Wal-Mart Employees Says No To Union

[The Yosemite Bear]

I've worked in both union shops and non-union shops. There is no difference in quality of craftsmanship. However, the union workers are typically higher-paid and don't work as hard. The bigger the union, the more dramatic the difference until you reach government worker unions, which are truly obscene in their abuse of power.

SEU we represent the Firemen, the Police, School Teachers, Beurocrats, Waste Management, as well as the few union bartendars and the "Sisterhood of Sexual Proformers and Dancers"... (find it funny that we have sucessfully unionized prostitution in Nevada, and Topless wait staff & Strippers in SF & Nevada.

Actually recently I filed a complaint against an employer, because his failure to even bother to document a high seniority employee's abuse of seniority, company rules and sexual harrassment, was damaging a large number of low seniority union employees. And cutting him all of this slack was endangering his co-workers. Management didn't think we would care....

[Darth Wong]

Actually recently I filed a complaint against an employer, because his failure to even bother to document a high seniority employee's abuse of seniority, company rules and sexual harrassment, was damaging a large number of low seniority union employees. And cutting him all of this slack was endangering his co-workers. Management didn't think we would care....

That's most likely because unions have a long history of closing ranks when management tries to get rid of somebody. I know I've been on both sides of that coin, and when there's a bad employee who had high seniority we don't bother doing anything about it because the union will have our asses. There was a teacher dumped from a local school board some years ago for "sexual interference" who successfully filed a grievance, for fuck's sake.

[ArchMage]

Forgive me for the long post to follow. I work at Wal-Mart in Canada and I must answer some of these posts. Note that I cannot speak for U.S. stores.

Wal-Mart is anti-union. Wal-mart believes that there is no visible or measureable benifit of having a union in the stores. Store associates that have had unions back this up time and again but eather getting rid of the union shortly after its incorporation, or never voting one in in the first place.

Wal-Mart takes jobs away from other employers. In 2002 Ryerson University published an extensive study called 'The Economic Impact of Wal-Mart Stores' which shows that Canadian communities generally expericned an economic boost from Wal-Marts presence (unless you are zellers ).

Wal-Mart uses child labour. This is absolutly false. Wal-Mart enforces one of the strictest verder codes of conduct in the retail industry. The code requires all suppliers to maintain humane workplace conditions, without exception. Every year, we invest countless time and money into making sure that all our suppliers and their factories comply with our standards for the workplace. In particular, we DO NOT tolerate the use of child labour, forced labour, or discrimination in the manufacturing of any products sold in our stores.

Wal-Mart doesnt pay its Associates for the hours they work. Totaly false. All associates are paid for every hour they work. In fact, if you are cought working off the clock, you can get in huge amout of trouble.

Wal-Mart pays their employees shit. Wal-Mart has been ranked the best retailer to work for in Canada twice during the past three years by Report on Business Magazine and the international human resource firm Hewitt Associates. We also have been ranked number two company in Canada for Best Career Opportunities and number three for Best Work Life Balance.

I wonder if Wal-Mart Canada does the same as in the US

Well my brother think the primary reason the union want to get in Wal-Mart is not entirely to protect workers against abusive bosses,but to get more money from union members.

No, we are not the same as the U.S. My store had a union and the associates decided to get rid of it because we got everything (and more) that the union offered without the union. People arent fired for talking about unions or whatever.

You can't buy Maxim at Wal Mart. Nor, to my knowledge, uncensored versions of albums with explicit lyrics

you can in Canada. and FMH etc.

Plus they make magasines like cosmo put alternate covers on so as not to dammage teh children

Not in Canada. I have seen some mags that had almost porn on the cover in the stands at the checkouts.

My aunt works for a Wal-Mart and does, apparently, get stock options.

True, and the company matches what you put in for stocks by 15%. You put 30$ in a paycheck, they put in another 4.50$. Every associate, no matter how long you have been there has this option.

