Why don't the Unions buy the means of Production?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Doug

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    69   0   0
    Sep 5, 2008
    6,517
    149
    Indianapolis
    Traditionally, there is an adversarial relationship between the union and management. The unions fight to get a fair wage and fair treatment for the workers.
    Why doesn't the union just buy the means of production and treat the workers fairly? They supposedly have money in retirement funds they could invest and surely one or more of the Liberal multi-millionaires could invest in such an undertaking.
    Is it true that "management" is composed of greedy people who just want to take advantage of the workers or is it impossible to make any profit without mistreating the workers?
     

    Thor

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 18, 2014
    10,704
    113
    Could be anywhere
    Success would require both hard work and knowledge. Two things union leadership is probably averse to; otherwise they wouldn't demean it as a reason some folks are successful.
     

    hoosierdoc

    Freed prisoner
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 27, 2011
    25,987
    149
    Galt's Gulch
    Hah, why would they? They get paid, their members love them and hate their employer. They know they work against the interest of the corporation. They are in the perfect position
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,896
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Traditionally, there is an adversarial relationship between the union and management. The unions fight to get a fair wage and fair treatment for the workers.
    Why doesn't the union just buy the means of production and treat the workers fairly? [Goldman-Sachs won't take that bet. Very few traditional financiers can buy even a small company without financing. Plus management and the board usually aren't interested in selling until they have wrung every last drop of blood from the corpse-to-be] They supposedly have money in retirement funds [Breach of fiduciary responsibility, probably wouldn't survive a vote on the proposal either] they could invest and surely one or more of the Liberal multi-millionaires [It would take a billionaire. What does their advocacy of UBI without indicating a willingness to pay for it tell you?] could invest in such an undertaking.
    Is it true that "management" is composed of greedy people who just want to take advantage of the workers or is it impossible to make any profit without mistreating the workers?

    Pinkertons and strike breakers

    If you think that the good burghers of capitalism would never seek to run roughshod over their employees, all I can say is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
     

    Doug

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    69   0   0
    Sep 5, 2008
    6,517
    149
    Indianapolis
    Hah, why would they? They get paid, their members love them and hate their employer. They know they work against the interest of the corporation. They are in the perfect position

    If they could make it work, the workers would get the benefits they claim Management is getting.
    Oh, wait, are you saying they don't care about the workers; that they just care about their own personal wealth and prestige?
     

    Doug

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    69   0   0
    Sep 5, 2008
    6,517
    149
    Indianapolis
    Pinkertons and strike breakers

    If you think that the good burghers of capitalism would never seek to run roughshod over their employees, all I can say is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

    There seem to be a fair number of empty factories that should be relatively cheap.
    This arrangement would be the workers owning the means of production. I thought the Left believed the only reason socialism hasn't worked is because the wrong people were in charge. If the union members chose the managers, they could get people who had their best interests in mind, Couldn't they?
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,896
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Yeah! Yeah! You could absolutely create the next Facebook!

    It's a meritocratic system that would never dream of placing stumbling blocks in their/your way
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    Yeah! Yeah! You could absolutely create the next Facebook!

    It's a meritocratic system that would never dream of placing stumbling blocks in their/your way

    Maybe iv I've had a few too many Bourbons but your Sig line seems to run counter to your post? Unions are nothing if not socialist?
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    There will always be management and employees. You may get more horizontal than vertical, but you still need certain tiers of command.

    Here is a list of 100 employee owned companies: https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100

    And here is where the union did buy the company and save it: https://aflcio.org/2014/2/4/how-union-members-saved-harley-davidson

    The problem becomes that every single person in top management is constantly doing a juggling act with stake holders. Keep the price optimal for the consumer. Keep the stock returns high for the investor. Keep the cash flowing for the vendors/suppliers. Keep the wages up for the employees. With good management all of these stakeholders are taken care of. Problems will occur when one group receives substantially more favor than another. Note many companies focus on returns to investors. This is necessary but at what cost to the employee who is making the business function in the first place? Or, if the employee is favored do we lose investors or consumers because the price is too high?

