Janitorial Protesters in Houston

[TJones]

Whereas I agree with you that all unions are NOT bad. Look no further than your own Car company that you choose to patronize. You truck is being made HERE, in this very state, using NON union labor, and I think, I'll have to double check, that in Japan the same holds true, and look how productive they are, they get paid almost the same union scale and same benefits, but they don't have to come out of pocket to a UNION. I am guessing, that given the same option, maybe the American workers might be more productive, but if they slack off a bit, then no worries the UNION has their back. Whereas in Japanese companies, I think it is a matter of pride to make a better product. The bigwigs of the American big 3 want to make that product also, I just think the work ethic suffers in the realization of the final product.

There are so many factors on both sides, I am just going by seeing what my father had to deal with when he stopped the unions 3 times over at Flexitallic when he was running the show there, and my experience in the car biz.

Equal pay for equal work.

But it's more than that. The Houston jobs are part time. The other cities full time with benefits.

Kinda like what Metro is trying to do. They are only hiring new part time drivers and eliminating full time jobs with benefits.

I side with the unions. Metro and Hines know exactly what they are doing.

Way to take it out of context there Coog. How far will your $11 stretch in Zoo York ? I would bet dollars to doughnuts it is the same $5.15 here in Houston.

Edited October 26, 2006 by TJones

[TheNiche]

The suggestion that US corporations, especially the largest ones, are somehow at a disadvantage to a factory worker with a high school diploma is comical.

Ah, but that isn't a fair comparison. Union managment is usually extremely well-educated and well-paid...they have to be in order to go toe-to-toe with huge corporations. And with respect to automakers, we aren't talking about "a factory worker with a high school diploma" (singular)...we're talking about thousands of them. They're skilled workers too, unlike a janitorial staff, which can easily be replaced without a great deal of training.

There are extremes on both sides. Paying workers not to work is one extreme. Paying workers $5.15 an hour, with no insurance and part time hours is another.

No, the extremes are either paying them not to work or forcing them to work without pay...either is possible in particular legal environments.

To suggest that all unions are bad is just as ridiculous as saying all corporations are good. Outlawing unions simply because management fails to negotiate well is silly. A company that cannot negotiate should fail. In actuality, there are numerous examples of unions making concessions to enable the company to succeed. For some reason though, only the companies' crying over their bad negotiations gets the publicity.

That is an unlike comparison of entities. More accurately, you might have stated (though I doubt that you'd dare actually do so), "To suggest that all unions are bad is just as ridiculous as saying all [cartels] are good."

A company doing business in competitive markets against competitors that are non-unionized is already operating at a point in the long term where marginal costs equal marginal revenues, resulting in zero economic profit. If its cost structure is made less favorable than competitors as a result of unionization, then it will earn negative economic profits (and below-average accounting profits). Investors will shy away from this company because they can make better returns by investing in that company's non-unionized competitors; this forces the firm's cost of capital higher. In the short run, the economic impact is not readily apparent. But over the long term, the lack of (or more costly) investor support makes it difficult for the company to justify the same level of investment and plowback of resources into R&D as its competitors. The R&D gap compounds over the long term, most likely resulting in inferior goods and services offered to consumers.

A good set of management will realize that the unionized firm has fully matured and that it no longer has viable growth opportunities. Their reaction (barring a government bailout) will be to cease all new reinvestment and to milk the product line for all that its worth. Part of that milking process, btw, is the patriotic crap you see in TV ads...if they had a superior product, they'd advertise the product and not nationalism. As its competitors overtake the firm in terms of quality, the firm becomes more and more pressured by forces from the consumer and financial markets and it will eventually cave. But you've got to remember that this is a long and drawn out process. By the time most people notice, it is usually too late to do much of anything.

Equal pay for equal work.

But it's more than that. The Houston jobs are part time. The other cities full time with benefits.

Kinda like what Metro is trying to do. They are only hiring new part time drivers and eliminating full time jobs with benefits.

I side with the unions. Metro and Hines know exactly what they are doing.

You'd do the same thing if you had to put up with irrational labor laws. What Hines and METRO do is act as rational players in an irrational legal environment. If you want to blame somebody, look to congress.

[DJ V Lawrence]

I've been in downtown quite a bit over the past few days...

I've been noticing a large group of people, this is the only article that I've seen cover the protest.

Quite frankly, I think they deserve more money to be able to have a livable wage.

I wonder what City Council's going to do to clean this one up? After all, um, they gotta do it themselves now, right?...

