Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 15
Send Topic Print
Unions increase inequality (Read 18263 times)
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #150 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:04pm
 
Jest wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 5:20pm:
Jasin wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 4:29pm:
The only 'delusion' present is the Union belief system that every 'worker' is an ignorant Prole in need of their help... at a cost Wink
Yankee Unionists prey upon the Prole Workers.
The Superior Race of pure Australian Workers don't need 'Unions'.
Superior Workers are 'offered' like a Music Contract some pretty good deals by employers. Saw one on Australian Story once.

Unions only work for the crap Workers who need em.
Mostly crap companies hire crap workers.
Its a terrible situation.
I mean - look at how great guns the Shearing Industry is in  Roll Eyes with its Union and the type of workers the Shearing Industry has: Junkies and Alcoholics, etc.

I don't work jobs that need a Union. They're crap jobs.
And if there is crap in the job - it tends to provide great 'bonk' encounters with female staff.  Wink Cheesy


Only crap jobs need a Union rep to take his slice as well out of your pay.


Nobody is saying that a worker is too stupid to protect his own interests. We're saying that workers are stronger and better resourced to protect their interests if they protect themselves collectively. Most employers have human resources sections to advise & negotiate for them or they contact the small business unions to advise them. Its foolish to think you can fight that on your own


Most employers have human resources sections to advise & negotiate for them


Gee it would be nice if that were all.

The last direct negotiation I was in I had to face alone:

Department manager, HR executive, Finance head, Assistant to the CEO, External finance advisor and a random manager.

The average employee has no chance.

The first question was how much pay cut will you accept. I won't go into the details but I was not an easy target.

Within 6 months my advantage was gone as they employed additional people and I was redundant.

The following 3 months I got a number of phone calls to ask how something worked or how to fix a problem, unfortunately I didn't remember very much.

Individual negotiation is stacked against the employee, It works well for the few at the top where management wants to throw money away.

The average employee has no chance, it is mostly this is what you get don't like it there is the door.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 27649
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #151 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:35pm
 
Jasin wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 4:29pm:
The only 'delusion' present is the Union belief system that every 'worker' is an ignorant Prole in need of their help... at a cost Wink
Yankee Unionists prey upon the Prole Workers.
The Superior Race of pure Australian Workers don't need 'Unions'.
Superior Workers are 'offered' like a Music Contract some pretty good deals by employers. Saw one on Australian Story once.

Unions only work for the crap Workers who need em.
Mostly crap companies hire crap workers.
Its a terrible situation.
I mean - look at how great guns the Shearing Industry is in  Roll Eyes with its Union and the type of workers the Shearing Industry has: Junkies and Alcoholics, etc.

I don't work jobs that need a Union. They're crap jobs.
And if there is crap in the job - it tends to provide great 'bonk' encounters with female staff.  Wink Cheesy


Only crap jobs need a Union rep to take his slice as well out of your pay.


You're an ignorant scab.

If you have ever taken wages under an award, holidays, accumulated long service leave or annual leave, are allocated sick leave which in some places is accumulative, etc etc ...
'
then you have done so at the contributions to industrial relations by Trade Unions.

You ... as a wages worker you should be grateful ...

but instead you are an ignorant Union basher like Freediver.
Back to top
 

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais
 
IP Logged
 
Jest
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #152 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:47pm
 
Jasin wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 5:46pm:
On the few occassions I have - I've succeeded in some way.
Mostly though, I have never needed to.
I've seen other guys succeed in this way too.
But hey, you gotta be good if you want to stand above the 'pack' (unionists).  Wink
"Succeeded in some way"? Yes we can all find some success in failure if we look hard enough. Frankly I think you're deluding yourself. And trying to delude the rest of us while your at it. I dont suppose you want to share what it is you do. Is it shearing?
Back to top
 

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
 
IP Logged
 
Jest
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #153 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:51pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:04pm:
Jest wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 5:20pm:
Jasin wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 4:29pm:
The only 'delusion' present is the Union belief system that every 'worker' is an ignorant Prole in need of their help... at a cost Wink
Yankee Unionists prey upon the Prole Workers.
The Superior Race of pure Australian Workers don't need 'Unions'.
Superior Workers are 'offered' like a Music Contract some pretty good deals by employers. Saw one on Australian Story once.

