Target' No Vote, and Retail Unions in America

[JollyRoger]

I am being facetious, of course. My rhetoric is only meant to serve an underlying message. That these workers should find a different job if they are unsatisfied, instead of sabotage their workplace and employer.

Shareholders should bail on a company if they don't like its union. Management should change jobs if they can't handle a union.

 

[Defiant47]

And whatever word workers do without you, dear boss? It's not as if they can run the factory without you... Right?

I own the factory. I bear the economic risks, and potential losses or profits.

If they don't like it, they can start up their own factory.

 

[Ajidica]

I own the factory. I bear the economic risks, and potential losses or profits.

In a corporation, not really. The Stockholders own the company.

 

[Defiant47]

Shareholders should bail on a company if they don't like its union.

Shareholders do bail on a company if they believe it to be unprofitable.

Management should change jobs if they can't handle a union.

Management should take whatever their workers give them - including complaints, spoiled arrogance, or unions. Right?

 

[Ajidica]

Management should take whatever their workers give them - including complaints, spoiled arrogance, or unions. Right?

Perhaps management should have hired better people who wouldn't get all uppity.

 

[Defiant47]

In a corporation, not really. The Stockholders own the company.

I was talking middle-level here, where you have a person or a partnership of people start up a local industry company.

In a corporation, the workers still don't own the company, and don't bear any investment risks. If they wish to take on the risks, they are free to do so.

But as such, workers will prefer the safety and security of a stable wage, over the riskiness of a capital investment.

Funny how you don't see people complaining that they should be forced to contribute into their company's losses out-of-pocket.

 

[Defiant47]

Perhaps management should have hired better people who wouldn't get all uppity.

Perhaps management should have the right to get new people for the same wages if their current people get uppity.

 

[JollyRoger]

Management should take whatever their workers give them - including complaints, spoiled arrogance, or unions. Right?

It's called management for a reason. If you can't handle complaints, most of your workers display spoiled arrogance, and you as a representative of collective capital can't adequately negotiate with representatives of collective labor, then perhaps you aren't cut out to be a manager.

 

[Defiant47]

It's called management for a reason. If you can't handle complaints, most of your workers display spoiled arrogance, and you as a representative of collective capital can't adequately negotiate with representatives of collective labor, then perhaps you aren't cut out to be a manger.

Maybe I shouldn't have to put up with spoiled arrogance if there are workers out there who would do the same job for the same pay without it?

Or should I have to put up with absolutely anything my workers throw at me, simply because I'm "management" and "that's my job"?

 

[JollyRoger]

Maybe I shouldn't have to put up with spoiled arrogance if there are workers out there who would do the same job for the same pay without it?

Or should I have to put up with absolutely anything my workers throw at me, simply because I'm "management" and "that's my job"?

Spoiled arrogance is generally a symptom of mismagement.

 

[aw3524]

If they just increased the wages while keeping everything else the same, that would be true. But there's no reason they couldn't cut the executive pay and stockholder dividends, give that to the workers instead, and employ just as many while still making a profit. That's what unions want, and that's what management is fighting against tooth and nail.

If I'm drowning in labor costs, I sure am not going to put a great effort into hiring more . I'll look into getting more productive union workers or phasing them out with capital, or maybe I'll even buy the union thugs out.

Please, no CATO or I get to start quoting Marx. They are two very distinct entities. One is a morally bankrupt lie-spewing machine that can't see beyond its own self-imposed blinkers, and the other is Karl Marx.

So, point out the lies. Point out the falsified data. Come-ons aren't argument.

Ask either of our two professional economists (Integral and Jericho) and they will both say that the ideal market found in the econ 101 supply/demand charts rarely, if every, perfectly apply to the real world. The only places where they can be used with some degree of accuracy is with luxury goods and even then, you have to adjust them beyond a zero sum game.

Why are you still on this idea of ideal markets and applying theory precisely to the real world? This isn't a case of "as you can see from this model, I am certain that a wage increase of $0.25 will displace precisely 3,269 workers from here, here, and here;" it's more a general observation that, if not trivially true in all but the most extreme circumstances, makes one wonder what the hell the point of economics is.

 

[Defiant47]

Spoiled arrogance is generally a symptom of mismagement.

Or overly powerful and enticing unions.

You are correct. Most of the time, if your workers call for a union, you're doing something wrong. But if they're unhappy, they should seek work elsewhere.

Once a union sets in, the unfairness shifts all the way to the other side.

 

[JollyRoger]

Once a union sets in, the unfairness shifts all the way to the other side.

Once a union sets in, it calls for a management team that is far more skilled than the management team that let the union set in. As for fairness, how is collective representation vs. collective representation unfair?

