NRLB shuts down new $2 billion Boeing plant in SC.

[De Selby]

Mak, ok, so explain to me how union wages going down makes the rest of us more rich.  Jobs staying here at wages that compete with china isn't going to do it.  Money is still free to go overseas, where labor cant follow. 

Why would a company pay higher wages for productivity if workers don't have any options, and all the competing jobs also have low pay and no benefits?

 All I see here is people saying how unfair unions are.  I do not see a compelling explanation for how we get richer by busting the only counter balance workers have against government backed corporations(which all the large ones, like Boeing, are). 

[MicroBalrog]

All I see here is people saying how unfair unions are.  I do not see a compelling explanation for how we get richer by busting the only counter balance workers have against government backed corporations(which all the large ones, like Boeing, are). 

Not backing up with government force =/= busting.

[Perd Hapley]

Mak, ok, so explain to me how union wages going down makes the rest of us more rich.

 All I see here is people saying how unfair unions are.  I do not see a compelling explanation for how we get richer by busting the only counter balance workers have against government backed corporations(which all the large ones, like Boeing, are). 

More efficient use of funds, and more equitable prices (for labor in this case) are good for the economy, perhaps?

[gunsmith]

Tallpine, that's fine - but unions have played a role in keeping wages up.

Can someone please explain to me how America is going to be more prosperous without these evil unions?  All I see happening is wages and benefits go down.  Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't think of a single country in the world with a decent standard of living and weak or no unions.

Micro, America isn't either - racing to get rid of market protections for wage earners just makes people poor.  You need to start with the welfare queens on wall street if you want America to become anything other than a third world country with millions of wretched poor.

I was working as a motorcycle messenger in SF,CA the unions declared that only cars/trucks can be commercial vehicles, then the unions fined me hundreds of dollars a day, then the unions towed my motorcycle THEN i LIVED IN A FREAKING CAR

The unions also taxed the multinationals so much they stopped doing business in San Francisco.

The messenger union in SF also got three goons in the company I had been in for 15 yrs and decided to strike - they were rotten snotty kids of 19/20 who had never been in a union & had no idea about rules and regs- they told me I was a freaking SCAB! the nerve of those dirtbags! I had been at the job when they were in the 3rd grade.

I tried explaining that a scab was a replacement worker not someone who liked his job, his employer , the CLIENTS and got hired to replace them when they strike.

The three dirtbags only got 3 or 4 other jerks to join them, the rest of the 25 workers were guys older than thirty with kids to feed, NO LIE!! the freaking "union" put up posters that we were "GAY SCABS"... they never ever tried to have any meetings with the overwhelming majority of employees just a few of their dumb pothead friends, they got their union organizing tactics from a COMIC BOOK!  ...

Unions & their ilk have become nothing but a scheme for lazy wannabe commies and little hitlers.

the real goal of unions today is to end capitalism, end the Republic of the USA and usher in some strange fantasy about a workers paradise that would end up with them living in mansions while most of the rest of the world ends up in genocide.

[De Selby]

More efficient use of funds, and more equitable prices (for labor in this case) are good for the economy, perhaps?

Ok,  how?  Wages go down to be competiice with china.  What realistic price drop is going to account for the decline in wages and benefits?  Non union labor is not going to reduce energy, food, or medicine prices.  It will reduce pay though.

I cant see how this is of general benefit. It looks exactly like a recipe for most of the population having third world income status.

Micro, it is when the government helps companies move money around, and active prohibits workers from following the money.  The government also provides incredible financial support to corporations that let's them ride out hard times; workers get no such level of protection.  That's a huge bargaining advantage.

[KD5NRH]

Why would a company pay higher wages for productivity if workers don't have any options, and all the competing jobs also have low pay and no benefits?

If workers "don't have any options" it's only because they're too lazy and/or stupid to find or make those options.  I have no problem with those people going hungry.

Or do you deny that people are able to make good lives for themselves in non-union jobs?

[De Selby]

KdN, uh, no - workers cannot flee from country to country seeking out the most favorable conditions. Companies do that all the time, with government assistance. That's a significant imbalance in bargaining power.  Either companies should face the same travel rules as workers, or workers should be able to move on the same terms.

Most people in the united states will not benefit from the demise of unions.  The economy will not offer enough well paying jobs for most people.  Lots of professionals and tradesmen are finding this out the hard way.  The situation is getting worse.

What I can't see is how anyone believes that somehow wages will go up without unions.  So most people Are going to get poorer - that is a good thing how?

[KD5NRH]

So most people Are going to get poorer - that is a good thing how?

They can either starve or take it as encouragement to not be lazy and stupid.  You have yet to address how Texans are able to live well without unions.

[De Selby]

They can either starve or take it as encouragement to not be lazy and stupid.  You have yet to address how Texans are able to live well without unions.

Well, if you don't mind millions of people starving around you, youll be entirely happy with the course America is on. Myself, I'd rather not see it become a third world country.

It's easy to say "everyone who doesn't have a job is lazy and dumb", but guess what - a crap economy that offers no jobs and pay isn't up to you.  You don't get to determine that individually.