Unions only work for the crap Workers who need em.
Mostly crap companies hire crap workers.
Its a terrible situation.
I mean - look at how great guns the Shearing Industry is in  Roll Eyes with its Union and the type of workers the Shearing Industry has: Junkies and Alcoholics, etc.

I don't work jobs that need a Union. They're crap jobs.
And if there is crap in the job - it tends to provide great 'bonk' encounters with female staff.  Wink Cheesy


Only crap jobs need a Union rep to take his slice as well out of your pay.


Nobody is saying that a worker is too stupid to protect his own interests. We're saying that workers are stronger and better resourced to protect their interests if they protect themselves collectively. Most employers have human resources sections to advise & negotiate for them or they contact the small business unions to advise them. Its foolish to think you can fight that on your own


Most employers have human resources sections to advise & negotiate for them


Gee it would be nice if that were all.

The last direct negotiation I was in I had to face alone:

Department manager, HR executive, Finance head, Assistant to the CEO, External finance advisor and a random manager.

The average employee has no chance.

The first question was how much pay cut will you accept. I won't go into the details but I was not an easy target.

Within 6 months my advantage was gone as they employed additional people and I was redundant.

The following 3 months I got a number of phone calls to ask how something worked or how to fix a problem, unfortunately I didn't remember very much.

Individual negotiation is stacked against the employee, It works well for the few at the top where management wants to throw money away.

The average employee has no chance, it is mostly this is what you get don't like it there is the door.

Totally agree.
Back to top
 

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
 
IP Logged
 
Jest
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #154 - Oct 21st, 2020 at 6:34am
 
freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:02pm:
Jest wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 9:13am:
freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 5:07pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 2nd, 2020 at 10:24am:
This is an idea from Milton Friedman. To the extent that unions increase salary within an industry, they reduce employment. The people who cannot get a job in a particular industry because of unions inevitably seek employment in other industries, and thus drive down wages in those industries. As unions tend to be most active in trades that already have higher salaries, they tend to drive down salaries that were already lower. Thus, they increase wage inequality.


It is consistent with your quotes.

Speaking about consistency.

You never answered (you ran away in fact) how you supported this theory even though in another thread you started a week or 2 earlier you claimed that it was mythology that Unions increased wages and improved work conditions.

I think you're a shameless charlatan


Can you quote me?


Your countless posts in the thread you started titled,  "Unions want to kill non-Union industries" in which you repeatedly accuse people of swallowing union propaganda for saying that unions improve pay and conditions Or you just simply respond with "crap" or "BS".

So how do you reconcile that position with the cornerstone of your argument here that people who work in unionised industries get better pay and conditions?

Im betting you I dont get a straight answer.
Back to top
 

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #155 - Oct 21st, 2020 at 7:59am
 
Jest wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 6:34am:
freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:02pm:
Jest wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 9:13am:
freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 5:07pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 2nd, 2020 at 10:24am:
This is an idea from Milton Friedman. To the extent that unions increase salary within an industry, they reduce employment. The people who cannot get a job in a particular industry because of unions inevitably seek employment in other industries, and thus drive down wages in those industries. As unions tend to be most active in trades that already have higher salaries, they tend to drive down salaries that were already lower. Thus, they increase wage inequality.


It is consistent with your quotes.

Speaking about consistency.

You never answered (you ran away in fact) how you supported this theory even though in another thread you started a week or 2 earlier you claimed that it was mythology that Unions increased wages and improved work conditions.

I think you're a shameless charlatan


Can you quote me?


Your countless posts in the thread you started titled,  "Unions want to kill non-Union industries" in which you repeatedly accuse people of swallowing union propaganda for saying that unions improve pay and conditions Or you just simply respond with "crap" or "BS".

So how do you reconcile that position with the cornerstone of your argument here that people who work in unionised industries get better pay and conditions?

Im betting you I dont get a straight answer.


It might help if you bothered to read what I actually said.

So quote me, if you are not full of BS.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jest
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #156 - Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:21am
 
freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 7:59am:
Jest wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 6:34am:
freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:02pm:
Jest wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 9:13am:
freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 5:07pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 2nd, 2020 at 10:24am:
This is an idea from Milton Friedman. To the extent that unions increase salary within an industry, they reduce employment. The people who cannot get a job in a particular industry because of unions inevitably seek employment in other industries, and thus drive down wages in those industries. As unions tend to be most active in trades that already have higher salaries, they tend to drive down salaries that were already lower. Thus, they increase wage inequality.