[Guest danax]

Yes, let's put the blame where it really is. FEDERAL LAW, which you are so quick to quote, requires that all employers verify that the worker is legal PRIOR to hiring them. So, since American employers never violate federal law, we can assume that the protesting janitors are all legal. The demand for a decent wage is obviously being made by LEGAL workers, since American companies would not hire illegals, right? And, on the off chance that the employer did not verify status, you wouldn't be sticking up for one lawbreaker over another, would you?

As for Niche's argument that we should stiff these workers because we can, well, that is exactly why these workers should unionize and strike...to bring a little fairness to the table.

Both the employers and the illegals are to blame for the low wages, and the US for not doing enough about illegal entry and let's blame the sorry country of Mexico too for not dealing with their own economy effectively but rather taking the easy, parasitic approach of encouraging illegals and then trying to influence US policy to keep the Uncle Sam nipple available.

The unions have become a joke so they needed a new cause; organizing illegals, and I don't see how this effort will work. They are not against stopping the flow of illegals, so the supply of cheap labor will keep the wages low. No matter how hard they try to manipulate the free market, another illegal will always be there to undercut the "organized" one. Let's make it fair at least, and let the Asians and Africans come over in the same numbers as the Latinos and let em all compete.

Robert Shaw of the Harris County AFL-CIO Council in Houston is taking the "can't beat em, join em" approach. He admits voters may not like the idea of unions organizing illegal workers but he says unions have to help day laborers to keep the wage floor up, which affects all workers in America.

"We're having to deal with the wage floor," Shaw said, which in Houston has plummeted over the years. "It worries me to death."

[nmainguy]

Well, as usual, everyone has an opinion and very few have facts.

Some people can't rise much above janitorial service-for many reasons-but it's still valid work and still needs doing. Legal or illegal, 20 bucks a night with no benefits or health insurance in the wealthiest country in the world seems patently wrong.

I understand where TJ is coming from seeing how he sells cars on commission. But not all people are capable or any good at sales [i'd starve].

Red talks about shoddy manufacturing as a reason for Detroit's decline. Although we have a 98' F-150 with less than 60,000 miles and have never had a major problem, ALL my sisters and some of their kids with much newer US model cars from Cadillacs to Chevys seem to always have them in the shop while their foreign cars-Toyotas and Mercedes never see the shop except for routine maintenance. In reality, they are not all built the same. Shoddiness doesn't necessarily come from the unionized or non-unionized workers. Most times it comes from the top down in short-sighted decisions

danax tries to turn it into an immigration issue and ricco, coog and Red pulls him/her back to reality.

TJ offers the terrifying vision of he and Red drag racing in 35 years!!!

I have a pretty good idea what niche might be posting: unions bad!! free markets always good!! big and many words make me feel good!!!

When it comes down to employer-union relations, there should always be some give and take. Look at the flight attendant unions-they make concession after concession to keep their jobs and their bankrupt employers in business. No one is going out of business if these janitorial workers are paid a fair wage-everyone knows that. Since the disparity between the corporate welfare executive's compensation and the woman who cleans his executive toilet at night is so huge, maybe a little compassion and common sense may be in order.

Anyway, as Red said, I'd just like to see a little fairness brought to the table.

[TheNiche]

I have a pretty good idea what niche might be posting: unions bad!! free markets always good!! big and many words make me feel good!!!

Once again, you've misstated my argument. I do not like unions; I do not like cartels. Antitrust laws apply to cartels, but unions are legally protected. I'm in favor of enforcing the antitrust laws uniformly because unions and cartels are each market failures that must be corrected by non-market means. This is one reason why I'm not a card-carrying Libertarian...they're anarchists.

When it comes down to employer-union relations, there should always be some give and take. Look at the flight attendant unions-they make concession after concession to keep their jobs and their bankrupt employers in business. No one is going out of business if these janitorial workers are paid a fair wage-everyone knows that. Since the disparity between the corporate welfare executive's compensation and the woman who cleans his executive toilet at night is so huge, maybe a little compassion and common sense may be in order.

Airlines are probably a bad example to draw from. The only reason that most of them are able to stay afloat is from government subsidy.

No one is going out of business if these janitorial workers are paid a fair wage-everyone knows that. Since the disparity between the corporate welfare executive's compensation and the woman who cleans his executive toilet at night is so huge, maybe a little compassion and common sense may be in order.

Is forced compassion actually a form of compassion? And as for common sense, perhaps the maid should've...you know, not dropped out, gotten pregnant, learned English, or slacked off. If (and only if) she isn't happy with her standing in life, then shouldn't that have been common sense for her?

