Decline of Labor Unions in the West

>>1732412
wtf i love canada now

>>1732412

Deindustrialization caused by free trade deals. America and Europe's industry now struggle to be competitive. They survive by cutting corners. If there's a strong union that defends workers, the business goes down cause it can't cut costs

>>1732424
>If there's a strong union that defends workers, the business goes down cause it can't cut costs

Total bullshit, corporate leaders use unions as a scapegoat for their own shitty decisions and corrupt business practices. The only thing that Unions do to a company that is smart is lower the total profit rate, they don't cause bankruptcies by themselves.

>>1732439

It's not bullshit. And I blame free trade deals not unions. Unions do what they should, only that they make their employers noncompetitive.

>>1732447

Unions are just as bad for aggregate welfare as corporate monopolies. Union workers earn more money at the expense of their employers and all of consumers of the products that they produce.

>>1732594
>will someone please think of the millionaire CEOs and the shareholders making $0.30 less per dividend oh the humanity

>>1732613

And to every single consumer who buys a widget made by acme corporation because prices have risen to pay union workers who also produce gidgets, digets, and figets as they wont allow anyone to work in their field without joining the union.

>>1732636
>decrease in profit margin despite continued net excess profits and income necessitates an increase in prices

"no"

>>1732645

1. You assume every business is large. Most are not. Most business owners earn about as much as their employees and work twice as hard. If you make it impossible to employ labor at a low price you encourage corporate monopoly because only large employers can afford to pay for union labor.

2. You assume large businesses can attract investment without high profits. Generally they can't. The there are a few exceptions like Amazon which runs on the meme that eventually it will generate massive profits.

>>1732636
Were union workers overpaid or loaded with dosh in any way? They WERE consumers.

>>1732678
>You assume every business is large. Most are not.
Most small businesses don't face problems with unions.
>You assume large businesses can attract investment without high profits. Generally they can't.
If a business can prove it will make steady, rising profits - even if they aren't high - they will attract investment. Investors want to make more money off their shares than they spent, that's it.

>>1732613

I know right? Some people are really egoist.

>>1732412
Capitalists won

>>1732694

And then the economy shifted away from mindless labor and fewer workers needed unions to secure good wages.

>>1732412

Commies lost. Unions are commies.

>>1732726
You got a point there I guess. I still think it was a bad idea to kill our industries for cheap Chinese shit.

>>1732712
>>1732729
classic /his/

>>1732712
>>1732729
Kek

>>1732439
>unions suck the lifeblood (profits) out of an entity that has literally one job (make profit)
>well, i really just dont see how you can blame the unions

I'm not saying unionizing should be illegal, but fuck me lad, you're a dumb cunt

>>1732702

Which is Oedipus and which is the Sphinx?

>>1732739
Even tapeworms are smart enough to let a little food go by them, to keep the host alive.

>>1732678
Is amazon not making massive profits?

>>1732739
>If we only made 250% profit this quarter instead of 255%, we have failed as a corporation

>>1732739
>businesses have to make profit
everyone gets their salary, including the CEO, no profits needed

Do you think the CEO gets paid in profit? lmao

>>1732743
You assume that parasites care about the survival of their hosts, even when there aren't others available it is almost impossible for people to exercise the restraint needed to say no to extra money in exchange for sustainability.

>>1732745

It didn't earn decent money until a couple of years ago.

The people in trade unions were mostly people who worked in the secondary sector but this sector has been gradually outscourced into Asia.

>>1732752
Strawman, look up the actual profit margins in any industry and you will see they are nowhere near 250%, unless it is a field where the government gives certain companies a monopoly to prevent competition.
>>1732753
If a business can't turn a profit it closes doors, period. Unless the government subsidizes them, which I oppose as well. I don't see what salaries have to do with this discussion, and I'm not even against unions either, I'm just pointing out some facts.

>>1732739
Porky as fuck

Holy shit

>>1732756
Yes, simple worms are smart enough to keep their hosts alive.

Hostess union workers? Not so much.

