If you own the company, you can certainly control how many jobs it offers. But you can't force anyone to accept them, and you aren't the entire (job providing side of the) market. Every market participant is somewhat "sovereign", but is answerable to those with whom he wants to trade.

I downvoted your subsequent repetitions of this for beating the point into the ground.

Those who see the labor market as a wrestling match between poor deserving workers and greedy owners can quite easily test whether their model of the way company owners "ought to" behave is viable. Simply start an employee-owned company. It's been done many times, and a few of them have even stayed in business, though they never deliver the fantastic benefits that their founders expect them to.

Of course, sometimes even they get infested with unions. Which makes me giggle. Let's hear it for moochers eating their own young!

Pure greed. Unions are simply gangsters, with the legal power to extort funds for politics. Naturally, the unions effectively own the party that gets those funds, and it tries to see to it that they keep their power.

Environmentalism IS a religion. Global Warming is one of its tenets. Like all religions, no matter how many times one disproves it, even with surgeon-like precision believers continue to perform useless rituals hoping to influence it as a savior to the earth, and by declension the savior of mankind. As Rand pointed out, when the mystic combines with the Hun, it creates a nearly unstoppable geopolitical force. Look at radical Islam as a perfect example. When Christianity became a powerful coercive force it led to the Dark Ages. If Islam prevails you can look for an even darker Dark Ages.

Yes but, believing in global warming (or climate change or whatever crap they're calling it now) makes the stupid feel smart. Not only do they feel smarter they feel more caring... He who cares the most is the superior one. Emotional high ground. Yes, "terminal stupidity" is correct. It reminds me of religion actually. If you don't believe it's real, then you're evil and stupid. Praise to the climate gods.

I would say thank communists and socialist.

You are using the word "job" in a manner contrary to common usage when the issue of employer/employee relationships are being discussed (which is the topic on this thread). According to you, an infinite number of jobs exist limited only by the subjective unilateral determinations of any would be "employer" regardless of any offer and acceptance. If I think there is "a task I need completed" then there is a "job." I think we need to pilot a spaceship to Pluto. A job. I want my house painted inside and out for ten dollars. Poof, another "job." Obama wants every bridge in America refurbished. Thousands more "jobs." The Egyptians would like the Great Pyramid replicated a thousand times to boost tourism. Millions more "jobs." These are not "jobs" but fantasies until offer and acceptance. Thus there is no "job" to own.

Actually, I do not see unions as being a value add in the US for decades now. They are a value subtract.

All of the issues unions were originally supposed to have been created for have been not just addressed, but over addressed in the morass of law and regulations we have to deal with.

As in any collectivist action the end product is always at best mediocre.

Actually a job exists regardless. A "Job" is a task, to be done.
The Job exists regardless of whether there is anyone willing to fill it or not. The "Job" exists simply because "I" as the individual wanting something done had deemed a "task" of some sort needs accomplished, be it moving dirt or installing a 500 million dollar IT system.

Take the kids and a perfect example. I have a "Job", the "Job" is to move 6 tons of dirt to the back of my property. If I do the "Job", or hire someone, the "Job" exists simply because I have a task I need completed.

I offer the neighbor $5.00/ hour to move my dirt. he says no, that is not enough money. The job still exists, say if an illegal immigrant wants it and is willing to do it for $5.00/hr. If I have no takers, and the dirt stays there for 6 months and starts growing weeds, "I" still have the job, it is MY job, I OWN the job.

I decide that I will pay $10.00 per hour for someone and take an add in Craig's list. I get 50 people who will move the dirt at that rate. The Job is still mine to either hire someone or not, and who I give it to.

I decide that I do not want to pay someone and I do the "Job" myself. No matter how you slice it, cut it, dice it, the Job is MINE not yours. In fact my wife has a LOT of jobs for me to do, that have not been done for years. Job still exists and there was NO mutual agreement on when I would or if I would do it.

The safety concerns might be better addressed by insurance companies if there were no government enforced workmen's compensation schemes largely prohibiting suits against the employers based on negligence causing injuries. Of course, these workers don't see that so they instead threaten strikes where they are insulated from firing by government labor laws. The common problem is government.