Edited October 27, 2006 by TheNiche

[westguy]

Whereas I agree with you that all unions are NOT bad. Look no further than your own Car company that you choose to patronize. You truck is being made HERE, in this very state, using NON union labor, and I think, I'll have to double check, that in Japan the same holds true, and look how productive they are, they get paid almost the same union scale and same benefits, but they don't have to come out of pocket to a UNION. I am guessing, that given the same option, maybe the American workers might be more productive, but if they slack off a bit, then no worries the UNION has their back. Whereas in Japanese companies, I think it is a matter of pride to make a better product. The bigwigs of the American big 3 want to make that product also, I just think the work ethic suffers in the realization of the final product.

There are so many factors on both sides, I am just going by seeing what my father had to deal with when he stopped the unions 3 times over at Flexitallic when he was running the show there, and my experience in the car biz.

Way to take it out of context there Coog. How far will your $11 stretch in Zoo York ? I would bet dollars to doughnuts it is the same $5.15 here in Houston.

I usually don't read Niche's posts, so I have no idea if anyone answered this. I looked no further than Wikipedia for one of your answers.

Distinguishing characteristics of the Japanese economy include the cooperation of manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and banks in closely-knit groups called keiretsu; the powerful enterprise unions and shuntō; cozy relations with government bureaucrats, and the guarantee of lifetime employment (shushin koyo) in big corporations and highly unionized blue-collar factories. Recently, Japanese companies have begun to abandon some of these norms in an attempt to increase profitability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan

[TheNiche]

I usually don't read Niche's posts, so I have no idea if anyone answered this.

Bastard.

[nmainguy]

I usually don't read Niche's posts

Same here except I never read them unless someone actually quotes him. Thank goodness for the ignore button.

BTW, your take on Japan is spot-on.

[TheNiche]

Same here except I never read them unless someone actually quotes him. Thank goodness for the ignore button.

If you don't mind my asking, are you, Westguy, and anyone else not reading my posts because 1) you disagree with me, 2) you don't understand the terminology, or 3) other [please explain]?

Just curious. Thanks.

[Montrose1100]

I think minimum wage should go up just because of inflation. I'm not saying $11.00 an hour, but it can't stay @ $5.15 forever... The "Put yourself in their shoes" makes it complex.

(Here comes the Hypocrite train~!)

Top executivess are greedy. They want as much money for them as possible. And by god if you have to squeeze every last cent out of the poor janitors & other workers' pay checks, then you do it. More money in your account. And why not? If the janitor bitches, you hire another one. You can do whatever you want, its your business, it should be run exactly as you want it to.

If I was making that much money, your damn right I would only pay them $5.15 an hour.

If I were the Janitor, I would demand for far much more money, $5.15 is 100% bull.

This is actually just a raw issue, and it shouldn't be complex.

[musicman]

danax tries to turn it into an immigration issue .

Well, in many ways it is ultimately an immigration issue. Houston is probably the most frequently sought after destination by immigrants south of the border. I have a teacher friend who graduated from college in the US but is a Panamanian citizen. He currently teaches in Panama for a small salary compared to here. He told me that he is actively pursing coming to Houston because HISD is the only school district who will help them gain their citizenship. It is evidently well known in the immigrant community about Houston and the ability to gain work.

He is striving to come here for the pay, just like the janitors. He is coming here so that he can send money back for his family, just like many immigrants.

It surprised me that the union would get involved with an issue like this with illegals. However i believe that the union stepped in because the wages of those that ARE legal are being suppressed because illegals will work for less. I"m not saying that it isn't good that they make more, however in Houston, you can always find people who will work for minimum wage.

[RedScare]

Ah, but that isn't a fair comparison. Union managment is usually extremely well-educated and well-paid...they have to be in order to go toe-to-toe with huge corporations.

If you are suggesting that corporate management is ignorant, I would be inclined to agree with you. In that case, I suppose the government should enact laws to protect them, just as they should enact laws to protect other ignorant Americans, such as economics students.

[TheNiche]

If you are suggesting that corporate management is ignorant, I would be inclined to agree with you. In that case, I suppose the government should enact laws to protect them, just as they should enact laws to protect other ignorant Americans, such as economics students.

Ok, joke's on me...

I can only assume at this point that you're just yanking my chain and taking sadistic pleasure in that I've been driven nuts over the topic. Otherwise, you wouldn't be acting so uncharacteristically insulting and would be able to make good well-thought-out points, like usual.

