owning the means of production
Some workers decided to unite and fight their employer for unfair labor practices. They won. So, the owner shut the place down.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 9th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Ha! Ha!
July 9th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Am I a bad person/evil capitalist if I got extreme satisfaction out of this?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Nothing new hear. Union members refuse to face the realities that companies are in business to make money, not to provide them with jobs and health care and plasma screen TV’s. Go on strike to force the company to pay (continue to pay in this case) them more than their production is worth. Company closes rather than stay in business and lose money.
Something similar happened to my dad back in the 80’s. His factory went to a “closed shop” and everyone had to join the union or get fired. Then the union went on strike demanding increased pay and benefits. Company couldn’t make money and pay what the union demanded so they closed the factory. Didn’t sell the factory which would have maintained at least some of the jobs…moved all the equipment to Florida and turned the empty building into a warehouse.
Over 400 jobs gone because of union greed.
Actually, they weren’t really gone…several people packed up and followed their old job to Florida, where they worked for less pay and benefits, but at least they had a job.
But, hey…the union could hold it’s head high because they didn’t give in, right?
In this case, the fact that the union won an “unfair labor practices” suit against the company speaks volumes to how hostile the business environment is in states like New York. Expect to see more of this…which will only hurt the authoritarian regimes like New York, New Jersey, California, et al and will help “right to work” states like Virginia as those manufacturing concerns move to places a bit more amenable to business.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Wikipedia doesn’t say so, but local historians in Philadelphia will tell you that this is how Atwater Kent, at the time the world’s largest electronics firm, closed its doors. Mr. Kent locked the gate, walked away, and did not look back.
So you shouldn’t have to ask, as you thumb the remote of the eight-foot flat screen in the cabin in Galt’s Gulch, whose trademark is on it.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Bwahahaha! I think the union my brother works for, and the company – are the same thing. Current workers are paying for the retirement of their predecessors – and their health care and plasma screen TV’s. It’s a pyramid scheme. As the industry and technology change, demand for their production and even means of production has diminished at the price they formerly enjoyed.
They have difficulty recruiting new “members” since the work itself and work-environment is brutal, and they must have had to reduce new-guy wages to cover old-guy costs while meeting decreasing bid-prices for their product since they can’t actually force anybody to buy an over-priced, low-technology product and they’re now probably competing heavily with offshore non-union labor.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I’ve seen the same thing twice in the little podunk place I grew up. A garment plant closed up and shipped the jobs to Guacamole when the union, who had a catchy little jingle- ‘look for…the union label…’ decided management was being eeeevil.
The other plant was the largest US manufacturer of ceramic plumbing products. The workers went out on a nasty strike for about a year, production was completely shut down, and then the ownership decided their Mexican subsidiary could handle the underperforming human casters yet state-of-the-art kilns workload. That little stunt put about 600 folks who were throwing clay for about 20% over minimum wage for the last 30 years onto the street with a defunct skill set.
Seems like a really good lesson- don’t limit your spceialty skill set, and don’t unionize. Buggy whip braiders, untie! (sic)
Regards,
Rabbit.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
This is like that scene in Life of Brian…What have Unions EVER done for us? Health insurance, 8 hour day, weekends, worker’s comp, safety standards…yeah, yeah, but besides all THAT…what have Unions EVER done for us!? NOTHING!
July 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
But in recent years (illustrated here and by GM), they seem to take it a bit too far. Because now they want ponies and magic pixie dust.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Unions once served a valuable function. I’m not convinced that many of the reforms that they forced wouldn’t have happened anyway over time, but they did accomplish some good reforms probably sooner than they would have occurred on their own.
But to contend that their past accomplishments somehow justifies their current excesses is a bit inane.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
the union acts like a bunch of thugs by holding a business hostage… then they are shocked when the business owner acts like a business owner and tells them to piss up a rope…
July 9th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Well, as you said, a lot of things.
However, they are also doing a lot of things that are completely unecessary, damaging countless companies, and potentially beating the gos-se out of our economy.