The job doesn't exist until there is a mutual agreement to trade labor for dollars. To take your example of hiring neighborhood kids to work for you, there is no job when you are speculating about your need or even when you have made an offer to the kids. Only when someone accepts is there a job created by mutual agreement. If no one accepts your offer to mow your lawn for five dollars, then no job is ever created at all. If the job does not exist then it makes no sense to state that someone "owns" it. After someone accepts and the job is created it again makes no sense to talk of "ownership." The job is a contract with both parties having rights related to that contract.

I have been in the workforce about 45 years; I have
never been in a union. I used not to believe in unions
at all; still, Ayn Rand, in "The Fountainhead", was somewhat satiric in presenting a character named
Jules Fougler, who called himself (emphasis on
called himself) an individualist and said he did-
n't like unions. I do not think the government
should give unions any power in the private
sector. As to the public sector, and long as the
government is supported by enforced taxation,
its employees should not be allowed to be in
unions in those jobs. If the government did
not give unions any power, then, in case of a
strike, I guess it would not be a violation of
rights, whichever side won. But that is not how
it is at present. The unions have too much
power, which the government has given them.

I think the "golden" nugget of truth is in this article: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...

I often hire neighbor kids to do work for me. I OWN the job, and I can offer that to whom ever I choose, or not, regardless of who "wants" that job. That opportunity is provided at MY behest not anyone else's. I pay them to do work, IF they agree to the pay.

There is no proverbial market, only a task I want fulfilled, that I want to pay someone else to do. I OWN THE JOB.

Same is true of business. The minute you "think" that somehow the job is owned by the employee, you have deviated seriously from "Objectivism."

What I am doing is not relevant. The fact that I as a business owner, have "something" whereby I want someone else to perform a task no matter what that task is. means that I own that job, not the person filling the task whatever that task is.

That job exists because I as the employer CHOOSE to have someone else fill a task either I cannot do or do not want to do or do not have time myself to do. Again, I OWN the job.

I think you are confusing the source of employment opportunities. As an employer, what are you actually doing? You're not owning jobs - you are fulfilling customer needs for products/services. Your employees fulfill necessary roles, acting in aggregate to fulfill those market needs according to the size and profitability of the market. Someone else can fulfill those very same needs who is not a member of your company. That's why we have competition. Because ultimately, it is the market in general that creates opportunities - not employers. If there weren't opportunities for growth, you wouldn't be hiring for additional positions.

The job exists because of the market. Then both employer (providing capital) and employee (providing labor) work to satisfy the market and reap a profit.

The problem with unions is that once that contract is in place, there is absolutely no reason for the employer to do anything "more" for individual high-contributing workers. Likewise, its impossible to get rid of the idiots either.

That being said, I know there are problems in refineries, but its from a combination of unions and the government that has created it. The unions lock-out the ability for non-union workers to be used for additive labor, so to 'add' labor is a lifelong commitment for the employer.

Second, the refineries are all running at 120% capacity... when was the last time you heard of a refinery being built? most of them have been here since the 70's... the EPA makes new permitting pretty much impossible, so they keep adding capacity to existing facilities and running them around the clock.

Getting the government to take some ownership in that problem would never happen though, not under this regime. Likewise, the Bush family wouldn't help the situation either, as the refinery companies are making a lot of money by over-subscribing the capacity of existing facilities, the last thing they 'really' want is competition.

Accidents though have become commonplace, I don't blame the workers themselves for being uncomfortable. We just had a massive explosion in the SF Bay Area last year at the ancient Chevron facility in Richmond. Pretty much all of them seem to have an explosion/toxic cloud/flame-off issue every year or so.

Its the kind of environment where you really don't want people on the job for 12 hour days 9-days straight or something, there is an interest in public safety there... Since they are always at major ports, its not like they are in the middle of nowhere either.

I will agree to disagree. As a former business owner, it was MY choice an how many "Jobs" I would create based on how much I wanted to grow my company.

As the business owner is was MY choice when to hire, the duration of the employment, and was based on mutual agreement between me, and the person I hired.

