USPS paying people $25/hour to do nothing, unions, etc

[Moxie]

Labor union - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members' interests in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditions

This is a thread about the USPS,

More than once in the past people on here have made specific criticisms of companies, which has lead to you pointing out that companies themselves are not the problem, but that it is the governments and such giving them unfair advantages, which has then lead the thread off into that direction.

Whether it is complaints about Walmart, the health care industry or whatever else, when people call them greedy and say other bad things about them, you will point out that they are acting in their own self-interests and place the ultimate blame elsewhere. We're pointing out the same thing about unions.

 

[greenleaves]

@ guerilla,

You posted:

A union is a labor cartel.

This is incorrect. It doesn't have to be. You are the one using a non standard definition of the word. Read the definition which are you fighting about. We have given you the links.

Your argument is like saying oil companies by definition are part of a cartel. Many times they are part of a cartel, but not all the time; and the definition of an oil company does not necessitate that it be part of a cartel. Again, my whole point, is your applying the logical fallacy of Faulty generalizations.

Now... if you would have said government sponsored labor unions in the US are basically a labor cartel, I wouldn't have said nottin'

And regarding luke, I get the feeling that he is way smarter than he comes off. But aggression and arrogance can make a good point come off in such a way that it undermines the point to the degree that the original good point is lost. (I know what that is like, it happens to me; I'm also overly aggressive... I think it is the whole pent up working all day thing that gets to me :$)

 

[lukep]

Anyone that doesn't believe that Unions are at their very core the embodiment of Communism itself doesn't understand what Communism is at all.

But even more importantly;

Anyone that doesn't see that Businesses (which ONLY flourish under Capitalism) are severely restricted and in the long term Destroyed by union communism, is only fooling him or herself.

A union on a business is exactly like a Leech on a dog. It won't suck the dog dry immediately, but the lifespan of the dog is shortened the longer the leech stays in place.

To form a union is a roundabout way of making that company file for bankruptcy.

(Nobody is saying however which companies deserve this deadly disease. Ford certainly did, judging by its' long-term history.)

I get the feeling that he is way smarter than he comes off. But aggression and arrogance can make a good point come off in such a way that it undermines the point to the degree that the original good point is lost. (I know what that is like, it happens to me; I'm also overly aggressive... I think it is the whole pent up working all day thing that gets to me :$)

Me too. We are a lot alike... I always wondered why you seemed to have it in for me.

 

[guerilla]

More than once in the past people on here have made specific criticisms of companies, which has lead to you pointing out that companies themselves are not the problem, but that it is the governments and such giving them unfair advantages, which has then lead the thread off into that direction.

How is that relevant?

I have asked you more than once to specifically point out where I am being hypocritical. Be precise.

Whether it is complaints about Walmart, the health care industry or whatever else, when people call them greedy and say other bad things about them, you will point out that they are acting in their own self-interests and place the ultimate blame elsewhere. We're pointing out the same thing about unions.

Greed is natural for everyone, union, politician, businessman or clergyman.

It's called rational self interest.

That however doesn't mean that violence has the same moral authority or character as voluntary trade.

 

[guerilla]

This is incorrect. It doesn't have to be. You are the one using a non standard definition of the word. Read the definition which are you fighting about. We have given you the links.

"We have given you links"

I have asked you to define your terms. It is not an unreasonable request for you to define clearly what you are talking about. If you continue to avoid defining your terms, then we can't have a discussion. It's a complete waste of time.

A. You're wrong.
B. No, you're wrong.

I am not interested in discussions like that.

Your argument is like saying oil companies by definition are part of a cartel.

Fallacy of composition bro. OPEC is a cartel.

Now... if you would have said government sponsored labor unions in the US are basically a labor cartel, I wouldn't have said nottin'

What is the USPS? Can you name any unions in the US who are not government sponsored?

Look, you guys aren't even scratching the economic argument, let alone the historical record. You and Moxie both want a semantic argument, and I am trying to resolve it by asking you guys to back up your claims with a definition of terms. It is ridiculous that I have to keep asking for that if you are both interested in a serious discussion, and not trying to score points or troll.

 

[erect]

I was just in the post office, was in line 20 minutes, they suck. Let them fail.

It's ironic, I'm on the other end of the spectrum (in/out @ PO in 2 minutes) but it equally pisses me off the waste. Go to the DFA (driver's license place) and they've got 3 employees for every person in there renewing.

