Michigan........

[RetrieverNation]

They do if they want to keep their workers....that is my point. Obviously they need employees but employees need a fair wage. Left up to the companies that have unions they would not pay a fair wage. If they did with out the nudge of the union there would be no need for a union

Does a fair wage ever go down?

[Dan Storts]

No, the fair wage always increases. However, it is said fair because it really is unfair. Give me a dollar amount which is fair because it has to be to everyone. (UAW Union Rule 402) Do you really think the same 70k salary/income is going to be the same to a family of 4 living in North Dakota as to one living in New York City. Now, which family is better off financially?

[caryalsobrook]

WOW! The union is out of business??

You duped me once, rk, so I hesitate. I wish you had a "chain-jerking" smiley.

I actually enjoy people with differing opinions but it drives me nuts when they have a misunderstanding. Last night Brian Williams, on the NBC News, referred to "the people of Michigan no longer having to belong to a union as a condition of employment", perpetuating the same misunderstanding about RTW that is often voiced here. In his next sentence, he posted a graphic showing 17% of the state's workers were union members.

So what are you saying, Brian? That those other 83% of the workers in Michigan are breaking some sort of law?? Make yourself clear. Were the workers in Michigan required to belong to the union in order to work? Or only 17% of them?



So what's really changed in Michigan? How many of those 83% do you think would have organized a union if I had come to Michigan to open a business????? Should I have had to worry about that???

And how many of those 17% do you think will quit paying dues and drop out of the union now??? A few I suppose ... I'll stay tuned to Fox News. I'm sure they will be watching it closely.

Businesses locate in the south, not because they have RTW laws but because the business sentiment there is generally anti-union and the people are used to working for less. Granted the RTW status is an indicator, but the law itself has no real impact on whether the union will attempt to organize or not.

JS

You are more adept in quoting posts nd this is all that I could copy. I will probably surprise you in agreeing with most of what you say. There are some differences though in your conclusions.
Let me express my thoughts this way. Consumers want choice when buying goods and services. They want to those goods and services that give them the most value for their buck. Sellers want to restrice choice. They want to limit choice therefore reducing the level of competition. businesses are no different. Labor, capital goods, inventory, realestate, ect. are all costs of production and as such want the choice of purchasing these resources, getting the most for their buck. Why would you expect a union to buy a plaque from China? Answer is as a consumer, they wanted what they perceived as the most bang for their buck. Business would also like to create a manopoly of what they sell in order to limit choice. We as a gov. try to prevent this with laws. Unions do exactly the same thing. As a seller of labor they try to limit choice as to the supply of labor via manopolistic practices. Businesses try to hide their manopolistic position by broadening the definition of their product in order to avoid antitrust. Unions try to hide their manopolistic efforts by claiming higher wages, better work conditions, job security, ect. What you call the race to the bottom is really a race to the top. You talk about the lower wages in the south as the reason that businesses and ou are correct. What you fail to mention, is that the effects of reconstruction after the Civil War lasted more that 100 years. I will again cite the fantom freight cost of steel which hurt steel production in Ala. and protected steel production in Penn. Capitalists believe that free movement of those resources of production from one sector to another of an economy produces the biggest bang for the buck for the consumer. Union supporters tend to forget that labor is nothing more than one of the costs of prodduction and tend to restrict it's free movement from one sector to another. As you said geneally, if a business finds moe bang for their buck in another country and can move capital there then they will do so. To do otherwise would raise the cost of their product. I actually think that in the long run, Mich., Oh. and Wis as examples will be ok. All they have to do is recognize that they have to compete not only in the world market but here at home. When they do then, wages and jobs will stabilize in this contry. The only question is how nearsited they are.

By the way Ford is Best(I own a 150 and a 350) I also own a case tractor and I could care less where they were made of if the company was union or not. I just want the most bang for my buck.

[murral stark]

Murral, there you go again making assumptions. I never once said how I was paid prior to my last post and salaried employees can join a union (in specific fields) if they are inclined too.

Well if you are working in a bargaining unit represented by a union contract, and you can join the union and don't, you are a leech. that is if you are receiving the same wages and benefits as the union members. You need to put all the information out there that is relevant so I don't make assumptions. I interpret the information I am given. If you are hiding details how can I know for sure what to think. You are not really lying, just not revealing all of the details.

[Marvin S]

It does not follow that companies will lower their prices in conjunction with lower labor costs.

Businesses lower their prices to create or eliminate competition. If there is a monopoly, there is no reason to lower prices. Those with a superior product are the only ones with pricing power in a competitive field.

All I can say is John Deere is the best! JS

Of course you are joking . Were it not for farm subsidies, JD would be just a run of the mill farm equipment builder, if they survived. But I do believe they have astute management that recognize the situation.

Last night Brian Williams, on the NBC News, referred to "the people of Michigan no longer having to belong to a union as a condition of employment", JS

If that was the only time the "talking head" provided misinformation the world would be a better place. Brian isn't even the best in his own group @ NBC .

[mngundog]

Of course you are joking . Were it not for farm subsidies, JD would be just a run of the mill farm equipment builder, if they survived. But I do believe they have astute management that recognize the situation.

Come on Marvin your smarter than that.

[JS]

I'm learning there is a lot of chain-jerking on POTUS.

JS

[coachmo]

Murral, so now you're calling me a liar. Well somewhat of a liar. You are something else! What in the world do I need to lie about?

[murral stark]

Murral, so now you're calling me a liar. Well somewhat of a liar. You are something else! What in the world do I need to lie about?

I'm not calling you a liar at all. You started out saying you worked in a union environment and asked if you were considered a leech by not joining the union? that led me to believe you were piggy backing off the union negotiations to get the same benefits as the union members, you just didn't want to pay for the service. Don't ask misleading questions to make people think your situation is different than what it actually is. If I were to call you a liar, I wouldn't hide it with hints, I'd come right out and call you a liar. I am not calling you a liar, but you are a deceptive rascal.

[coachmo]

I work in an environment and in a field that has union and non-union workers. Not being deceptive about anything. Whatever you read into the situation is up to you. Remember you don't have to respond to my posts.