Full time employees who have been with the company for six months get 401K, life insurance, the option for health insurance, and other misc. stuff. Any employee who's been there for any length of time can purchase company stock directly through the company. And for SuperCenter employees, if their store meets sales, they get cut a bonus profit sharing check. Apparently, at a local store, all of the full timers got a $1000 bonus check under that policy

this is true, in Canada its ALOT cheeper then the U.S appearently. like 5 bucks a paycheck for coverage. Every store has the oppertunity to get a profit sharing check, depending on how your store does that ficsal year up to $2000. This is not just the full time people, but everyone who worked 1000+ hours a year. (20 hours a week average) and nearly everone works this. If you have less then that, you might still get a half share or whatever.

However, they still sell cigarettes

We dont sell cigarettes.

I like Sam's Club. Where else can I buy Kraft Macaroni and Cheese by the metric ton?

Sam's Club IS owned by Wal-Mart.

I work at a safeway. We lose tons of business because Wal-Mart keeps its prices rock bottom

PWNED.


Note: this is all Canada, I have no idea about the U.S. side of the operation.

[Darth Wong]

Canada has a lot of worker protection laws in place, and Wal-Mart's Canadian management, while obviously subordinate to the parent company, is nevertheless local and probably operates under a different set of cultural axioms than the American one.

[Alyrium Denryle]

PWNED.

Gee thanks. Though I am in the US where Wal-Mart DOES fire pro-union workers, pays their workers below the market equilibrium price for their work, and generally mistreats workers in a terrible fashion. There is a reason they can drop prices below the equlibibium point, and that is because they dont have the overhead costs in the form of wages and benifits that safeway has.

[ArchMage]

I should also point out that something along the lines of 75%+ of the merchandise sold in Wal-Mart in Canada is made in Canada.

And just to point out how 'crappy' Wal-Mart is for its employees, the current store manager for my store started working at Wal-Mart when he was 17 as Store Standards (the guys who clean toilets). He is 25 now and a store manager. Anyone who works at Wal-Mart has the same chance to rise to whatever position they want to try for. All you have to do is actually WORK. All the people i hear bitching about the managment and the crappy jobs who work there are alwayse the same people who slack off and dont do shit. Then they wonder why managment is so hard on them. Its just like any business, do your god damn job and they wont have a problem.

[Superman]

Arch, do you have a point or do you just want to change the subject to some shit about "working hard?"

[ArchMage]

yes, my point is all these people bitching and whining about how 'evil' walmart is without them actually knowing what the fuck they are talking about gets annoying. I figured i would interupt this anti walmart wankfest with some actual information. Not the whole company is so horrid. They are saying how bad walmart is like no other company does the same stuff.
You know those Nike's you are wearing that were made in malasia by 5 year old kids for 2 cents an hour? Or that rice you ate last night picked by the chineese peasents?

[Master of Ossus]

I said that unionization drives the market towards failure,

No, too few dollars chasing too many goods is what drives markets toward failure.

Do you even know what a market failure is?

and the drop in American worker rights since the unions lost their power have led to a market correction, whereas before several industries were drastically over-paying their work forces as a result of unionization.

And exactly how much pay is "enough"? How does placing workers in a position where they are overworked, underpaid, insecure, and insolvent result in a stable market structure? [/quote]

They should be paid the equilibrium wages for jobs requiring their skill level and number of hours, adjusted for compensation wages (both positive and negative, if applicable). People can complain that they're overworked or underpaid, but if EVERYONE is offering them about the same benefits, pay, and work hours, then it would seem like an issue for the individual to take up with society as a whole.

[Darth Wong]

They should be paid the equilibrium wages for jobs requiring their skill level and number of hours, adjusted for compensation wages (both positive and negative, if applicable). People can complain that they're overworked or underpaid, but if EVERYONE is offering them about the same benefits, pay, and work hours, then it would seem like an issue for the individual to take up with society as a whole.

Correct, hence the popularity of movements to increase the minimum wage and push for stronger worker protection laws. However, the same political forces which oppose unions tend to oppose those movements as well, thus laying bare their agenda.

[Patrick Degan]

I said that unionization drives the market towards failure,

No, too few dollars chasing too many goods is what drives markets toward failure.