I lived through public sector failure in memphis (MILLIONS of lost work hours per year) ... in arkansas the problem is just as bad on the waste end.

 

[greenleaves]

Labor union - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members' interests in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditions

Twice the meaning of labor union has been posted. This makes it the 3rd time.

No where in the definition does it say it is a cartel. Just like an oil company doesn't have to be by definition a cartel.

 

[guerilla]

No where in the definition does it say it is a cartel. Just like an oil company doesn't have to be by definition a cartel.

An absence of proof isn't proof. Another fallacy of composition.

Can you explain how unions are not cartels?

I will solve this debate although I thought I had earlier and Moxie ignored it.

Any union which utilizes any aggression or government privilege, or violates property rights, or the free right to disassociate, is immoral and economically damaging. And all unions are cartels.

That is my clear statement. Debate it, I won't debate anything else until you and Moxie offer a substantive statement on the activity and effects of unions.

 

[greenleaves]

Any union which utilizes any aggression or government privilege, or violates property rights, or the free right to disassociate, is immoral and economically damaging. And all unions are cartels.

We are only disagreeing about the last part, that all unions are cartels.

Can you explain how unions are not cartels?

How about open shop places. In that case unions are not cartels. As an employer of a place with an open shop union, you can hire union and non-union employees:

An open shop is a place of employment at which one is not required to join or financially support a union (Closed shop) as a condition of hiring or continued employment. Open shop is also known as a Merit Shop.

Open shop vs closed shop
See also: Closed shop

A closed shop is a form of union security agreement under which the employer agrees to only hire union members, and employees must remain members of the union at all times in order to remain employed.[1] The closed shop system ceded great power to union representatives over an organisation's workforce. In many workplaces that were closed shops, personal connections with union decision makers by dint of friends or family were required by an outsider to gain employment.

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

You are talking about a specific type of union as if it was representative of all unions types. Hense, a faulty generalization.

 

[papajohn56]

shady business, what's up with that?

It runs in the family :anon.sml:

 

[guerilla]

How about open shop places. In that case unions are not cartels.

Non sequitur. A cartel doesn't have to be a monopoly.

All unions are cartels.

 

[greenleaves]

Non sequitur. A cartel doesn't have to be a monopoly.

All unions are cartels.

I think you are the one using non standard language:

a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices

Cartel - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I don't see how an open shop is designed to limit competition among employees. I can see how a closed shop would do that.

Other definitions of the word cartel do include monopoly:

American Heritage
Cultural Dictionary
cartel [(kahr- tel )]

An association in which producers of a similar or identical product try to obtain a monopoly over the sale of the product.

 

[guerilla]

I don't see how an open shop is designed to limit competition among employees. I can see how a closed shop would do that.

Fix prices. THE reason to limit competition.

Other definitions of the word cartel do include monopoly:

And make my argument. Thank you.

 

[Moxie]

How is that relevant?

I have asked you more than once to specifically point out where I am being hypocritical. Be precise.

What's so confusing?

Bob : "Orange farmers suck. These oranges are deformed."
Joe : "That's the government's fault. They forced them to be sprayed with chemicals."

Joe : "Apple farmers suck. These apples are deformed."
Bob : "Isn't that mostly the government's fault?"
Joe : "How are you defining apple farmers? Apple farmers deform fruit. Please provide to me a scientific treatise proving otherwise."

That however doesn't mean that violence has the same moral authority or character as voluntary trade.

The dictionary definition of labor union does not require violence anymore than it requires for it to exist in a company.

Any union which utilizes any aggression or government privilege, or violates property rights, or the free right to disassociate, is immoral and economically damaging.

Not all unions utilize those things. How much of those activities does the NBA players union partake in?

And all unions are cartels.

OPEC might be a cartel, and so would Walmart joining up with Target and others. If that happened would you complain about companies?

 

[greenleaves]

guerilla
Can you explain how unions are not cartels?

greenleaves
How about open shop places. In that case unions are not cartels. As an employer of a place with an open shop union, you can hire union and non-union employees ... You are talking about a specific type of union (closed shops) as if it was representative of all unions types. Hense, a faulty generalization.

guerilla
Non sequitur. A cartel doesn't have to be a monopoly. All unions are cartels.

greenleaves
cartel [(kahr- tel )]
An association in which producers of a similar or identical product try to obtain a monopoly over the sale of the product.

guerilla
And make my argument. Thank you.



Did I mis something?

 

[guerilla]

The dictionary definition of labor union does not require violence anymore than it requires for it to exist in a company.