On Texas http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi?year=2009&type=county&state=48&areas=48000&variables=SA11N+SA11P&variables=SA31N+SA31P&variables=SA51N+SA51P&variables=SA71N+SA71P&variables=SA91N&display_data=Display+Data

17 percent of the population living below the poverty line and that's your economic success story?

[MicroBalrog]

Micro, it is when the government helps companies move money around, and active prohibits workers from following the money.  The government also provides incredible financial support to corporations that let's them ride out hard times; workers get no such level of protection.  That's a huge bargaining advantage.

This is an entire thread about how the government shut down a plant because it was opened in a right to work state. Does that sound to you like a free market solution, or like a government intervention on behalf of unions?

[KD5NRH]

Well, if you don't mind millions of people starving around you, youll be entirely happy with the course America is on. Myself, I'd rather not see it become a third world country.

It will be a third world country if the welfare leeches and unions get their way.

It's easy to say "everyone who doesn't have a job is lazy and dumb", but guess what - a crap economy that offers no jobs and pay isn't up to you.  You don't get to determine that individually.

It offers plenty of jobs and pay.  I've turned down two jobs and left one in the past year.  I guess my high school diploma makes me unfairly qualified or something.

17 percent of the population living below the poverty line and that's your economic success story?

The jobs are there.  It's a success for those who will work that those who won't work don't get to live at the same standards.

[RocketMan]

What I can't see is how anyone believes that somehow wages will go up without unions.  So most people Are going to get poorer - that is a good thing how?

What kind of fantasy land do you live in, SS?  For workers wages to increase requires a union?  Good grief, kid, where do you get this nonsense?
The best paying jobs with the best chances for advancement that I have had over my career have all been non-union jobs.  Were they doing something wrong?  Were they not supposed to have given me the raises I earned?

[De Selby]

What kind of fantasy land do you live in, SS?  For workers wages to increase requires a union?  Good grief, kid, where do you get this nonsense?
The best paying jobs with the best chances for advancement that I have had over my career have all been non-union jobs.  Were they doing something wrong?  Were they not supposed to have given me the raises I earned?

That is obviously not what I'm saying - CEO is a non-union job too.  But having lots of CEO jobs isn't a viable strategy for preventing mass impoverishment and declining standards of livings.  For jobs that in theory can employ most of the population, unions keep upward pressure on wages and benefits.  If companies don't have to offer higher wages or benefits to get the best workers, they won't.  It is patently obvious that benefits and decent pay are going the way of the dinosaur for most of the population.  

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how union busting improves standards of living.  Declining wages are rarely matched with commensurate price decreases - and then there's the issue of benefits and security.  

KD5, how do you explain the massive uptick in unemployment over the past five years?  Is that just lots of people deciding they're lazy when they weren't before? The idea is ridiculous.

This is of course in contrast to socialist paradises like Australia, where trade unionism means that welders and brick layers can demand wages that are up there with any of the best paying jobs.  How come this place isn't being destroyed by its high wages and competition from China, but the US is at lower pay rates, with fewer benefits, and higher unemployment?

[MicroBalrog]

Australia has some other advantages in terms of free markets.

Australia outranks the United States on the Index of Economic Freedom, scoring 3rd out of 179 nations ranked, whereas the United States ranks 9th.

[dogmush]

Ok,  how?  Wages go down to be competiice with china

You keep bringing this up as (I hope) hyperbole.  Why?  The rest of us are talking about bringing wages down to be competitive with South Carolina.  There's significant economic reasons that American workers make, and will continue to make, more money then workers in China.  

It should be telling that most of us with actual experience with unions find them to be less then helpful in today's job market, whereas folks that likely never met a union steward think they're necessary for our way of life.

If companies don't have to offer higher wages or benefits to get the best workers, they won't.

You can offer higher pay/benefits for the best workers without overpaying the worst/least skilled.  Unless it's a union shop.

It is patently obvious that benefits and decent pay are going the way of the dinosaur for most of the population.  

Not for those willing to work at a job.  Possibly the real problem is more of the population seems to think they shouldn't have to work.

[Perd Hapley]

More efficient use of funds, and more equitable prices (for labor in this case) are good for the economy, perhaps?

Ok,  how? 

I buy a lot of Boeing products.

[De Selby]

Australia has some other advantages in terms of free markets.

Australia outranks the United States on the Index of Economic Freedom, scoring 3rd out of 179 nations ranked, whereas the United States ranks 9th.

Right, so trade unionism can be used to counterbalance the advantages corporations get from state welfare a) without ruining overall economic freedom and b) effectively.

The problem with dismantling regulations that protect poor people and workers is that it leaves corporations, still backed by the state, with a HUGE market advantage.  The vast majority of the population has zero bargaining power against a corporation that will, no matter how bad things get, be bailed out with public funds.

I suspect that in the future, analysts will see the systematic failure of free market capitalists to attack corporate welfare as one of the main impediments to a free economy.  Starting out with unions and public welfare (which is what we did) only impoverishes large numbers of people; it does not make an economy free.

