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

[jamil]

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.

She understood her concept of objectivism pretty well. I’m not saying she’s completely full of ****. There are some things I think are right about objectivism. But the amount of **** she was full of relates a lot to the extent to which objectivism doesn’t map to the practical world. There’s a logical beauty to it, on an individual level, especially as a principle to live your life by. But other people are in the world too. It just doesn’t scale well.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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?

Unions are by no means inherently socialist. They have become that way, and will have a tendency to do so by virtue of populist politics run amok, but there is nothing inherently socialist about having group representation for the purpose of negotiating terms of doing business.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

The only real flaw I see in her thinking is the belief in heroic captains of industry who make the world better for everyone. She simply didn't see that there never will be a time in which all enlightened leaders of business will have the mindset of first-generation entrepreneurs who know everyone who receives one of their checks and honestly gives a damn about them and finding ways to help themselves and everyone else simultaneously through their accomplishments. As with all paradigms, hers is imperfect, but far better than many.

 

[mmpsteve]

She understood her concept of objectivism pretty well. I’m not saying she’s completely full of ****. There are some things I think are right about objectivism. But the amount of **** she was full of relates a lot to the extent to which objectivism doesn’t map to the practical world. There’s a logical beauty to it, on an individual level, especially as a principle to live your life by. But other people are in the world too. It just doesn’t scale well.

Scale or no scale, if you deny that she described and predicted exactly what this country and society have become, then either you didn't retain what you read, or you and I see the world very much differently.

 

[mmpsteve]

The only real flaw I see in her thinking is the belief in heroic captains of industry who make the world better for everyone. She simply didn't see that there never will be a time in which all enlightened leaders of business will have the mindset of first-generation entrepreneurs who know everyone who receives one of their checks and honestly gives a damn about them and finding ways to help themselves and everyone else simultaneously through their accomplishments. As with all paradigms, hers is imperfect, but far better than many.

Dave, maybe not all captains of industry, but I personally know many who are as you describe. I consider myself blessed to know them and witness their good works and accomplishments. And yes, they do provide fine livelyhoods for others at the same time their personal fortunes increase. I deal more with small and medium sized businesses, and the ones I describe are not isolated incidences; they exist everywhere.

 

[jamil]

Scale or no scale, if you deny that she described and predicted exactly what this country and society have become, then either you didn't retain what you read, or you and I see the world very much differently.

I suspect it’s mostly the latter.

And I think you may fill in details where your ideology tends to fail. And if you want to say that getting some predictions right validates Rand’s world view, then you have to accept Marx’s. He got a few things right about his predictions too. And Marx WAY more full of **** than Rand.

 

[jamil]

Dave, maybe not all captains of industry, but I personally know many who are as you describe. I consider myself blessed to know them and witness their good works and accomplishments. And yes, they do provide fine livelyhoods for others at the same time their personal fortunes increase. I deal more with small and medium sized businesses, and the ones I describe are not isolated incidences; they exist everywhere.

“Everywhere” is probably too ambitious. But I’d say there are a lot of business owners, and CEO’s, who are not the tyrannical managers of the past. But there are still a lot of tyrants left too.

 

[rob63]

This is not an anti-union screed or anything, they have done good, yada yada, but I have witnessed the UAW in action in Detroit with my own eyes and can affirm that the union leaders are just as happy to take advantage of the workers as what the company management is. They actually are better at it, if anything. Human nature is what it is.

I have also witnessed teacher union negotiations with a school district whereby the teacher union leaders, all of them older teachers with a lot of experience, made sure to get the raises structured so that the bulk of the money went to the teachers with the most experience even though they were already much higher paid than beginning teachers. They then proceeded to tell the young teachers that they tried their best to get raises for the young teachers, but the school district wouldn't go for it. Yeah, right.

 

[Hawkeye7br]

Too many unions have activists that are anti-management on all issues, just as there are never-Trump politicians. I was a supervisor in a union plant. When work was slow, we created "make work" jobs to avoid layoffs. Paint handrails, etc. Union filed grievance because there was a union "painter" position that paid more money, and they wanted their guy to get the increased pay. I went to the employee and said "Look, if I have to choose between increasing your pay versus sending you home, you're going home." and the grievance was dropped.

 

[edporch]

But even if a union bought a company, there's nothing to legally stop the workers from still wanting a union that may be a different union from the union that owns the company.
Imagine the drama at strike time.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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?

Because then the union IS management, and as you said there's currently an adversarial relationship. Adversarial relationships aren't necessarily bad. Would you want your county's prosecutor to also be the public defense attorney, and then just treat the accused fairly?

Workers and management have many goals that align, to a greater or lesser extent, but some that don't. Having both perspectives at the table isn't a bad thing

 

[Spear Dane]

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.

I would disagree with that totally. Is she over the top? Oh yeah. 60 pages of monologue by Galt prove that. But the fundamental principles she lays down are spot on.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Because then the union IS management, and as you said there's currently an adversarial relationship. Adversarial relationships aren't necessarily bad. Would you want your county's prosecutor to also be the public defense attorney, and then just treat the accused fairly?

Workers and management have many goals that align, to a greater or lesser extent, but some that don't. Having both perspectives at the table isn't a bad thing

x ring

 

[jamil]

I would disagree with that totally. Is she over the top? Oh yeah. 60 pages of monologue by Galt prove that. But the fundamental principles she lays down are spot on.

I understand why you believe that. It sucked me in too.

 

[jamil]

The problem with unions is the same thing that’s wrong with business. Both have a crony relationship with government.

 

[churchmouse]

If they did this then the actual burden of success or failure would be on their shoulders. I seriously doubt they are capable.

 

[BugI02]

Even the founding fathers knew how important labor representation was. It's right there in the preamble

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ..."

 

[Vigilant]

And technically, doesn't the UAW own a considerable portion of GM after they were chosen over creditors in the Bankruptcy a few years back?

 

[luger fan]

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?

'GREEDY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE WORKERS?" Oh. You mean Union management.

 

[BugI02]

Gee, was it Carrier's union that wanted to move all those jobs to Mexico even though the division was highly profitable already. What's the definition of greed again?


greed·y
ˈɡrēdē
adjective
having or showing an intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth or power.