Do you even know what a market failure is?

Yes I do. Cease your condescension.

and the drop in American worker rights since the unions lost their power have led to a market correction, whereas before several industries were drastically over-paying their work forces as a result of unionization.

And exactly how much pay is "enough"? How does placing workers in a position where they are overworked, underpaid, insecure, and insolvent result in a stable market structure?

They should be paid the equilibrium wages for jobs requiring their skill level and number of hours, adjusted for compensation wages (both positive and negative, if applicable). People can complain that they're overworked or underpaid, but if EVERYONE is offering them about the same benefits, pay, and work hours, then it would seem like an issue for the individual to take up with society as a whole.[/quote]

One individual has zero bargaining power against society as a whole or —the more applicable here— corporate management. Hence, as has been pointed out, the popularity of political and labour movements to bring about a decent minimium wage, strong worker protection laws, and decent compensation and benefits above the bare minimum.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I should also point out that something along the lines of 75%+ of the merchandise sold in Wal-Mart in Canada is made in Canada.

And just to point out how 'crappy' Wal-Mart is for its employees, the current store manager for my store started working at Wal-Mart when he was 17 as Store Standards (the guys who clean toilets). He is 25 now and a store manager. Anyone who works at Wal-Mart has the same chance to rise to whatever position they want to try for. All you have to do is actually WORK. All the people i hear bitching about the managment and the crappy jobs who work there are alwayse the same people who slack off and dont do shit. Then they wonder why managment is so hard on them. Its just like any business, do your god damn job and they wont have a problem.

And I don work my ass off. Problem is in the US where worker protectiojn laws are not as trict.. wal-mart DOES abuse its workers.

[Master of Ossus]

Do you even know what a market failure is?

Yes I do. Cease your condescension.

Then you'll be happy to explain how having "too few dollars chasing too many goods" drives a market towards failure.

One individual has zero bargaining power against society as a whole or —the more applicable here— corporate management. Hence, as has been pointed out, the popularity of political and labour movements to bring about a decent minimium wage, strong worker protection laws, and decent compensation and benefits above the bare minimum.

They have fairly little bargaining power, provided that there are many other workers that have identical skills. BTW, how do you define "decent minimum wage?" How do you explain the fact that unions have been OBSERVED to drive other workers out of work, artificially raise labor prices, and drive markets towards failure?

Edit: I should also point out that virtually every union REQUIRES membership for people in certain companies. That's not a reasonable position to take, and further demonstrates that workers are not in favor of unions.

[Ryoga]

After reading all this, I have only one thing to say:

I go to Wally-World for my Transformers and that's it, I swear. Their 'featured license' thing is just so tempting.

So....uh....please don't kill me?

[Glocksman]

Edit: I should also point out that virtually every union REQUIRES membership for people in certain companies. That's not a reasonable position to take, and further demonstrates that workers are not in favor of unions.

Have you ever heard the term 'right to work' state?
22 states forbid 'closed shop' clauses in union contracts. You cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment in these states.

Also, if you don't like the non-representational aspects (political activity, etc.) of union membership and you don't live in a right to work state, you still can exercise your Beck rights and pay an agency fee that covers only the cost of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

How do you explain the fact that unions have been OBSERVED to drive other workers out of work, artificially raise labor prices, and drive markets towards failure?

Proof?

[The Yosemite Bear]

After reading all this, I have only one thing to say:

I go to Wally-World for my Transformers and that's it, I swear. Their 'featured license' thing is just so tempting.

So....uh....please don't kill me?

Sorry, too late *Bang*

it's for the good of the prolotariate.

[Glocksman]

After reading all this, I have only one thing to say:

I go to Wally-World for my Transformers and that's it, I swear. Their 'featured license' thing is just so tempting.

So....uh....please don't kill me?

Sorry, too late *Bang*

it's for the good of the prolotariate.

Workers of the World, unite!
You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[Alyrium Denryle]

*Drops bombs on the Marxist revolution*

[Darth Wong]

How do you explain the fact that unions have been OBSERVED to drive other workers out of work, artificially raise labor prices, and drive markets towards failure?

