IBCoupe wrote:szh wrote:It assumes the wrong thing as its premise: that corporations are always out to screw their employees all the time, without qualms, without any concerns whatsoever, no morals, etc.
This may have been true a hundred+ years ago with some "families" owned/run large entities - when unions were created to protect employees and poor working conditions - but there are simply too many other checks and balances (including employment competition in most good times, Federal and state laws, etc.) for this to be true today.
Corporations aren't always out to screw their employees, and I didn't say they were. They are, on the other hand, always out to maximize profits - though this often manifests itself in different ways. I know this because a corporation is established for two reasons: first, to generate gain for its shareholders; second, to shield its shareholders from liability. Most corporations, even most large corporations, are still closely-held family businesses (e.g., Cargill, Ford Motor Company). That hasn't changed, and that's not why unions were "created," anyways.
The checks and balances that are in place establish a floor, you're right, but that's all they do. Federal and State laws establish the things that society considers to be criminal not to do. Employee competition is dependent upon a great many variables, including the health of the American economy.
Ummm ... sorry, no, I was not accusing you of saying that about Corporations. It is more of a general mind-set that people seem to have.
Yes, your points about maximizing profits is right, of course. But, the landscape has changed - what used to be extremely bad labor conditions situations (often done by family-owned businesses ... hence my reference to those) did indeed cause unions to come into existence.
Today for example, Ford (among others) could NOT get away with the excesses that they DID do in the early part of the last century. Simply not possible because of a far more powerful government and better protections for employees in general.
Again, I am not saying that unions do not have a purpose - they certainly do. But those needs have evolved over the past many decades. Unfortunately, the unions don't seem to realize that their approach needed to evolve too.
My advice to unions: protect your members - collectively, as needed - from unreasonable excesses, yes. But, don't ask for more than the norm that employers and employees are following today.
IBCoupe wrote:szh wrote:Yet, in such battles (union ones in particular), the corporations are always cast as the devil, who is only looking after their own profit interests, without any concern for their employees, etc., etc., etc.
Well, in this case, I'm not doing any of that, etc., etc., etc. I'm not villainizing corporations; I'm simply describing the interests of the
employer. Please try to respond only to things I've actually written.
Again, I was not accusing
you of saying that, so please do not read my comments that way. It is a position that unions do seem to believe, I think.
And, I have had people tell me the above (maybe it is a California hippie thing?
), so legitimate for me to raise it in general.
Perhaps it is simply "rabble-rousing" rhetorical methods on their part. What they don't get is this kind of posturing is outdated and no longer useful. Fortunately, John Q. Public has educated themselves enough to understand that (or so I hope anyway!).
Z
This is the point I made earlier in this thread too.
And, they can choose to do so too.