 

[Elrohir]

Elro, I'm not sure why you're getting confused here. We're talking about corporate status because large public companies composed of many people's capital are only able to be successful and stable with heavy backing from the state (and, to go back to the OP, Target is a large public company). Size is a pretty good proxy for corporate status in most industries (law firms and agriculture are exceptions) but large private companies do also also rely pretty heavily on various state guarantees as well. The state guarantees the institutional environment in which large companies are able to thrive.

But the same could be said of any business; large corporations require more support, but fundamentally all businesses are possible because of the government's guarantee of a stable society and protection.

Compare it to requirements to file with financial and corporate regulators - there are, generally, more stringent requirements on public companies, but large privately-owned ones also have tax and reporting obligations that small ones don't. There's an intersection of different factors which determine what demands we make of a company, of which corporate status is prominent but not solely determinant. Size and turnover are other factors.

But do please note, the issue is not about exploitation, that's an inaccurate caricature. It's about a level playing field in bargaining. For small and large businesses that requires extremely different rules. Small businesses get less stringent rules in every area of corporate regulation, labour laws are the same.

More stringent tax rules for larger businesses makes sense, since they're so much larger and have the resources to avoid taxation if not properly watched. That's not the issue.

What I'm talking about is, like you said, the level playing field in bargaining. Small businesses may, on average, be slightly less able to tilt the playing field in their favor, but not in every case, and often not by much. (Many small businesses violate worker protection, and even public health laws with near impunity as it is.) It's easier for them to slip through the cracks, and because they're smaller, there's less chance for a regulator to investigate them or for a worker to call the authorities. If you're really dedicated to leveling the playing field between labor and capital, then you need to protect all labor -- not just the labor that works for big bad corporations. Can you please come up with a coherent argument for why we shouldn't do so? (Just saying, in effect, "we're less stringent with labor protections because we're less stringent with corporate and tax regulations" isn't an argument.)

 

[Ajidica]

Why are you still on this idea of ideal markets and applying theory precisely to the real world? This isn't a case of "as you can see from this model, I am certain that a wage increase of $0.25 will displace precisely 3,269 workers from here, here, and here;" it's more a general observation that, if not trivially true in all but the most extreme circumstances, makes one wonder what the hell the point of economics is.

It comes back to your assertion that as price goes up, demand drops. That holds true only in some areas while in most it is complete rubbish. Economics is very useful, but short blanket statements are rarely good for anything more then giving politicians something that makes them look smart. Economics can do a very good job of looking at the real world, but it has to be adjusted for certain situations.

As I said earlier, the Price Up/Demand Down holds true for luxury items but as an item becomes more basic and essential to survival and lacks a cheaper alternative, no amount of price raising will every drop demand.

 

[Traitorfish]

I own the factory. I bear the economic risks, and potential losses or profits.

If they don't like it, they can start up their own factory.

Why? There's a factory right there, and nobody's using it. Waste not, want not, as my granny would say!

 

[aw3524]

As I said earlier, the Price Up/Demand Down holds true for luxury items but as an item becomes more basic and essential to survival and lacks a cheaper alternative, no amount of price raising will every drop demand.

So, the survival of the capitalist depends on having 6, not 7, and certainly not 5! workers in his employ? If, all else being equal, we forced entrepreneurs to pay new employees $250/hr, regardless of the work, they'd still open new restaurants and factories? All this meddling with "progressive" taxes and the like... the key to redistribution without destroying work was right in front of us!

 

[Ajidica]

If, all else being equal, we forced entrepreneurs to pay new employees $250/hr, regardless of the work, they'd still open new restaurants and factories?

Not what I was saying. You are shifting from demand to supply side of the equation and assuming this is regardless of what the work was while I was separating different types of goods. If you want, I can detail what constitutes luxury goods and basic goods, but I assumed my prior example of luxury goods such as Aston-Martin DB9s or Tesla Roadsters contrasted with basic goods such as water and bread made it clear enough.

 

[aw3524]

Not what I was saying. You are shifting from demand to supply side of the equation and assuming this is regardless of what the work was while I was separating different types of goods. If you want, I can detail what constitutes luxury goods and basic goods, but I assumed my prior example of luxury goods such as Aston-Martin DB9s or Tesla Roadsters contrasted with basic goods such as water and bread made it clear enough.

That's pretty much exactly what you were saying . Employers demand labor, but go ahead and explain why you think increasing the price of labor won't reduce how much employers are willing to buy (ask Hoover and FDR about that one).

 

[JollyRoger]

That's pretty much exactly what you were saying . Employers demand labor, but go ahead and explain why you think increasing the price of labor won't reduce how much employers are willing to buy (ask Hoover and FDR about that one).

Companies buy the same number of CEOs, even with the rampant price increase over the past few decades.