Please explain precisely what you mean by "drive markets towards failure." Do you refer to stock market collapse? Rampant inflation? Rising unemployment? Corporate bankruptcies on a widespread scale? I am unclear as to exactly what "drive markets towards failure" means.

[Patrick Degan]

Do you even know what a market failure is?

Yes I do. Cease your condescension.

Then you'll be happy to explain how having "too few dollars chasing too many goods" drives a market towards failure.

I should have thought it was self-explanatory. If you don't have enough people with sufficent buying power to sustain demand, the market cannot operate. It fails. Cutting wages bears directly on this problem —either by drying up money directly or leading to an economy dangerously balanced on unsecured credit, which merely delays the crash. So I ask you again: how does placing workers in a position where they are overworked, underpaid, insecure, and insolvent result in a stable market structure?

One individual has zero bargaining power against society as a whole or —the more applicable here— corporate management. Hence, as has been pointed out, the popularity of political and labour movements to bring about a decent minimium wage, strong worker protection laws, and decent compensation and benefits above the bare minimum.

They have fairly little bargaining power, provided that there are many other workers that have identical skills. BTW, how do you define "decent minimum wage?" How do you explain the fact that unions have been OBSERVED to drive other workers out of work, artificially raise labor prices, and drive markets towards failure?

No, they have no bargaining power in any situation where the power-disparity is weighted heavily in favour of corporate management.

A decent minimum wage is one that keeps the wage floor at least in low single-digit percentages above the rate of inflation, and provides sufficent incentive to choose work over welfare for the working poor.

And I'm amused by your magnification of extreme (and localised) incidents of union abuse-of-power into a huge False Cause Fallacy —unionisation leads to market-failure.

[Master of Ossus]

I should have thought it was self-explanatory. If you don't have enough people with sufficent buying power to sustain demand, the market cannot operate. It fails.

Thank you. That's not a market failure, since standard market influences will automatically reduce the problem back towards equilibrium. It may take a while, but if the market will self-correct then there is no market failure.

Cutting wages bears directly on this problem —either by drying up money directly or leading to an economy dangerously balanced on unsecured credit, which merely delays the crash. So I ask you again: how does placing workers in a position where they are overworked, underpaid, insecure, and insolvent result in a stable market structure?

Once again: workers are not being underpaid for their skill level. That's why union membership is almost always mandatory instead of voluntary. That's why EVERYONE is paying non-unionized labor less money, and why those workers are willing to accept it. If you're going to argue that they're underpaid, find instances of price-fixing on the part of managements. Here's a hint: the Feds are ALWAYS looking for stuff like this, since it's so serious when it happens. Forming cartels; especially in the labor industry, is VERY dangerous. So, if you have evidence that this is actually happening, bring it to the federal courts. You'll win triple damages, if the case turns out for the better.

They have fairly little bargaining power, provided that there are many other workers that have identical skills. BTW, how do you define "decent minimum wage?" How do you explain the fact that unions have been OBSERVED to drive other workers out of work, artificially raise labor prices, and drive markets towards failure?

No, they have no bargaining power in any situation where the power-disparity is weighted heavily in favour of corporate management.

That's only in a purely competitive labor market, which doesn't exist. They DO have bargaining power, especially fi their skills are unusually valuable. It just tends to be small unless they can differentiate themselves in some way.

A decent minimum wage is one that keeps the wage floor at least in low single-digit percentages above the rate of inflation, and provides sufficent incentive to choose work over welfare for the working poor.

Actually, dumbass, despite the minimum wage floor the average wage has FALLEN against inflation over the past 30 years. You can argue that it would provide incentive to work over welfare, but realistically any worker who's pulling 40 hours at minimum wage (or even 20, for that matter) is going to be doing better than welfare ALMOST everywhere, even when adjusted for additional benefits.

And I'm amused by your magnification of extreme (and localised) incidents of union abuse-of-power into a huge False Cause Fallacy —unionisation leads to market-failure.