It is consistent with your quotes.

Speaking about consistency.

You never answered (you ran away in fact) how you supported this theory even though in another thread you started a week or 2 earlier you claimed that it was mythology that Unions increased wages and improved work conditions.

I think you're a shameless charlatan


Can you quote me?


Your countless posts in the thread you started titled,  "Unions want to kill non-Union industries" in which you repeatedly accuse people of swallowing union propaganda for saying that unions improve pay and conditions Or you just simply respond with "crap" or "BS".

So how do you reconcile that position with the cornerstone of your argument here that people who work in unionised industries get better pay and conditions?

Im betting you I dont get a straight answer.


It might help if you bothered to read what I actually said.

So quote me, if you are not full of BS.


The thread is full of what you said for all to see. But if you say you didn't mean that unions don't result in increased wages and better conditions then say what you were trying to say.

It really is quite simple. You can say up front now how you reconcile what you said there compared to what your saying now or you can continue B*llshitting as you always do. 
Back to top
 

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 27649
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #157 - Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:35am
 
Always twisting ... that's FD.

And that's not dancing.

He ought have a think if nobody on here can read what he types or pastes correctly.....

then why does he bother?

Ego? narcissism? or just simply being a prat?
Back to top
 

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #158 - Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:32am
 
freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:02pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:57am:
Thanks FD. Shame there is not a shred of evidence to support it, and shame that the only actual evidence we have seen to date directly contradicts it. And shame you prove yourself completely incapable of demonstrating otherwise.

But not to worry, I'm sure you'll be armed ready with all your usual brainless memes and quips to keep up your delusion that you are somehow refuting what i say.

What you won't be armed with is an actual coherent argument with some actual flesh and supported by actual evidence. I think 10 pages of waffle makes that a pretty safe bet.


The evidence in support of the claim is overwhelming, which is why you will not find a single economist who disagrees with it.


I'm actually not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse on this, or if you trully are that delusional.

Either way it must take some trully world class mental gymnastics to conclude that all the economists I cited arguing that unions have an overall equalising effect on wages - are somehow not disagreeing with what Friedman said in the OP.

What those gymnastics consist of exactly I'd love to know - but you are incapable of explaining even your own thoughgts or rationale - beyond parotting what Friedman said in the OP.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #159 - Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:50am
 
Gnads wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:35am:
Always twisting ... that's FD.

And that's not dancing.

He ought have a think if nobody on here can read what he types or pastes correctly.....

then why does he bother?

Ego? narcissism? or just simply being a prat?


'Twisting' would actually be an intellectual advancement on his current routine. To twist something would presumably require FD to know what it was he was twisting in the first place. He has demonstrated pretty clearly that he doesn't have much of a clue what even that is.

I'm not sure if anyone could be more obtuse than FD is being in this discussion if they tried.

This entire thread has consisted of FD:

1. opening with presenting an unsubstantiated and unfleshed thought bubble of Friedman

2. responding to any criticism of the quote with such intellectually profound arguments as "not a single economist will disagree with it" and "its microeconomics 101" and a few different variations of "its right, so there!"

3. running his trademark deflection/interference routine whenever asked for actual evidence for the claim

4. incomprehensibly and without any coherent explanation, repeat the idiotic lie that all the evidence presented that demonstrates the opposite of what Friedman claims, is somehow agreeing with Friedman.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 27649
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #160 - Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:53am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:50am:
Gnads wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:35am:
Always twisting ... that's FD.

And that's not dancing.

He ought have a think if nobody on here can read what he types or pastes correctly.....

then why does he bother?

Ego? narcissism? or just simply being a prat?


'Twisting' would actually be an intellectual advancement on his current routine. To twist something would presumably require FD to know what it was he was twisting in the first place. He has demonstrated pretty clearly that he doesn't have much of a clue what even that is.

I'm not sure if anyone could be more obtuse than FD is being in this discussion if they tried.