[KinkaidAlum]

Quite simply, it's a moral issue.

How anyone can try and argue that paying people $5.15 an hour, offering absolutely no benefits, and only hiring on a part-time basis is acceptable is beyond me. Especially when local companies like Hines do not treat their workers this way in other locales...

Of course, these same folks like to complain about rising crime rates, poor schools, extra burdens on the healthcare system, growing numbers of homeless people and a host of other social ills.

Connect the dots; morons.

[RedScare]

If you are suggesting that corporate management is ignorant, I would be inclined to agree with you. In that case, I suppose the government should enact laws to protect them, just as they should enact laws to protect other ignorant Americans, such as economics students.

I am only partially yanking your chain. I reject your contention that corporations must be allowed to maximize profits at all costs. The belief that unions are bad comes from the knowledge that a company cannot bully a group as easily as an individual. Consequently, corporations, being anti-competitive beasts, go out of their way to prevent workers gaining equal negotiating power. The right to free association being guaranteed by the Constitution, intelligent workers unionize. Ignorant ones, like Southerners who have bought into company propaganda, do not.

The economics matters not to me. I don't care how many theses you plop in front of me, well run companies survive and thrive, while paying their employees well. And, most importantly, employees have no obligation to the laws of ecomonics, just as companies do not. Companies spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress for favorable treatment, even though it may not be good for the country as a whole. There is no reason that employees should not band together to negotiate fair treatment for themselves as well.

You are opposed to unions. Good for you. I am in favor of unions, or any other group of individuals banding together to improve their negotiating power. I don't hear you complaining that Costco hurts the economy. I'll bet you did not refuse your health insurance on the basis that it provides you with an unfair advantage in medical care. And, NO ONE complains that corporations themselves should be disbanded, since they have banded together to compete more effectively in the marketplace. It is only the unions you oppose, and it is because you seek an unfair advantage over the employees. And, economics or no, I support the right of employees to seek to be treated fairly.

[dbigtex56]

If you don't mind my asking, are you, Westguy, and anyone else not reading my posts because 1) you disagree with me, 2) you don't understand the terminology, or 3) other [please explain]?

Just curious. Thanks.

If they're not reading your posts, how can they be expected to answer your questions?

Just curious. >

[musicman]

I am only partially yanking your chain. I reject your contention that corporations must be allowed to maximize profits at all costs. The belief that unions are bad comes from the knowledge that a company cannot bully a group as easily as an individual. Consequently, corporations, being anti-competitive beasts, go out of their way to prevent workers gaining equal negotiating power. The right to free association being guaranteed by the Constitution, intelligent workers unionize. Ignorant ones, like Southerners who have bought into company propaganda, do not.

The economics matters not to me. I don't care how many theses you plop in front of me, well run companies survive and thrive, while paying their employees well. And, most importantly, employees have no obligation to the laws of ecomonics, just as companies do not. Companies spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress for favorable treatment, even though it may not be good for the country as a whole. There is no reason that employees should not band together to negotiate fair treatment for themselves as well.

At the same time, if you don't like what they are paying then you have every right to move on. I tend to believe that for LARGE corporations, maximizing profits is the ultimate goal. Many companies do listen to employees via HR and various surveys i.e. how do you like your insurance, what changes would you like to see made, etc. And the company does respond at least mine did. I still think that in this case it isn't about what the illegals are making but that the legals want more. The uneducated tend to believe what they are told and I think that is why they are on strike.

Edited October 27, 2006 by musicman

[sevfiv]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061027/nyfv001.html?.v=1

"We have got a real problem about values in this country, when companies bloated by profit like Chevron won't even step in to make sure that people who sweep up after them can go to doctor when they get sick," said Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

also:

http://www.seiu.org/media/pressreleases.cfm?pr_id=1346

[MidtownCoog]

First time EVER that I have agreed with Queen Sheila.

[RedScare]

I tend to believe that for LARGE corporations, maximizing profits is the ultimate goal.

I tend to believe that for individual employees, maximizing profits is the ultimate goal.

Do you disagree? Would you agree that banding together with other employees to maximize profits is more effective than going it alone, especially knowing that you are expendable?

Why is it OK that corporations who find ways to increase profits are lauded, but employees who do so are ridiculed?

[MidtownCoog]

You can't maximize profits without your employees.

People should be a corporation's #1 assett.