[makattak]

That is obviously not what I'm saying - CEO is a non-union job too.  But having lots of CEO jobs isn't a viable strategy for preventing mass impoverishment and declining standards of livings.  For jobs that in theory can employ most of the population, unions keep upward pressure on wages and benefits.  If companies don't have to offer higher wages or benefits to get the best workers, they won't.  It is patently obvious that benefits and decent pay are going the way of the dinosaur for most of the population.  

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how union busting improves standards of living.  Declining wages are rarely matched with commensurate price decreases - and then there's the issue of benefits and security.  

Sorry, I had to sleep. Allow me to explain.

As union wages go down (and union monopoly disappears through competition) jobs subject to union demands would return to the US. As I said before, a worker in China is not doing the same job as a worker in the United States. US workers command a higher pay because they are more productive. They are SKILLED labor versus unskilled, but cheap, Chinese labor.

As the price of skilled labor decreases, companies will move from using unskilled to skilled labor. (If you had two possible methods of building something and one of the methods became cheaper, what would you do?) As companies bring more of the formerly union jobs into the United States, they now must bid against companies employing skilled labor in other industries. As they do, the wages of those workers who were never in a union will go up.

Unions artificially restrict the supply of labor for the industry they organize. As a result, they increase the wages in that industry and decrease the wages in other industries. Ending the union will have the reverse effect.

[De Selby]

mak, here's the problem: 

As the price of skilled labor decreases, companies will move from using unskilled to skilled labor.

How exactly do we all end up better off if a few more of us are working, but we're all working for lower pay?  That was exactly my point.  The average income is going to decline as a result of this process.  It's entirely conceivable that we'll end up with societies that function like Thailand or Colombia, with millions of impoverished poor whose income from work doesn't yield much more than a malnourishing diet and ramshackle group housing.

Lower pay does not make the country a better place to live, even if it puts marginally more people to work.

[Perd Hapley]

It's entirely conceivable that we'll end up with societies that function like Thailand or Colombia, with millions of impoverished poor whose income from work doesn't yield much more than a malnourishing diet and ramshackle group housing.

Yeah, it's union thugs that are keeping us from that dreadful situation. 

[makattak]

mak, here's the problem:  
How exactly do we all end up better off if a few more of us are working, but we're all working for lower pay?  That was exactly my point.  The average income is going to decline as a result of this process.  It's entirely conceivable that we'll end up with societies that function like Thailand or Colombia, with millions of impoverished poor whose income from work doesn't yield much more than a malnourishing diet and ramshackle group housing.

Lower pay does not make the country a better place to live, even if it puts marginally more people to work.

Reading is fundamental.

As companies bring more of the formerly union jobs into the United States, they now must bid against companies employing skilled labor in other industries. As they do, the wages of those workers who were never in a union will go up.

Unions artificially restrict the supply of labor for the industry they organize. As a result, they increase the wages in that industry and decrease the wages in other industries. Ending the union will have the reverse effect.

[De Selby]

Yeah, it's union thugs that are keeping us from that dreadful situation. 

Imperfectly, yes.  The political process that administers labor laws also goes some way to preventing it.

mak, do you have any evidence of wages rising as union membership declined?  We have pretty significant declines over the past 30 years to go on. 

[makattak]

Imperfectly, yes.  The political process that administers labor laws also goes some way to preventing it.

mak, do you have any evidence of wages rising as union membership declined?  We have pretty significant declines over the past 30 years to go on. 

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

US Average Wages by year
1981 13,773.10
1982 14,531.34
1983 15,239.24
1984 16,135.07
1985 16,822.51
1986 17,321.82
1987 18,426.51
1988 19,334.04
1989 20,099.55
1990 21,027.98
1991 21,811.60
1992 22,935.42
1993 23,132.67
1994 23,753.53
1995 24,705.66
1996 25,913.90
1997 27,426.00
1998 28,861.44
1999 30,469.84
2000 32,154.82
2001 32,921.92
2002 33,252.09
2003 34,064.95
2004 35,648.55
2005 36,952.94
2006 38,651.41
2007 40,405.48
2008 41,334.97
2009 40,711.61
 
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/u-s-_labor_union_participation_rate_dips_to_12_13482.aspx

The union membership rate has steadily declined from 20.1% in 1983, the first year for which comparable data are available, the agency said.

Now, of course correlation =/= causation but we've had a steady decline in union participation and a steady increase in the average wages in the U.S. One would need to control for other factors to see the effect of declining union membership on the average wage across the economy, but ceteris paribus, I'm betting there's a correlation. Let me see if anyone else has run those numbers.

[De Selby]

Wait a second there - you're using straight dollar amounts.  How do those work out adjusted for inflation as a percentage increase? Those numbers look fairly dismal in that light, off hand

[makattak]

Wait a second there - you're using straight dollar amounts.  How do those work out adjusted for inflation as a percentage increase? Those numbers look fairly dismal in that light, off hand

Adjusting them is going to be hard as the formula for CPI has changed and I think it is far underestimating inflation right now. Likely already been done using CPI, though.