This entire thread has consisted of FD:

1. opening with presenting an unsubstantiated and unfleshed thought bubble of Friedman

2. responding to any criticism of the quote with such intellectually profound arguments as "not a single economist will disagree with it" and "its microeconomics 101" and a few different variations of "its right, so there!"

3. running his trademark deflection/interference routine whenever asked for actual evidence for the claim

4. incomprehensibly and without any coherent explanation, repeat the idiotic lie that all the evidence presented that demonstrates the opposite of what Friedman claims, is somehow agreeing with Friedman.


Yes... a fair summation.
Back to top
 

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #161 - Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:40pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:32am:
freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:02pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:57am:
Thanks FD. Shame there is not a shred of evidence to support it, and shame that the only actual evidence we have seen to date directly contradicts it. And shame you prove yourself completely incapable of demonstrating otherwise.

But not to worry, I'm sure you'll be armed ready with all your usual brainless memes and quips to keep up your delusion that you are somehow refuting what i say.

What you won't be armed with is an actual coherent argument with some actual flesh and supported by actual evidence. I think 10 pages of waffle makes that a pretty safe bet.


The evidence in support of the claim is overwhelming, which is why you will not find a single economist who disagrees with it.


I'm actually not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse on this, or if you trully are that delusional.

Either way it must take some trully world class mental gymnastics to conclude that all the economists I cited arguing that unions have an overall equalising effect on wages - are somehow not disagreeing with what Friedman said in the OP.


They are not disagreeing with Friedman. I have explained why. It got too complicated for you, so you started going round in circles. Your inability to comprehend the most basic concepts in economics is not evidence I am wrong.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #162 - Nov 8th, 2020 at 8:28am
 
Quote:
He ought have a think if nobody on here can read what he types or pastes correctly.....


What makes you think that Gnads?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71951
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #163 - Nov 8th, 2020 at 9:27am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:50am:
Gnads wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:35am:
Always twisting ... that's FD.

And that's not dancing.

He ought have a think if nobody on here can read what he types or pastes correctly.....

then why does he bother?

Ego? narcissism? or just simply being a prat?


'Twisting' would actually be an intellectual advancement on his current routine. To twist something would presumably require FD to know what it was he was twisting in the first place. He has demonstrated pretty clearly that he doesn't have much of a clue what even that is.

I'm not sure if anyone could be more obtuse than FD is being in this discussion if they tried.

This entire thread has consisted of FD:

1. opening with presenting an unsubstantiated and unfleshed thought bubble of Friedman

2. responding to any criticism of the quote with such intellectually profound arguments as "not a single economist will disagree with it" and "its microeconomics 101" and a few different variations of "its right, so there!"

3. running his trademark deflection/interference routine whenever asked for actual evidence for the claim

4. incomprehensibly and without any coherent explanation, repeat the idiotic lie that all the evidence presented that demonstrates the opposite of what Friedman claims, is somehow agreeing with Friedman.



That's basically what he does on EVERY topic, no matter what's being discussed.
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Jest
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male
Re: Unions increase inequality
Reply #164 - Nov 8th, 2020 at 9:55am
 
John Smith wrote on Nov 8th, 2020 at 9:27am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:50am:
Gnads wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:35am:
Always twisting ... that's FD.

And that's not dancing.

He ought have a think if nobody on here can read what he types or pastes correctly.....

then why does he bother?

Ego? narcissism? or just simply being a prat?


'Twisting' would actually be an intellectual advancement on his current routine. To twist something would presumably require FD to know what it was he was twisting in the first place. He has demonstrated pretty clearly that he doesn't have much of a clue what even that is.

I'm not sure if anyone could be more obtuse than FD is being in this discussion if they tried.

This entire thread has consisted of FD:

1. opening with presenting an unsubstantiated and unfleshed thought bubble of Friedman

2. responding to any criticism of the quote with such intellectually profound arguments as "not a single economist will disagree with it" and "its microeconomics 101" and a few different variations of "its right, so there!"

3. running his trademark deflection/interference routine whenever asked for actual evidence for the claim

4. incomprehensibly and without any coherent explanation, repeat the idiotic lie that all the evidence presented that demonstrates the opposite of what Friedman claims, is somehow agreeing with Friedman.



That's basically what he does on EVERY topic, no matter what's being discussed.


That's why I gave up discussing anything with him. Its hopeless.
Back to top
 

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 15
Send Topic Print