dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed



wheres the govt and religious right?

generally speaking, does a unionized workforce raise the quality of life for those in their immediate community?. from a governments perspective, the more a person makes, the more they collect in both payroll taxes and income taxes. and in turn, these workers have more money to spend in that community, creating demand for goods and services from others in that community. the theory is that this should create jobs and opportunities for others not employed by that union.
Those that believe in the traditional "nuclear family", where one parent stays home to raise the kids, are more likely to do so if one of the parents holds a good paying job. the theory here is that this would lead to less crime, as kids would be brought up in more stable households.(how come the religious right who support strong family values are silent here).
generally speaking, are unions not responsible for things like health benefits and retirement plans across all industries?. if there were no unions, would your employer offer you these if they did not have to?
would the idea of minimum wage be gone ?.
imo, there has been a fundamental shift in large companies thought processes. it used to be
1: customer
2: employee
3: shareholder
with the explosion on the emphasis of stock prices, that has changed to
1: shareholder
2: customer
3: employee
by putting the shareholders first, (read any companies financial staement, and those that refer to customers as somthing like RPU's or revenue producing units have put the shareholder above the customer), cutting costs is usually the way to go to drive up share prices. when this happens, wages and benefits go down, company profits rise, and this usually results in companies either raising dividens for shareholders or stock buybacks(to help keep stock prices up) or increasing cash reserves.
paying dividens results in considerably less tax revenue for a community both because shareholders are not concentrated in a particular community, the tax rate is less ( see mitt romney) and less payroll/incometaxes collected. this inturn means less money to be spent in a particular community, less opportunities for growth for those business that supply those families with goods and services. and finally less opportunity for a family to remain "nuclear".
Since the birth of unions, every employee (union or not) has benefitted in some way (min wage, competitve wages/benefits, pensions, safety standards, ect). when every large company instills cost saving measures(union or not) does it affect the price of the goods/services you purchase from that company? the last car you bought, was it cheaper because the company rolled back wages/benefits on its employees? does your cable bill go down because comcast hires new employees at up to 25% less than the people they laid off?.

i personally see more value in employees earning more, than increasing shareholder value, and this is what union busting is really all about.
ps - i get that employees with pensions are interested in keeping stock prices up, but with more personal income, the more control you have to plan your retirement.