You have to be kidding me. It DOES lead to market failure, since it lays off workers that would otherwise be hired as being productive. Unions ALWAYS lead to market failures, EXCEPT in cases where managements are colluding to lower labor prices, which is VERY rare in this day in age. Unions have driven SEVERAL corporations to bankruptcy. They have had MASSIVELY negative influences on public utilities, school districts (especially teaching unions), and private corporations. They have resulted in measurable increases in unemployment rates, and have driven up prices artificially, even if the wages are massively higher than the equilibrium price for equally skilled workers. That IS a market failure, since the market has no other method to deal with labor blackmailing managements.

[Glocksman]

You keep saying this over and over again. How about some proof.
Clear, concise proof that unions drive companies into bankruptcy?

And a list of unionized companies who filed for bankruptcy isn't proof.
Plenty of nonunion companies file for bankruptcy as well.

[Darth Wong]

MoO, you used the term "market failure" 4 times in your last post without explaining precisely what the definition of a "market failure" is. Your last paragraph even seems to imply that a market failure has already occurred, and that we currently have a failed "market". Could you please explain precisely what you mean by "market failure?"

[Patrick Degan]

I should have thought it was self-explanatory. If you don't have enough people with sufficent buying power to sustain demand, the market cannot operate. It fails.

Thank you. That's not a market failure, since standard market influences will automatically reduce the problem back towards equilibrium. It may take a while, but if the market will self-correct then there is no market failure.

That is a market-failure. When the market ceases to work, it has failed. The rebuilding of the market afterward does not change this fact. Neither does your attempted redefinition of the term.

Cutting wages bears directly on this problem —either by drying up money directly or leading to an economy dangerously balanced on unsecured credit, which merely delays the crash. So I ask you again: how does placing workers in a position where they are overworked, underpaid, insecure, and insolvent result in a stable market structure?

Once again: workers are not being underpaid for their skill level. That's why union membership is almost always mandatory instead of voluntary. That's why EVERYONE is paying non-unionized labor less money, and why those workers are willing to accept it.

No, people accept less money when they've got no fucking choice in the matter. And you didn't answer my question, which I will restate: how does placing workers in a position where they are overworked, underpaid, insecure, and insolvent result in a stable market structure?

If you're going to argue that they're underpaid, find instances of price-fixing on the part of managements. Here's a hint: the Feds are ALWAYS looking for stuff like this, since it's so serious when it happens. Forming cartels; especially in the labor industry, is VERY dangerous. So, if you have evidence that this is actually happening, bring it to the federal courts. You'll win triple damages, if the case turns out for the better.

Um, ahem:

Link
When Comcast bought the franchise 10 years ago from Barden Cable, it promised to honor the franchise agreement. Part of the agreement was an Equal Employment Opportunities plan that projected 400 community jobs by the year 2000. Instead, we have seen a decline in cable employment from 150 workers in 20 job titles a decade ago to just 58 Comcast workers in two jobs titles within the city of Detroit.

What happened? Much of the work now is done by low-wage subcontractors and many jobs were transferred to scattered suburban locations where workers aren't unionized. And that's the key: Detroit workers have a union, and Comcast has demonstrated many times that it doesn't like unions and will do all it can to keep workers from organizing and even break unions where they exist.

By systematically running campaigns to oust unions from operations that it purchased from AT&T in Los Angeles, Sacramento, Chicago, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Spokane and St. Paul, Comcast has earned the designation as "one of the most aggressively antiunion corporations in America," in the words of AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.

And

Link
The report, ''Some of Them Are Brave: The Unfulfilled Promise of American Labor Law,'' highlights the experiences of certified nursing assistants like Ernest Duval of West Palm Beach. Duval, a Haiti native, was fired for his involvement in unionization efforts, the report said. He later received $1,797.58 in lost back pay -- 5 ½ years after his firing.

ABUSES ALLEGED

Through stories, and interviews with individuals like Duval, the report's authors -- American Rights at Work, a group that chronicles attacks and workplace abuses in unionization efforts -- found:

• Workers face widespread and systematic violations of their legal and human rights.

• Employers use both legal and illegal tactics to thwart unionization efforts, including surveillance and spying.