I am not talking about dictionaries, I am talking about unions.

Not all unions utilize those things. How much of those activities does the NBA players union partake in?

You tell me.

Also, please name some unions which don't meet the criteria I posted above.

OPEC might be a cartel, and so would Walmart joining up with Target and others. If that happened would you complain about companies?

Am I complaining about unions?

I think they are stupid and irrational. I don't deal with them anymore, and I don't think they will be around for a lot longer.

Cartels are stupid, regardless of who does it. It's economic lunacy.

You and Greenleaves trying to catch me in a sin of omission, or implying it is a sin of commission is just lame. I have stood for the same things consistently, and feel I can make a serious economic argument for why I take those stands.

You're both welcome to have different values than I do, but I don't think a meaningful argument can exist where we have two sets of facts.

As an aside, I find it irritating that you keep appealing to some argument I may have made somewhere else sometime, without sourcing it. It leaves me at a disadvantage to understand the context you are trying to apply when you accuse me of hypocrisy. I am always against the state, against violence, and always for property rights.

That doesn't change if it is a business or a union or any other organization or individual.

 

[guerilla]

Did I mis something?

I believe so.

All unions are cartels. Cartels are stupid. Cartels real negotiating power comes from violence, either direct or indirect. Labor cartels almost always have to organize through a violation of property rights, again, protected as a "right" through violence.

In a cartel, the incentive for individual cartel members is to always undermine the cartel if they have the opportunity to do so. A union typically uses the threat of violence or [sic] law to keep members and outside parties in line. If you are a good worker, there is no incentive for

1. You to collectively bargain with lesser workers

2. The firm to collectively bargain with lesser workers for your services.

There is a reason why white collar workers don't have unions. They don't need it because they are productive, and they don't have to use collective bargaining or violence as leverage tactics to earn more than the market rate of labor.

If you understand market economics, you understand that labor is just another factor of production, and it is competitive. Where labor if valuable (skilled and productive) it will be bid up by competing firms, and where it is less valuable or in greater supply than demand, it will be bid down, until some sort of quasi-equilibrium will be met.

Unions seek to circumvent the market process, and even with an open shop, negotiate for everyone. That prevents individual workers from negotiating for themselves, because the collective in collective bargaining only works if everyone is in, even if everyone doesn't want to be in.

I know of enough union violence against people and property to have a bad taste in my mouth from such an organization. I know there are nicer unions, like the IWW, but they still seek to circumvent competition and replace the price system with threats.

A civilized world can't come about until people understand what makes peace work, and it isn't threatening someone to pay you more, or threatening to beat up replacement workers. It can come from people understanding that where there is no demand for their labor at a higher wage, they need to create their own employment, or enhance the productivity of their labor.

Frankly, this entire line of reasoning strikes me as very socialist, and I had you pegged for a capitalist. Don't think the state or its darker sides aren't also prevalent in big labor. What makes the state dangerous and crazy is that it uses violence instead of cooperation, and those attributes exist in some businesses and unions as well.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

 

[greenleaves]

Guerrilla, you seem to be making your point ad nauseum.

You say: All unions are cartels.

I proved to you that they are not all cartels. Open shop unions allow the owner to hire non union workers. Open shop unions DO NOT try to create a monopoly on the market. Therefore, they are not a cartel.

Then you try to point out that cartels don't have to be monopolies. When I point out they sorta do, then you say I made your point?

When all this is pointed out, you basically say 'well I have seen some unions that act in xyz manner, therefore all unions act that way'. This is a fallacy of faulty generalization.

I'm an employer, and I wouldn't hire a union worker. So in general I agree with you. But you are generalizing far too much. Like people who bash companies because some engage in 'evil conduct'. It just doesn't work.

 

[greenleaves]

I know of enough union violence against people and property to have a bad taste in my mouth from such an organization.

And the logical fallacy of faulty generalizations is what exactly?

I've herd plenty of racist say:
All black people are animals, I've seen them act that way enough to know this.

Arguing with you on this topic is very much like arguing with them. No matter how much you prove they are engaging in a faulty generalization, they will not admit it. They just keep pointing out how some black people act like animals.

 

[jbubs1975]

There is a reason why white collar workers don't have unions. They don't need it because they are productive, and they don't have to use collective bargaining or violence as leverage tactics to earn more than the market rate of labor.

Teachers are white collar workers. Doctors have the AMA , lawyers have the ABA, both are basically unions, they just call them associations.