Hi. My name is... Robert Smith
Posted by Boborobdos 12 years ago to The Gulch: Introductions
I'm very happy to have landed in the Gulch... I hope to get some insights for when I watch and discuss the movie.
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 17.
This won't be acknowledged, whatever.
You do, however, have the patience of Job!
Fair enough. There is a place for law. Corporations should not be allowed to practice cronyism any more than unions. Politicians should be held accountable also. Corporations have money, but so do the unions. The unions also have political organization and many more votes than any corporation. Which do you suppose is likely to exert greater political pressure? Votes and intimidation are weighted in favor of the unions.
Unregulated monopolies? Have no competition? Free markets would deal with that and not all monopolies are bad.
Google search keywords, “justice department fines 2013” returned About 43,100,000 results. A plethora of fines levied against businesses recently.
https://www.google.com/search?noj=1&...
A google search of “Justice department fines business” returns with About 21,200,000 results.
Why the unions good, corporations bad, inclination? Are all big union leaders pure, while the motives of all corporations are by virtue of their object being profit inherently evil? Isn’t the further acquisition of money the union’s object also?
I have no beef with the rank and file, but the leadership is no more pure than the politician that they purchase.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/03/union-...
Cronyism is not acceptable regardless of the source.
OSHA is an agency that has served its purpose and exceeded it. It has become another money making enterprise for the gov’t. and a burden to industry.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stosse...
We grant gov’t too much power and it sells it while it grows enormous and yet many cry “give me more.” There is the true villain, for the gov’t is the only body that can legally use force and we sanction the abuse with our ambivalence.
Respectfully,
O.A.
It is an interesting book or movie plot point, but has it really occurred? Please give an example.
Rob
Rob
Rob
Tell me, who would you rather pay for, a fat cat who decides what your coverage should be, or a civil serpent? (yes, I picked that from spell check!)
I find it amazing that folks deny that eventually they will have health problems that will drain them.
Rob
Rob
The Affordable Health Care is a zeppelin that is going to crash and burn. It relies too heavily on people like me to sign up. Good luck with that. You can’t keep Obama in office forever. I also intend to boycott any business that promotes this nonsense.
It's a bigger problem than that.
And how do you stop corporations that might be foreign owned from buying political favors? That's a double edge sword.
That's really tricky without government regulation. So, the question becomes, "Where to regulate."
Without some sort of oversight what interest will anyone have in ending bad practices? The trick is to make it minimally impact the negotiation process without tilting the playing field.
My idea would not to touch unions or owners. Let them spend their money. However for politicians ALL contributions should be made available to the public by candidates. This would include indirect contributions (as in PACs) so that the American Public would know who is trying to buy our government.
More from OA: "The government fines and even breaks up companies when they feel they are too big for their britches."
Not lately. "Too Big To Fail" seems to be the latest cry. Do you have an example of a company that was broken up since Ma Bell that turned out to be a huge failure. In fact the merger between Comcast and NBC with the vertical integration and potential for a monopoly sure deserves a close look. The public can't win when there is an unregulated monopoly. You know, no competition.
"They will not reproach the unions though because they are largely a giant monolithic voting block. Many of the politicians are beholding to them."
There are many politicians that are beholding to corporations too. Adolph Coors and the Koke Brothers are excellent examples.
From both directions it's bad. At this point I again think that daylight is best so the American Public see who is supporting who. Then they can decide if it's better to have a politician bought and paid for by the Koke Brothers, Monsanto, China, Japan, or a Teachers', Police, Fire, or Grocery store union.
Each voter can then decide for themselves.
There should be no political input into the negotiation between management and labor as possible. It should be the job (interesting theory anyhow) for our government to assure a level playing field and that's it.
BTW, OSHA (even though there are abuses) and other things relating to health and safety shouldn't be left to a political process but a common sense one. We don't want anyone dead if something could have been done about it.
Rob
Respectfully,
O.A.
And quite frankly that sucks. It's too bad our political leaders didn't have the guts to stand up for the people they were elected to serve.
We MUST get rid of the bad rules and make sure the playing field gets even again.
Both management and unions should work under the notion that if they kill the golden goose it's bad for everyone.
Rob
"Union and civil-service rules made it virtually impossible to fire anyone. A six-step disciplinary process provided job protection to anyone with a pulse, regardless of poor performance or bad behavior. Even the time-honored management technique of moving someone up or sideways where he would do less harm didn't work in Detroit: Job descriptions and qualification requirements were so strict it was impossible for management to rearrange the organization chart. I was a manager with virtually no authority over personnel. "
Once again: EVEN PLAYING FIELD.
It's that simple.
Rob
Don't want anyone's life to change unless they want it changed.
I find it kinda sad that you are willing to die rather than get some help from society, but that is certainly your choice.
But, please understand that in America most folks are part of society. Do you use roads? Do you enjoy the common protection we get from our military?
BTW, as nice a person as you might be I choose not to have you around me if you have not done your best to remain healthy. I don't deny you your path, but I don't want you carrying something to me or my kin that might have been cured. I hope you understand that is my choice.
Rob
Wow!
You sure have made a big entrance!
Consider the notion that this is a site where people are dedicated to the premise that collectivism and communism are taboo. Unions are a form of both.
You are looking for answers, but you do not seem to fully appreciate the benefit and power of the market. Unions and government manipulations (special interest regulations and cronyism) are contrary to market forces. They are thus destined to ultimate failure. The market always wins eventually.
In making the argument that McDonalds should pay more, you are negating the market and their competition. McDonalds must compete for business against other fast food chains. If the wages are raised it will have to come from somewhere. The owners may raise prices if they think it will not adversely impact sales or they may in fact take a hit if they feel the profit is still sufficient. The franchise owner or corporation representative will decide how and where, like it or not. If the wages demanded are beyond the point where the investors/owners feel the return is too small they will close shop. So much for the jobs the workers priced themselves out of.
Likewise, the businesses owners must compete for workers. If there were not enough people willing to work for the wages offered, all like businesses would be forced to raise wages. This is how the wages are set. The market wins. If the wages offered are too low then some other business offering better wages will attract the better workers and prosper while the business offering low wages will suffer and likely fail if enough good workers are not willing to accept the terms. The market works.
If you believe that all fast food restaurants are colluding to set the wages/ prices then you have a lawsuit, if you can prove it.
If prices are raised unnaturally by unions instead of market forces then the poor will suffer the most as those prices adversely impact them to greater degree than the affluent. They need cheap food options. The poor will also have fewer entry level jobs available as fewer workers will move on leaving openings for new trainees, and the management struggling under the greater burden will do all it can to reduce costs by hiring more part time workers or reducing staff through automation and any other way they can conceive of. Additionally anyone contemplating the investment in more of these types of businesses will evaporate once the profit margin is diminished.
If one truly believes that the market will bear higher prices in the face of the other franchises competition, in this country, you are free to start your own business and compete. If you are right you will win and put McDonalds out of business. This is the reality that every fast food chain (for that matter any business) lives within. At any moment if they do not keep their prices and wages in line with the market they risk failure. They price and pay in recognition that at any moment some other competitor new or old may try to squeeze them out.
End part 1.
Load more comments...