Why Unions Keep Losing

Their policy's do..You are just forced to pay them now with right to work tax going to state governments, instead of the union halls.

 

The state I live in a right-to-work state and there is no state income tax so wrong on both counts.

Further I would rather my money go to the state than the Democratic Party which is all the union does its funnel money to the Democratic party. Probably one of the reasons why red States tend to be more likely the right to work states.

 

Yet red states pay their workers the least amounts...

I worked In PA while going to school, It had a right to work income tax withholding.

Later I found out why...What state do you live in that's right to work? Ill look into what you actually are paying for.

 

I think that depends on the work. The most unskilled laborer yes gets paid the least. that's why you work to build skills so you can ask for more money so your labor is worth more.

Texas

 

Same here..

 

We are talking funds that would make the Koch brothers blush

 

My biggest complaint wit unions is, they harvest tons of money from workers of both parties but have no voice as to how their dues are donated in the political arena.. Other then that, I can deal with it..

 

If they weren't a money laundering scam for the Democrats, more power to them.

 

Perhaps you meant to actually edit this? I won't, but suffice it to say that you said literally nothing of value in your response. Maybe your translator broke? Hard to say. Unions do exactly what I have suggested they do. They artificially limit the total number of jobs, they artificially raise the cost of the labor needed by industry to accomplish the work, and they uniformly stagnate growth of jobs. They are the quintessential example of "I got my screw the rest of you" approach. Everywhere you look where unions flourish you see gross unemployment that is structural. Ask why the average unemployment across nations with high union adoption is so high. And for those who are employed, good deals for them, but not so much for everyone else who can't get work because the cost of adding that one more union job is both limited by the existing contract that excludes new job creation and artificially makes the cost of one job much higher than the actual market would pay.

Unions are political entities designed to structurally exclude and marginalize those who are unwilling to join in or buy into that political agenda.

 

Unions donate to politicians whose policies align with the unions.

That doesn't include Republicans who are trying to KILL unions of course

 

As expected, nothing more recent than a half century ago. Thank you for proving my point.

 

Here is what he said though.

Though a real estate board is not a union, I too had the same problem with the real estate board and indeed the state association too for the same thing. We collected dues from members of all parties. And we established an election committee who came up with whom got members money. For example we voted to spend money to elect from Oakland, CA one who still is in the house of representatives. We sought no advice from the membership. The committee submitted names and donations amounts to we on the Board of Directors and we rubber stamped it. Which was wrong in my view. I did support supporting issues but not politicians.
Barbara Lee - Wikipedia

 

You are correct. Unions amount to a layer of government. Completely private but still a layer.
Why are cops who are government in a union? Teachers also in unions and they do not belong in unions. They are paid by government.

 

Because they are workers and unions give workers protection from management

 

Private parties rule Government!!! That is what you said to me. And that is a stark admission when we want to be defended from Government, we are correct.

 

So no attempt to critique efficient bargain analysis? No attempt to empirically verify the right to manage model? Gosh, who would have thought!

This at least made me laugh. Did you repeatedly stamp your foot at you typed it?

You're just demanding repetition. We know that the empirical evidence has traditionally pointed to the efficient bargain in the US. We also know that efficient bargain doesn't reduce employment. It increases it.

This is just prattle. Why haven't you referred to empirical analysis in support? Perhaps it's because the evidence refuses to play ball? Take Thatcherism. Crucified labour rights and also quadrupled unemployment. How does that fit with your ideological bias?

 

I will give you a personal one. A company where I worked shared a warehouse with a public company that was unionized. The employees of the other company began to unionize our employees. We explained that we weren't as wealthy as the other company and couldn't handle the costs involved. We liked having our own warehouse but explained to the employees that, if they continued organizing, we would have to close the warehouse and put our inventory with a warehousing company. They continued to organize. We closed the warehouse and moved our inventory. The union caused those employees' wages to drop to zero. Not all companies are the same nor are all employment situations.

 

Thanks for demonstrating your limits. I won't ask you to extend yourself more...

 

Like I said! My father was UAW for 34 years and he always taught me a Union is only as strong as its MEMBERS.. With that said, all those members are all NOT aligned with just one party, are they Lesh?

 

Your failure to understand how unions are studied is noted. It strikes me as strange that you're unaware of this stuff. It's as if you deliberately curtailed your reading in order to ensure unchallenged ideology...

 

And I'm dealing with a company that has seen rapid growth through its relationship with the union. I just don't assume that such tabloidism is sufficient for evidence...

 

Umm..... Who cares how they are "studied"? The real quantity that matters is their empirical effects on their economies. Your willingness to digress into fantasy aside isn't helping in the conversation. You don't seem willing to discuss the causes and effects, just the fantasy. That doesn't seem useful.

 

I would point out that there are significant differences between public and skills based unions. Public unions are simply campaign finance engines for democrats. Their "contributions" are designed to only ever help democratic candidates. Union bosses in skills unions are also likely to donate to democrats. That doesn't stop their membership from voting for others, but their grafted dues clearly aren't being used where those members would want them to be directed. Local teachers, police, public employee unions are just way more transparent about their allegiance and loyalty to the democratic party. They are just as clearly engines for indoctrination and obedience to the state. They also, just as clearly develop an elitist political class whom the membership are required to support, again, through their dues/contributions. This isn't hard to see. It just seems that folks like Lesh aren't willing to admit what is clearly there to see.

 

People interested in union effects. The theoretical model provides the means to construct, and therefore, test hypothesis. That the efficient bargain has been found relevant in the US confirms the irrelevance of your ideology.

You continue to splash about and advertise that you haven't bothered to do any reading on the subject. Right to manage and efficient bargain are tested on different geographies and time periods. They provide empirical specification. That the empirical results confirm that you're on a loser has been mentioned several times.

 

Tabloidism?