• Absent genuine employer non-interference, it often takes extraordinary perseverance and community support for unions to win.

Mary Ellen Early, a spokeswoman for the Florida Association of Homes for the Aging, disputed the report's claims that workers are intimidated from participating in the unionization process.

''In the few homes we have, where unionization efforts took place, they went the full course. People were not discouraged from doing that,'' said Early. The group represents about 100 nursing homes across Florida including East Ridge Retirement Community in Miami, which is unionized.

``When you have a good working relationship, the need for unionization may be perceived as less needed by the people who work there.''

'Unfortunately the cases described in `Some of Them Are Brave' are just the tip of the iceberg,'' said Jonathan Tasini, national director of American Rights at Work. ``Every day in this country, and around the world, workers are harassed, coerced and fired for trying to form a union.''

OTHER STORIES

Fred Feinstein, a former general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, wrote in the report that stories like Duval's were not uncommon.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcement of the law that protects the rights of workers to organize.

''One need look no further than NLRB cases to find tens of thousands of stories like the ones told in this report. Such stories typify what workers experience when they try to improve working conditions by seeking union representation,'' Feinstein wrote.

And

Link
In view of the small number of cases over almost four full years of implementation, it is trite to state that labor unions and human rights groups across North America have not widely embraced the agreement. The experiences of organizations who have utilized this process confirm the skepticism of the groups who chose to ignore the NAALC - it is a costly, time consuming and ineffective venture. Ironically, the approach of MNCs named in NAO complaints verifies this judgement. Every MNC noted in a complaint chose not to publicly participate in hearings, thereby scuttling their meaningful participation in the NAALC process. MNCs, like labor unions, workers and NAALC complainants, have realized one key point. In the words of the USTR, "[n]othing in the agreement requires the U.S. to change its laws or the enforcement of those laws." (Id at 2) This statement applies equally to Canada and Mexico. In short, the USTR acknowledges that NAALC has changed nothing significant with respect to labor law enforcement in North America and leaves many workers vulnerable to gross exploitation, as candidate Bill Clinton realized back in 1992.

While Mexican workers continue to be denied their basic rights, U.S. (and Canadian) workers are being forced to accept lower wages and benefits. U.S.-based MNCs in particular have taken advantage of the weakness of NAALC to influence wage bargaining and union organizing attempts in the United States by threatening to move production to Mexico. As Kate Bronfenbrenner, Director of Labor Education Research at Cornell University, has conclusively stated, "NAFTA has created a climate that has emboldened employers to more aggressively threaten to close, or actually close their plants to avoid unionization. The only way to create the kind of climate envisioned by the original drafters of the NLRA, where workers can organize free from coercion, threats, and intimidation, would be through a significant expansion of both worker and union rights and employer penalties in the organizing process both through substantive reform to U.S. labor laws and by amendments to the [NAALC]." (Bronfenbrenner, Executive Summary, p.2)

So where's the Terrible Swift Sword of the Labour Dept., then?

They have fairly little bargaining power, provided that there are many other workers that have identical skills. BTW, how do you define "decent minimum wage?" How do you explain the fact that unions have been OBSERVED to drive other workers out of work, artificially raise labor prices, and drive markets towards failure?

No, they have no bargaining power in any situation where the power-disparity is weighted heavily in favour of corporate management.

That's only in a purely competitive labor market, which doesn't exist. They DO have bargaining power, especially fi their skills are unusually valuable. It just tends to be small unless they can differentiate themselves in some way.

Just what little world are you living in? The situation you present as your "proof" is the artificial one —which does not endure once any source for cheaper skilled labour is found.

A decent minimum wage is one that keeps the wage floor at least in low single-digit percentages above the rate of inflation, and provides sufficent incentive to choose work over welfare for the working poor.

Actually, dumbass, despite the minimum wage floor the average wage has FALLEN against inflation over the past 30 years. You can argue that it would provide incentive to work over welfare, but realistically any worker who's pulling 40 hours at minimum wage (or even 20, for that matter) is going to be doing better than welfare ALMOST everywhere, even when adjusted for additional benefits.