>>1732769
Salaries are part of a business' expenses. If it makes as much money as it costs to keep it running then it stays afloat.

Economics 101

File: 1474597081460.png (134KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 306x306px

>>1732771
>tfw we're living in a world where workers who actually do all the work in a corporation are the parasites and the profit taking shareholders are the essential part of the company everyone should make a sacrifice for
nuclear hellfire can't come quick enough

>>1732792

Union workers wish nuclear hellfire on the rest of us. Typical.

>>1732783
Yea no kidding. So the whole 1 business that breaks perfectly even year after year has now completely dismantled my argument.

Reagan made unions into an enemy. That was also the time when wage stopped growing for people.

>>1732823
>i see a nuanced discussion going on
>quick! Let me turn it into a big gov. Republican vs. Big gov. Democrat debate!!!!!!!!

KEEP YOUR HEADS DOWN PEOPLE, REMEMBER VOTING IS YOUR DUTY. DONT FIGURE THINGS OUT FOR YOURSELF, TRUST THE POLITICIANS AND QUIT THINKING ABOUT IT SO MUCH

>>1732594
>>1732636
>>1732712
>>1732729
>>1732817
That's right, work harder goy, you should be glad that you have a job at all. What? You don't make enough to feed your family? I'm sorry, I don't care about your personal life, in my eyes, you are an object, I pay you, and you work for me. Oh, and you say that you have Lung Disease? Am sorry, but you're fired. A man must replace the broken parts to keep his machine running after all, the only way to remain competitive is a capitalistic market is to exploit the workers.

>>1732834
I agree with your post in spirit but ignoring Reagan's actions against unions is a big part of the discussion you can't really ignore it

>>1732823

Returns to college education gave always been increasing. Its just that declines to mindless labor has offset the increases I'm wages.

Second I really have to ask, do you want a job where you tighten down a bolt for 40 hours a day? Because that's what Chinese factory workers do. Its not glamorous or desirable.

>>1732835

I'm a professional who can find a job within a week if I get sacked because employers need my skills.

>>1732819
My point is that you don't need huge profits to make a succesful company. You get diminishing returns at a certain point and you become a cunt. You become a multinational tax-evading fucker who invades politics through lobbying.

As the middle class grew, it made less sense to be apart of a union.

File: 1468569758782.jpg (44KB, 255x212px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 255x212px

>>1732851
>Second I really have to ask, do you want a job where you tighten down a bolt for 40 hours a day?
>oy vey goyim, what do you mean you don't want a factory job that pays a living wage? what you really want to do is go $100k into debt to get a women's studies degree then end up working at Starbucks for $6 an hour yesss that's what you want remember unions are bad for you and factory work is beneath you and boring heheh

>>1732870

>you don't need huge profits

Then wave goodbye to any incentive the leadership has to running a business. You have no business sense.

>>1732883

>this is considered a valid rhetoric technique on /pol/

Cicero would be ashamed.

>>1732870
>if you provide too much service you're greedy and mean :(

So if I have a business that helps people in exchange for money I should stop providing my service at a certain point because making too much money is for cunts? Solid ad hom bro, let's smoke a doob together.

>>1732883

Personally I wouldn't want a job where im stripped of all choice and autonomy. I'm a human being, not a machine.

>>1732885
>>1732902
My point is that there's nothing wrong with accordingly raising wages as your business grows.

Billion dollar companies really don't need to do all the tax evading and exporting jobs overseas they do.

>>1732412
Unions in the USA aren't breaking as many legs or sending as many people who threaten the union on indefinite fishing trips like they used to.

>>1732835
>>1732883
It's refreshing to see posters on the left using this type of rhetoric. Considering Austrian economics is full of Jews that are more stereotypically Jewish than the Marxist ones.

>every civic organization has declined since the 1970s
>religious groups, parent-teacher associations, boy scouts, red cross, fraternities, hunting clubs, the freemasonry
>heck, even right-wing mass organizations like the John Birch Society, the Ku Klux Klan and the Citizens' Councils have largely disappeared (so much for capitalist masterplans)

Labour unions are some of the few mass institutions that survived the age of individualism.