Resting on your laurels is great and all, but smoking in bed is strongly discouraged.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
If unions understand business so well, why don’t they *build* businesses and run them themselves? But unions don’t build businesses, do they. At best, they simply take them over.
That should tell you all you need to know about unions.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
In a situation where labor is undifferentiated (one worker is as good as any other, given “table stakes” things like showing up on time and sober, not stealing, etc.), it may actually be to management’s/ownership’s advantage as well as labor’s to bargain collectively with the workers. If noting else, it could save time.
It is government intervention, in the form of the NLRA, that is the mischief. To be sure, government intervention on behalf of management/ownership against the workers (Party says your industry is essential and you cannot strike) would be equally so.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
In a situation where labor is undifferentiated (one worker is as good as any other, given “table stakes” things like showing up on time and sober, not stealing, etc.), it may actually be to management’s/ownership’s advantage as well as labor’s to bargain collectively with the workers.
The problem is that labor IS ALWAYS differentiated. One worker is NEVER “as good as any other”. Some workers are more capable, skilled, intelligent or productive than others. Unions suppress productivity by discouraging “stand out” behavior. You’re going to get paid union wages no matter how hard you work…why bother busting your butt (other than for personal integrity) when you have no possibility of reaping any greater rewards than the guy sleeping in the corner all day?
There’s another aspect as well that came into play in my father’s case. He opposed the union and only joined after he was forced to. He opposed them from the get-go even through the promises of higher pay and better benefits; he’d seen unions in action in previous a work environment (and he paid the price for his opposition, but that’s a whole ‘nother rant (or two, or three)).
The union won and the factory went to a “closed shop” despite his objections. What did the union do for him? He actually had to take a pay cut.
My mother was a school teacher and had better medical benefits than the factory offered. By being able to negotiate independently, my father declined medical benefits from the factory and, in return, negotiated a higher salary. He also was a very hard worker and demanded (and got) a premium for his effort.
When he was forced to join the union, he was forced to accept the union negotiated medical benefits (which he never used) and salary rate…which was lower than what he had been getting.
The union also cost him vacation time too. Before the union, their vacation time didn’t include sick days. Basically, if you were sick, as long as you brought in a doctor’s note, you were paid for the time off. If you didn’t have a note, you didn’t get paid and it was a black mark on your record.
Union members didn’t like having to prove they were sick. The plan they negotiated included X number of sick days with no doctor’s note required, but reduced the number of vacation days. That way, up to the max number of sick days per year, they could just call in whenever they felt like it and didn’t have to worry about repercussions.
Well…my father was too honest to take a sick day if he wasn’t sick…and he rarely got sick, so the end result for him was that his paid time off was effectively reduced by the number of sick days he didn’t take (which was pretty much all of them).
In summary, the union (initially) did a great job of helping the lazy, incompetent and dishonest. Helping the productive, competent and honest? Not so much. And ultimately, it cost them all their jobs.
Sorry for ranting about this. It’s a bit of a sore spot with me in case you can’t tell.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:08 am
This is like that scene in Life of Brian…What have Unions EVER done for us? Health insurance, 8 hour day, weekends, worker’s comp, safety standards…yeah, yeah, but besides all THAT…what have Unions EVER done for us!? NOTHING!
A common myth, and a wrong one that carefully avoids just who the “us” really is in “what have unions really done for us”?
Unions (thanks to the Wagner Act) artificially drive up labor costs. Higher prices = reduced demand = higher unemployment and an overall reduction in the standard of living for the rest of us.
If you’re lucky enough to be higher up in the pyramid (i.e. have more “seniority”), you reap the most; for those at the bottom — the unemployed youth and non-union workers — you’re out of luck.
That’s how collectivism works, folks; some of us are more equal than others.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:15 am
If unions understand business so well, why don’t they *build* businesses and run them themselves? But unions don’t build businesses, do they. At best, they simply take them over.
And that’s the second big issue with union “gains”: we work 8 hour days today because industry is successful enough in creating wealth for them to afford such terms. Without that fact, there would be no “Gains” to be had.