    Also look at the massive separation in pay scale from executives in the 50's and 60's to today. Link: Top CEOs make more than 300 times the average worker | Fortune

    How is it that a CEO in 1965 could get by on 20 times the pay of his workers but today it is around 303 times? Really? Are CEO's that much better today than when America was on top of the world in all areas?

    Unions only exist when employees get upset at perceived injustices done to them. Here in Fort Wayne Zollners Pistons never had a union while Fred Zollner ran things. As I understand it he was a great owner who treated his employees very fairly. He matched what the UAW got in their contracts. Within a year or two of Freds death there was a union. This was not because the employees were taken over by pod people, but because of how new management treated them. They had rejected union activity for years because they were happy with Fred. They weren't prounion.

    A lot of it is perception. We seem to focus on large businesses that get massive breaks and benefits when it is truly the small businesses that drive the economy and promote job growth.

    Unions exist to give a voice of power to workers who, standing alone, would have no real power. Just like the NRA combines the voice of all of us in Washington.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,896
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Yep too many Bourbons I quoted the wrong post but it still applies

    Unions when first formed, were exactly like the gun in your holster, a tool to move towards balancing a power relationship that otherwise is badly askew. An eight hour workday, a five day week, a right to non-lethal working conditions and many other things you have to thank a union for.

    The excesses of unions in their dotage (fireman on diesel-electric locomotives, for instance) in no way invalidate the idea; anymore than modern excesses in the implementation of civil liberties obviate the need for that entire category
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    Theoretically, a union could own all the shares of stock in a company that they represent and pay workers from the dividends. Where things get sticky is who gets how much and why.

    Always follow the money
     

    Spear Dane

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 4, 2015
    5,119
    113
    Kokomo area
    Traditionally, there is an adversarial relationship between the union and management. The unions fight to get a fair wage and fair treatment for the workers.
    Why doesn't the union just buy the means of production and treat the workers fairly? They supposedly have money in retirement funds they could invest and surely one or more of the Liberal multi-millionaires could invest in such an undertaking.
    Is it true that "management" is composed of greedy people who just want to take advantage of the workers or is it impossible to make any profit without mistreating the workers?

    You need to read Atlas Shrugged. Therein lie all answers.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    If everyone owns the company then no one does. Sort of. Who has controlling interest? No matter what there will be some smaller group of leople calling the shots over everyone else. We’re Not hive minds.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,587
    113
    Mitchell
    The UAW operates and I assume owns a training center in Detroit. Their staff is a member of a union...and they have to file grievances against their union managers from time to time. There's always managers and workers. And sometimes workers believe they're mistreated and sometimes managers do mistreat their workers. It's just the way life seems to be...no matter who owns what.
     

    Rookie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Sep 22, 2008
    18,155
    113
    Kokomo
    Hah, why would they? They get paid, their members love them and hate their employer. They know they work against the interest of the corporation. They are in the perfect position

    Not necessarily.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.freep.com/amp/1075362001

    Remember a few months back when FCA said that they were going to give a $2,000 bonus because of the tax break? The union raised hell because they had to "negotiate" it first. Why would they have to negotiate it? Because they wanted their cut. After hearing the backlash, they decided they wouldn't take their cut.

    Faith in the union isn't real strong right now.
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    There have been a couple of employee owned company's here locally in the past. Neither is with us anymore. It seems that there will always be lines drawn in the sand.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    You need to read Atlas Shrugged. Therein lie all answers.
    Read it a long time ago and thought it made sense at the time. The logic behind the story is very tight, which really appealed to me, but now I think Rand didn’t really understand human nature. That’s just not how the world works.
     

    mmpsteve

    Real CZ's have a long barrel!!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 14, 2016
    5,870
    113
    ..... formerly near the Wild Turkey
    Read it a long time ago and thought it made sense at the time. The logic behind the story is very tight, which really appealed to me, but now I think Rand didn’t really understand human nature. That’s just not how the world works.

    Not only did she understand human nature, but she described it to a T, along with what it would lead to in practice. If you doubt that she predicted what we see today all around us, then you owe it to yourself to read it again. That is, if you really want to understand the current trajectory of American society.
     
    Top Bottom