Wrong, dumbass —once you factor in living expenses, transit costs, and unexpected expenses which have a strange habit of cropping up, a minimium wage which fails to keep up with inflation does not make a greater advantage than welfare.

And I'm amused by your magnification of extreme (and localised) incidents of union abuse-of-power into a huge False Cause Fallacy —unionisation leads to market-failure.

You have to be kidding me. It DOES lead to market failure, since it lays off workers that would otherwise be hired as being productive. Unions ALWAYS lead to market failures, EXCEPT in cases where managements are colluding to lower labor prices, which is VERY rare in this day in age. Unions have driven SEVERAL corporations to bankruptcy. They have had MASSIVELY negative influences on public utilities, school districts (especially teaching unions), and private corporations. They have resulted in measurable increases in unemployment rates, and have driven up prices artificially, even if the wages are massively higher than the equilibrium price for equally skilled workers. That IS a market failure, since the market has no other method to deal with labor blackmailing managements.

It is you who is kidding here. Once again, you try to generalise to a gross extent and you very conveniently ignore every external factor which has played a part in each "example" (since you engage in mere assertion) alledgedly making your case. You won't define your terms, you don't present evidence, and you don't answer direct questions other than to engage in argument-by-polemic which now has the scent of thinktank bullshit wafting about it.

I have asked before and I will keep asking until I get a straight answer: how does placing workers in a position where they are overworked, underpaid, insecure, and insolvent result in a stable market structure?

[Master of Ossus]

MoO, you used the term "market failure" 4 times in your last post without explaining precisely what the definition of a "market failure" is. Your last paragraph even seems to imply that a market failure has already occurred, and that we currently have a failed "market". Could you please explain precisely what you mean by "market failure?"

Sure. A market failure is a situation in which a capitalist market will not automatically move towards a socially optimal equilibrium point. This happens fairly regularly, and the government almost always steps in to deal with it. The most common instance in which this happens is doubtless pollution: whenever a company creates pollution, they create costs that are detrimental towards society, but that are usually not considered part of that cost when computing a price. The government, therefore, steps in and either charges companies to clean up their messes or to cut pollution, which stabilizes the market and moves the price towards an equilibrium.

This can happen in reverse: education (particularly higher education), in an unregulated market would be a market failure. This is because educating an individual provides benefits for others in society, by making that person better able to shift between jobs and perform functions to benefit society that would otherwise not be possible. Thus, the government steps in to subsidize education, moving the price of education towards a more desirable level, and hopefully encouraging more people to enter into colleges or universities.

Unions create market failures, except when businesses are colluding to lower labor prices. Here's how: labor unions DO have an impact on the wage rate within a company. The last estimate I saw on the matter claimed that unionized labor is paid about 15% more per unit time than workers of comparable skill levels working in non-unioized labor forces. They also tend to demand more benefits, and create other costs for companies. For the sake of example, let's say that interstate truckers are unionizing, but that local truckers (ie. within state) are not unionizing. Now, unions in the interstate trucking industry will raise the wage rate. This will FORCE the company to lay off workers who are no longer producing, but this ALSO moves the price away from the socially optimal point, which had previously been determined by the market system. This NECESSARILY creates a market failure.

Meanwhile, the truckers who are laid off are now looking for work. Many of them will want to remain in a similar industry, since they're used to it and already have training/licenses, etc. Thus, they'll look into the NON-unionized local trucking industry. This will artificially LOWER the wage rate for the LOCAL truckers.

This is not merely a theoretical scenario. Unions have been OBSERVED to fix labor prices for themselves. For example, the American Medical Association was founded in large part to keep the wage rates of doctors high. It's credited with keeping doctor's salaries nearly 40% higher than they would otherwise be. It eliminated almost half of the medical schools in the country within a few decades of its founding (limiting supply), and set up a series of other guidelines. If you think it's because they want everyone to get quality health care, explain why a dentist is legally qualified to deliver a baby whereas the AMA has succeeded in making it illegal for experienced midwives to do the same thing.