Union emasculaton a good thing?

Originally posted by rwingett
Did you even stop to consider the example of Mondragon's cooperative bank (Caja Laboral) that I mentioned? The purpose for their existence is not to maximize profits, but to help foster the start up of other cooperatives. And it has been very successful in that regard.

It may be that fewer businesses will be started, but fewer will also go bankrupt. Wor ...[text shortened]... ferent paradigm that does not necessarily follow the rules of your standard business models.

The purpose of any company/non-profit/organization no matter who owns it is to serve a customer, not to provide employment or 'serve the cause' or 'promote well-being' or any other nebulous thing.

Whosoever serves the customer best will tend to survive and, incidentally, provide the most employment. And of course the twin pillars of serving the customer are a good business model and motivated employees.

To the extent that unions produce more motivated employees (even over managers objections who did not believe this was important!!!), they will help a business. To the extent that unions produce less motivated employees, they will hurt the business.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's a pity about Stalin.

While Trotsky certainly would not have been as bad, it probably would only have been a matter of degree.

Originally posted by rwingett
While Trotsky certainly would not have been as bad, it probably would only have been a matter of degree.

Have you read Michael Moorcock? His Pyat series in particular has much to offer the October 1917 aficionado.

Originally posted by spruce112358
The purpose of any company/non-profit/organization no matter who owns it is to serve a customer, not to provide employment or 'serve the cause' or 'promote well-being' or any other nebulous thing.

Whosoever serves the customer best will tend to survive and, incidentally, provide the most employment. And of course the twin pillars of serving the custo ...[text shortened]... ss. To the extent that unions produce less motivated employees, they will hurt the business.

If both models serve the customer equally well, then the cooperatively owned one is clearly preferable.

Originally posted by rwingett
Permanent Revolution: Leon Trotsky

"Leon Trotsky, who spent much of his time during World War I playing chess in Vienna’s Cafe Central, was regarded by his acquiantances as simple, harmless, even slightly pathetic. During his exile Trotsky was known under his real name Bronstein.

In March 1917, the Austrian foreign minister was notified by an excited subordinate that a revolution had broken out in Russia. “Russia is not a land where revolutions break out,” the minister skeptically snorted. “Besides, who on earth would make a revolution in Russia? Perhaps Herr Bronstein from the Cafe Central?”"

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Have you read Michael Moorcock? His Pyat series in particular has much to offer the October 1917 aficionado.

No, I have not. Tell me more.

Originally posted by rwingett
If both models serve the customer equally well, then the cooperatively owned one is clearly preferable.

To whom? God?

If customers are served equally well, then the contest is decided by other factors.

Originally posted by spruce112358
"Leon Trotsky, who spent much of his time during World War I playing chess in Vienna’s Cafe Central, was regarded by his acquiantances as simple, harmless, even slightly pathetic. During his exile Trotsky was known under his real name Bronstein.

In March 1917, the Austrian foreign minister was notified by an excited subordinate that a revolution had ...[text shortened]... ho on earth would make a revolution in Russia? Perhaps Herr Bronstein from the Cafe Central?”"

Russia was not the land where revolution should have broken out. According to Marxist theory, it should have been in a more industrially advanced country (West to East). Part of the point of Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution was to explain that away by providing a rationale as to why revolutions seemed to be breaking out in the least developed countries (East to West).

Originally posted by rwingett
No, I have not. Tell me more.

About to fall asleep.

I can't find anything that remotely does the Pyat Quartet any justice, but this might do: http://lit.newcity.com/2012/08/20/fiction-review-byzantium-endures-the-first-volume-of-the-colonel-pyat-quartet-by-michael-moorcock/

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
About to fall asleep.

I can't find anything that remotely does the Pyat Quartet any justice, but this might do: http://lit.newcity.com/2012/08/20/fiction-review-byzantium-endures-the-first-volume-of-the-colonel-pyat-quartet-by-michael-moorcock/

Sounds like it might be interesting. I'll keep it in mind. I take it you've read them all?

Originally posted by TheSurgeon
I live in Wisconsin where we had all the hysteria over the end of the teacher's union. Some little publicized facts that came out in the obscure pages of papers were quite revealing...

1. Several school principals wrote editorials reporting for the first time ever they had a surplus in their budgets. In one case, they were able to hire 2 additional f ...[text shortened]... e they can hire a younger officer who they can pay minimum benefits to do the job better.

"You would hate to see veteran officers who are now making the maximum benefits have their jobs cut because they can hire a younger officer who they can pay minimum benefits to do the job better."

Brings up another union question. Why is it a given that seniority is a genuinely worthy way of granting either higher wages, or guaranteed job security?

True experience is invaluable, but boredom and complacency are not. Both come with long years on the job.

Shouldn't performance be the ultimate determinant of both security and promotion?

Originally posted by rwingett
If both models serve the customer equally well, then the cooperatively owned one is clearly preferable.

If bullfrogs had wings.........

Originally posted by spruce112358
The purpose of any company/non-profit/organization no matter who owns it is to serve a customer, not to provide employment or 'serve the cause' or 'promote well-being' or any other nebulous thing.

Whosoever serves the customer best will tend to survive and, incidentally, provide the most employment. And of course the twin pillars of serving the custo ...[text shortened]... ss. To the extent that unions produce less motivated employees, they will hurt the business.

"To the extent that unions produce less motivated employees, they will hurt the business."

Agreed! Since unions bargain, in most cases, for a single set of pay and benefits for all workers in a given class, it leaves little on no incentive for individual excellence, and worse yet, the union exists to protect workers from discipline, so the worst offenders tend to derive the most benefits, again negatively impacting motives.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't think you understand the difference between money and resources.

Hint: you can trade resources without money. But money without resources is worthless.

Of course direct trade of resources is extremely inefficient and wasteful. Money lubricates and accelerates. Also money enumerates, and makes measurements possible, enabling accounting and measurement of success or failure.

Originally posted by rwingett
The passage of "right to work" legislation in Michigan is one further nail in the coffin of unions in this country. Even though it is indisputable that the unions have brought great gains to the working class over the years, perhaps their passing should not be mourned. For their demise should forever dispel the myth that capital and labor have anything what d not with false assumptions built on the non-existent partnership between capital and labor.

I like your thoughts of worker owned businesses. However, until a proliferation of worker owned businesses comes to fruition, as you desire, and which will likely not happen in our lifetime, unions are better than no unions for working people, that's for sure. Imasculating unions and ridding America of unions accelerates the push and trend to plutocracy in America.