Management does not own the worker, nor did I suggest any such thing. I stated the business OWNS the Job, not the person who fills that Job.

That job could be filled by any of the applicants the Business owner chooses. Not at My behest because I want the job.

The Job, exists because of the employer, not because of people who want a job. If someone fills that job, they are trading their time to the employer for compensation.

Not true. Should managers retain the right to fire employees? Sure, but the employee can walk out as well! In an employer-employee relationship, neither party OWNS the right to the other. Both agree to work together for both sides' profit. Thus the job does NOT exist solely at the behest of the owner - it must also exist at the behest of the worker!

When the workers own management, it's called unionization. When management owns the workers it's called slavery. It's that middle ground where both respect each other that we call capitalism.

When I read all the comments, something strange happened to me. Taken together, added all up, the comments showed what pure insanity the union in this case was engaging in. Is it true that the human race is declining into terminal stupidity? I made a near fatal error. I looked back at some of the issues and comments I saved from the Gulch for future reference. It lead me to believe that, if the kind of thinking that comments were made on prevail, we are doomed to a world of self destructing morons. It's not global warming we should fear, but self-immolating global stupidity.

I agree jobs are mutually beneficial, however; that job is solely OWNED, and is the SOLE PROPERTY of the business.

They can fire, hire, offer to pay whatever, offer health benefits or make everyone 1099 contractor. The job exists at the total behest of the business owner, not the employee.

Partially correct. Jobs are a mutually-beneficial, contractual arrangement where the business owner agrees to pay you for a combination of your mind and muscles in exchange for productivity. Remember, the business owner can't do everything themselves: they hire specialists to take care of all the various aspects of the business according to their utility and importance.

Unionization happens usually as a result of government intervention in the market, ironically enough. Whether that is due to restrictive trade agreements, environmental permitting (a huge one), or a host of other taxes or special preferences, Unions always fall apart when there is true competition both for labor and for products because the extra overhead necessary to run a union and use union labor eventually gets squeezed out by customers seeking better value.

Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" was one of the most ridiculously cause-and-effect examples of this, though definitely not as the author thought. Why did unionization take over in the early 30's? Again - thank governmental rules and regulations like the creation of the FDA.

Any "improvement" in this economy is nonsense. Adding more burger-flippers while cutting the workweek to avoid ZeroCare/IRS penalties is a pseudo-economy.

Problem number one is the Union has become an entity at the table of, for and about itself, not a representative of the workers. Problem number two, industry has allowed the confrontational model to persist?
Step one: insist in all negotiations that a significant amount of compensation come in the form of stock ownership in the company you work for. Step two: divorce the company from providing "benefits" beyond cash -- the Union can organize individually managed retirement and healthcare accounts/plans (or the individual can invest a reasonable portion of his/her salary in retirement and in healthcare plans that provide what s/he wants in the form of healthcare (without any agency mandating what they have to have -- for example, I'm 57 years old and very responsible, I don't need maternity coverage; As a trained and experience Mental Health Professional I do not believe substance abuse issues are "diseases" thus I do not need substance abuse "coverage." Thus, I would not chose insurance plans that have such. I understand others might feel more comfortable having such coverage and they are free to buy such as market value.)
Thus, workers gain a stake in the companies success and individuals learn the value of the "free" benefits they currently sacrifice compensation they could be receiving in cash. At the micro level individual workers gain significant increases in salary and control over some very important aspects of their future. Unions are forced to "retool" to become better stewards of the trust workers place in them. At the macro level, vast amounts of investment occurs as individual workers actively involve themselves in the Capital end of Capitalism and the price of healthcare is reduced radically.
Lastly, and most importantly for this experiment in freedom, the forces unleashed will force the government to repeal the 16th Amendment and pass a more rational tax process (i.e. the FairTax Act).

Good point. What we've been seeing *forever* is corporations not having the guts to set their own pay-scales based on business and market facts. And that, friends, is why America has lost so many of it's best producers who have left America for cheaper labor, all in order to remain competitive and survive. In that, it seems to be their own failures in negotiating with the unions. So Detroit becomes a ghost town -- no winners in sight!