Thread: Right wing wet dream

Originally Posted by RedWolf

You don't need a union to have a good workplace.

You can have armchairs on the factory floor if you like but they won't make up for crappy wages. Fact is an organised workforce gets better pay and benefits.

Originally Posted by RedWolf

And how long ago was this? Times have changed and we have laws in place now to prevent those kinds of things.

And those laws can be taken away by a hostile legislature. And that's exactly what is going to happen.

Originally Posted by cloppbeast

I hope you read it with an open mind.

With a critical mind, as I try with everything I read.

Originally Posted by RedWolf

If for some weird unexplainable reason politicians decide to try something like, you would have plenty of republicans standing against them. Unions served a purpose once upon a time. But with time came progression. Anyone who would actually try to worsen the labor conditions now for this country would face all kinds of hell from people.

It's happening now and GOP members are facilitating it and doing the bidding of vested interests.

Originally Posted by brianm_34

Really??? Nobody is trying to take holidays, lower the minimum wage or compromise safety. I work for a private company with no union. I am payed well, get plenty of paid time off (which I usually don't use) and get 11 paid holidays a year.

I am also the safety officer for my company, and I constantly ensure all OSHA standards are met, plus above and beyond. My company paid for all employee safety equipment, and conducts safety training three times a month!

Fourteen paid days off a year, plus 11 holidays are plenty for the average person. The problem libs have with less time off is it means they have to actually work for a living!

If you're happy with that then far be it from me to try to suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by cloppbeast

You're proving yourself a simpleton.

A company's goal is to make money, and a well managed one makes as much money as possible. It shouldn't be that hard to understand that if a product costs more to produce, it will correspondingly be need to be sold at a higher price. This seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess for others this is just a complicated concept.

Businesses set their prices to make the most money, since this is in fact their purpose. The optimum, or the equlibrium price, is set where the supply and demand intersects in order to avoid either a surplus or shortage. If the price is set too high, the company will experience a surplus. If the price is set too low, the company will experience a shortage.

How does increased production effect supply and demand? The supply will move up (, or left depending on how you look at it).

You can see in the chart how increased production effects the price. S0 represents the original supply; St represents the supply after the union is implemented. You should be able to see why a business has to raise prices when production costs increase, but I won't take anything for granted .

Let's pretend for a second that an idiot business were to keep it's price the same. In the above supply-demand example, that would mean leaving it at P0. If you were to translate the price of P0 to the supply of St, you can see there would be excess demand. In other words, the company wouldn't be able to keep up with the demand. It would experience a shortage and would sell a fewer quantity as well. This not only negatively impacts the business in reduced profits, but also consumers.

This shortage situation happened in the Dirty South in the gasoline market a few years ago. A hurricane broke a gas line, which significantly reduced the supply of gas in the southern states. Gas stations did not adjust, and kept gas prices the same. The result was a shortage. People couldn't get to work, because they're wasn't any gas. Other's just lined up for days waiting for the next shipment. If you were alive in the '70s, you should remember gas lines that were the result of price fixing by the federal government.

I asked Why do American companies have to pass on increased labour costs to consumers?

I have my answer. American companies pass on the increase because they can't figure out how to absorb it by being more efficient. Did you miss the quality movement as espoused by Deming?

Originally Posted by cloppbeast

Apples to oranges.

You don't really think without unions or government regulations that 12 year old children would still be working 14 hour shifts in coal mines? I hope not, because that would be a long explanation - one in which you would doubtfully read.

I'd be interested to read it.

Originally Posted by SpankyTheWhale

Caring about people does not instigate good policy.

Then why instigate good policy at all?

Originally Posted by cloppbeast

You didn't answer my question:

Do really think without unions or government regulations that 12 year old children would still be working 14 hour shifts in coal mines?

I'll just barge in here. I do think that.

Originally Posted by Royd Bogan

You can have armchairs on the factory floor if you like but they won't make up for crappy wages. Fact is an organised workforce gets better pay and benefits.

Same fallacious argument. In the company I work for, we have both union and nonunion branches. The nonunion branches pay far better and have better benefits packages than our union counterparts. Oh, and did I mention the company is employee-owned??