Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The weight of evidence indicates that, for most firms in most sectors, unionization leaves companies less able to compete successfully. The core problem is that unions cause compensation to rise faster than productivity, eroding profits while at the same time reducing the ability of firms to remain price-competitive. The result over time is that unionized firms have tended to lose market share to nonunionized firms, in domestic as well as international markets.
After studying the effects of unions on company performance, Barry Hirsch of Georgia State University concluded that unions will typically raise labor costs to a firm by 15 percent to 20 percent, while delivering a negligible increase in productivity. As a result, “Unionization is associated with lower investment in physical and intangible capital and slower growth. The combination of a union tax and sluggish governance is proving debilitating in economic environments that are highly competitive and dynamic,” Mr. Hirsch wrote in a 2008 study.
He links to himself, and some other stuff, at Cato.
Hat tip to Boortz.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“The core problem is that unions cause compensation to rise faster than productivity, eroding profits while at the same time reducing the ability of firms to remain price-competitive.”
This may be true, but I do have to point out the opposing truth would probably go something like this:
“The core problem is that without unions to prevent exploitation, management will force compensation to the absolute minimum possible that is compatible with productivity, confiscating profits to themselves while at the same time incentivizing competitors to do exactly the same to *their* workforce for fear of losing the ability to compete.”
It’s possible to agree that most unions have gone too far without thinking that unions are a bad idea in and of themselves. Unions stronger than their management can wreck a company; managements stronger than their unions can wreck a workforce. Which is the more socially acceptable loss is a values question.
- Stephen J. | 02/25/2010 @ 09:52Stephen J….you’re joking, right?
“The core problem is that without unions to prevent exploitation, management will force compensation to the absolute minimum possible…
Oh, you mean, like, the market rate for the skil lsets and experience commanded by some job position that exists within a private company? That minimum rate?
…that is compatible with productivity, confiscating profits to themselves while at the same time incentivizing competitors to do exactly the same to *their* workforce for fear of losing the ability to compete.”
Uh huh. Look, I hate to break it to you, but that’s called a free market. Oh, you thought the term only existed in the arena of exchange of goods and services? No. The same forces of supply and demand also apply to what’s called a “labor market.” Perhaps you have even heard the term.
In a labor market, companies must offer a certain package of wages, benefits, and so forth to prospective employees, just as applicants must offer a certain package of skills, experience, and so forth to prospective employers. It works both directions. Companies compete among one another for talented employees, just as applicants compete with one another for jobs. And companies must offer a competitive compensation package if they expect to attract top talent. As with anything else bought or sold, you get what you pay for. The employer is buying the employee’s time.
Now, granted, the economy has (temporarily) shifted the playing field into the employers’ favor simply because there are so few jobs to be had at the moment and competition among applicants is fiercer than normal. But even now, a company which believed it could get away with paying managerial level employees the federal minimum wage would get laughed-at.
It’s possible to agree that most unions have gone too far without thinking that unions are a bad idea in and of themselves.
What does my discussion have to do with labor unions, you ask? Simple. An applicant (or existing employee) who is dissatisfied with the compensation package can ask for a raise, and if he doesn’t get the answer he likes, he can walk if he so chooses.. All unionizing does, is siphon off a portion of his paycheck in the form of dues.
Unions stronger than their management can wreck a company; managements stronger than their unions can wreck a workforce. Which is the more socially acceptable loss is a values question.
Oh, so now we’re supposed to choose between the lash across the workers’ backs, vs the company going out of business because the union successfully bankrupted their employer with their ceaseless demands made through “collective bargaining.”
You seem to be stuck over a century in the past. It isn’t 1898 anymore; we don’t have people working in coal mines and factories for 20 cents a day while the likes of Carnegie and Rockefeller sit on piles of cash. Maybe unions were a good thing back then.
Today they’re little more than a self-serving cancer on the workforce and management alike. They band together and demand higher wages and better benefits, which their employers must cover by passing along higher prices. Ultimately the company goes out of business, no longer able to compete with its non-union competitors. Along the way, the unions help elect Democrats to Congress. I won’t even go into the allegations of their involvement with organized crime and/or communist party officials from foreign governments.
Don’t believe me? I have four words for you.
General Motors versus Toyota.
Think about it.
- cylarz | 02/26/2010 @ 00:59