplish more than can be given by others.

 

Individualists understand the importance of bargaining power. Bit obvious really

 

They are losing because they cannot get labor support. A huge steel mill which is my biggest customer has the union camped out trying to get support just for a vote and they can't get it from the workers. Most have worked in union situations and want nothing more of one. And my job and success has nothing to do with a union, when I was forced to be in one they held down my wages and advancement.

 

Don't you know there is a difference between corporate and personal taxes?

 

You don't think rich folk tax dodge too? Crikey, right wing innocence?

 

Of course, they'd be nuts not to, but that has nothing whatever to do with the fact that corporate tax rate is substantially lower than personal tax rates.

 

Corporate tax rates differs according to effectiveness. The same goes with the rich. Britain is a hotbed for dodge. Take good ole Lewis Hamilton, just touching down on the Isle of Man, to dodge tax on his shiny jet.

You clearly know nothing about Britain. Shame really, given it's still the best case study into the effects of crucifying unions...

 

It isn't. It is classic case study in how excessive taxation screws jp an economy the super rich always have outs.

 

Still wrong. The UK doesn't have any significant progressive tax. It's also adopted austerity, ensuring that post-crash costs are focused on the poor.

Have you been advising Trump on Britain? Might account for some things!

 

Yes, we understand why some people pine for it. We understand there are people who need the security of others being in control of all aspects of their lives. We just don’t want it. I’ve known a few guys who wouldn’t take union oaths because they valued their individualism and personal autonomy too much.

 

You say "we" alot when referring to individualism. Gives the game away somewhat

 

Neither, actually. Of course you don't you tax the crap out of everybody those making less than 12.5k pounds get hit with a 20% vat 12.5 k pounds to 50k pounds pays forty percent.20 to 60% looks pretty progressive to me.