[Orikal]

Distinguishing characteristics of the Japanese economy include the cooperation of manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and banks in closely-knit groups called keiretsu; the powerful enterprise unions and shuntō; cozy relations with government bureaucrats, and the guarantee of lifetime employment (shushin koyo) in big corporations and highly unionized blue-collar factories. Recently, Japanese companies have begun to abandon some of these norms in an attempt to increase profitability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan

I recently read a book regarding Japan's Confucian-based ethics, and it really is amazing.

If anyone's interested: Confucius Lives Next Door

[musicman]

I tend to believe that for individual employees, maximizing profits is the ultimate goal.

Do you disagree? Would you agree that banding together with other employees to maximize profits is more effective than going it alone, especially knowing that you are expendable?

Why is it OK that corporations who find ways to increase profits are lauded, but employees who do so are ridiculed?

of course everyone wants to make more. But i'm not sure whether the janitors who are illegal did this on their own or whether those that are legal who want to make more money are the instigators. I think that it has more to do with those who are legal who want more money but can't because the illegals are working for minimum wage which keeps the general janitor salaries lower.

If I was illegal I don't know whether i could demand more money like they are doing. being here illegally AND making demands? I personally am against illegals making demands.

[TheNiche]

The belief that unions are bad comes from the knowledge that a company cannot bully a group as easily as an individual. Consequently, corporations, being anti-competitive beasts, go out of their way to prevent workers gaining equal negotiating power. The right to free association being guaranteed by the Constitution, intelligent workers unionize. Ignorant ones, like Southerners who have bought into company propaganda, do not.

Unskilled workers don't have negotiating power. They're price takers because they exist in near perfect competition with other unskilled workers. The more skills and specialization that they have, the more negotiating power they gain...and nobody's keeping them from developing their skills.

Corporations are legally treated as individuals and are run by managers...human managers. So wouldn't companies and their managers then have the right to free association? And couldn't they collude to artificially raise prices to monopoly levels? How about that, just to keep a level playing field?

The South hasn't unionized very thoroughly, but then again, there's a reason that the Midwest is known as the rust belt. Unions are a big part of that.

The economics matters not to me. I don't care how many theses you plop in front of me, well run companies survive and thrive, while paying their employees well. And, most importantly, employees have no obligation to the laws of ecomonics, just as companies do not. Companies spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress for favorable treatment, even though it may not be good for the country as a whole. There is no reason that employees should not band together to negotiate fair treatment for themselves as well.

Economics is a study of human choice behavior and how that affects production, distribution, and allocation of scarce resources. It is not a system perscribed by law or custom. I apply economics not as a philosophy...because it isn't one...but as a predictive tool to assess the impacts that various policies will have. Policy is not a black box. It has far-reaching impacts. Ignore them because you weren't diligent in your application of logic and suffer the consequences.

Btw, just because campaign finance is a mess doesn't mean that another mess is warranted. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You are opposed to unions. Good for you. I am in favor of unions, or any other group of individuals banding together to improve their negotiating power.

OK. How would you like it if all the automakers got together and decided to raise their prices to monopolistic levels? Hey, they're only banding together to improve their negotiating power, right?

I don't hear you complaining that Costco hurts the economy.

Why would I? They're one firm, able to leverage cost savings through economies of scale. Nobody (sane) ever said that a firm is doing harm just because it is big.

I'll bet you did not refuse your health insurance on the basis that it provides you with an unfair advantage in medical care.

I don't carry health insurance. And to the extent that health insurance is considered part of a person's compensation package, it isn't an unfair advantage. That's just part of their pay...which is earned on the basis of their skill set.

And, NO ONE complains that corporations themselves should be disbanded, since they have banded together to compete more effectively in the marketplace.

Uh, now you're just full of it. Antitrust regulation prevents collusion and mergers that may result in monopolistic power. And the punishments for these crimes are severe.

It is only the unions you oppose, and it is because you seek an unfair advantage over the employees. And, economics or no, I support the right of employees to seek to be treated fairly.

No, I oppose unions and cartels. I've made that abundantly clear.

And I don't personally seek unfair advantage over employees because I am one. You should really try harder not to personalize arguments. It doesn't reflect well on your character.

Employees are treated fairly in the labor market. Believe it or not, they can make their own decisions. Of course, if you believe that fairly means that there should be no regulation preventing labor collusion, then surely you can accept that employers deserve to be treated "fairly" as well, right?

I tend to believe that for individual employees, maximizing profits is the ultimate goal.

This is correct. But how about getting a Diploma/GED and going to HCC? There is more than one way to negotiate for more money...and if one way happens to make you a more productive person, then isn't that preferable in society to a form of mob extortion?

[TJones]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061027/nyfv001.html?.v=1

"We have got a real problem about values in this country, when companies bloated by profit like Chevron won't even step in to make sure that people who sweep up after them can go to doctor when they get sick," said Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

also:

http://www.seiu.org/media/pressreleases.cfm?pr_id=1346

Maybe Sheila can drive them to the doctor in her Limosine that you and I pay for ?

Nmain, if Japan is taking steps to get away from Unionized "Cartels", then is it your belief also, that unions are NOT a good thing ?

I am gonna retract my statement about "not all unions are bad". They are, and I believe they are, unless the folks that feel they need the union in order to survive because they have no ability to speak for themselves, then by all means, join a union.

Edited October 27, 2006 by TJones

[RedScare]

Unskilled workers don't have negotiating power.

They do if they are unionized.

Antitrust regulation prevents collusion and mergers that may result in monopolistic power.

I was referring to the shareholders who pooled their resources to form the corporation.

No, I oppose unions and cartels. I've made that abundantly clear.

And I don't personally seek unfair advantage over employees because I am one. You should really try harder not to personalize arguments. It doesn't reflect well on your character.

Your opposition to unions and cartels is a personal one. My belief that unions allow those with lesser bargaining power to negotiate more equally is my opinion. BTW, lecturing one on the proper way to debate is akin to calling the kettle black. I have no opinion on your character, and do not care what your opinion is of mine.

This is correct. But how about getting a Diploma/GED and going to HCC?

This has no bearing on the right of the worker to join with others to negotiate for pay or benefits in his CURRENT condition. There is obviously a limit to what can be negotiated. If the worker desires to improve his jobset, that is his personal decision. If he does so, he will still be replaced by another worker who has the right to join a union to negotiate for better conditions.

BTW, corporations are NOT legally individuals. They exist only by statute, and have only the rights granted them by statute.

[westguy]

Maybe Sheila can drive them to the doctor in her Limosine that you and I pay for ?

Nmain, if Japan is taking steps to get away from Unionized "Cartels", then is it your belief also, that unions are NOT a good thing ?

They're moving from trade unions to illegal immigrants from China and SE Asia. Must be an inverse relationship between the two.

[TheNiche]

They do if they are unionized.

Not really. Auto-workers' unions are strong because the workers have a skill set that is not easily replacable. Finding a sufficient number of short-term scabs to keep operations running during the strike is very difficult. But when unskilled workers go on strike over jobs that don't require skills, there's effectively a limitless supply of scabs willing to undercut the unionists. So why would unskilled labor try to organize, and who profits from such a futile action? Union management, that's who...a bunch of damned profit maximizers looking to exploit the working poor.

I was referring to the shareholders who pooled their resources to form the corporation.

Your opposition to unions and cartels is a personal one. My belief that unions allow those with lesser bargaining power to negotiate more equally is my opinion. BTW, lecturing one on the proper way to debate is akin to calling the kettle black. I have no opinion on your character, and do not care what your opinion is of mine.

Weak analogy. A few day laborers can get together and open up a subcontracting business in the very same sense that wealthier folks can get together and start a hedge fund. The mechanism by which a firm is created is irrelevant insofar as that firm is operating within a competitive environment. When firms or labor colludes to destroy competition, that is illegal (for firms) and destructive (in both cases).

I brought it to the kettle's attention that it was black as it was the only way to be sure that it knew of its current condition. Perhaps it wanted to be purple or red with yellow polka dots.

This has no bearing on the right of the worker to join with others to negotiate for pay or benefits in his CURRENT condition. There is obviously a limit to what can be negotiated. If the worker desires to improve his jobset, that is his personal decision. If he does so, he will still be replaced by another worker who has the right to join a union to negotiate for better conditions.

I can accept in theory (but not in practice) that a worker has a right, if not necessarily the means, to organize as a union and engage in monopolistic wage fixing if you can accept in theory that firms and their owners/mgt. have a right, if not necessarily the means, to organize as a cartel and engage in monopolistic price fixing.

BTW, corporations are NOT legally individuals. They exist only by statute, and have only the rights granted them by statute.

They are treated as individuals, as well they should be. And their rights are not granted by statute, but are restricted by statute; that is, they can do anything that isn't illegal...just like individuals.

[TJones]

They're moving from trade unions to illegal immigrants from China and SE Asia. Must be an inverse relationship between the two.

Interesting, I didn't see that anywhere. I don't think that Toyota is using Chinese in their plant in San Antonio.