>>1733055
And yet they've declined significantly in power and influence just like every other organization you mentioned. More so than some others.

>>1732412
Lots of reasons

>>1732412
Because of globalization and the advance of technology.

What happened to manufacturing is going to hit taxi and trucking unions as autonomous vehicles replace them.

>>1732594
>Union workers earn more money at the expense of their employers
Correct.
>and all of consumers of the products that they produce.
Empirically wrong

File: image.jpg (16KB, 155x218px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 155x218px

>>1732678
>Most business owners earn about as much as their employees and work twice as hard

File: Notre Dame.jpg (13KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 284x177px

>>1733055
Witnessed.

Many problems in the world can't be solved through government programs or the free market. Without civic organizations, the US is in permanent decay, as its problems will escalate without being resolved. Comparatively, if you looked at the arc of human history, most major projects in mankind were done not-for-profit. From ancient Romans who built public works to gain political power, to Medieval Europeans who organized Monasteries to provide for healthcare, to 20th century Americans who accomplished many things such as libraries, pioneering surgery, or providing for a social network.

That being said, there's nothing that can be done to reverse the decline until it hits a terminal phase. What that will look like, I don't know. But even Harvard Business School has admitted the US cannot invest in the Commons anymore, which is what's causing a massive decline in the American system.

The age of individualism may be coming to an end, because the money is likely to run out soon and people will be forced back to their original norms.

>>1733399
God damn. Witnessed..

>no capitalist explaining the disconnect between productivity and wages

Isn't the promise that wage growth = productivity growth?

>working conditions have improved across the board
>copious laws protecting workers and working conditions
they're not obsolete but they're not as necessary as they once were

>>1733427
Productivity gains have stagnated, along with wages.

Policy makers have used all their tools yet barely anything has changed.

The age of low growth has started for the West. With declining birth rates, an aging population, and little economic growth, the welfare state is not sustainable.

In 15 years the West will be where Japan is right now, just with more nationalist and populist fuckery.

Interesting times ahead

>>1733440
>implying that corporations aren't chomping at the bit to get rid of said regulations and would if they could

As long as corporations act like corporations, unions will be necessary to defend worker's rights, whether they seem secure or not.

>>1733452
What happiness when most of the world is like that?

>>1733465
It's amazing in the last election that a few senators actually campaigned on the platform of removing the federal minimum wage and weren't thrown out of the room

Also it's champing at the bit

>>1732412
>(and other western countries)

The hell are you talking about?

These unions are alive and well in many western Europe places, UK and France in particular, where they can paralyze parts of the county's systems by going on strike every now and again.

>>1732424
If the only way they could survive is to cut corners then why are director/VP/CEO salaries and bonuses 20x higher now than in the 90s?

>>1732753
This is the stupidest post I've seen all day.

>>1733412
Interesting post.
Bowling Alone, anyone?

File: democracyamerica.jpg (107KB, 350x538px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 350x538px

>>1733935
This is the source text that describes how people, including the Founders, approached problems in their society. Without this book I'd have no frame-of-reference historically. The Americans described by Tocqueville, however, are long gone.

Example. When 21st century Americans think of private organizations, they immediately think of businesses. The problem, however, is that 20th, 19th, and 18th century Americans thought of private organization as something more than a means of just making money. Usually, they would think of a Church first before they would private enterprise.

American life as we know it is highly dependent on financial prosperity. Without such financial prosperity, such as an elaborate state-welfare system, people literally die off and withdraw from society. Which is happening both at the same time. Again, I lament the loss of what we were because it was just so much stronger. People made a fraction of what we earn today, and still managed to repopulate the world through abundant Social Capital.

Then again, this dynamism may come back if economic growth collapses and the state has to reduce its obligations to the people. If it does, however, the transition will be very rough. Neither Republicans nor Democrats will survive this Brave New World, for very different reasons respectively.

>>1733427
Not if that productivity is a result of automation and outsourcing. It's a bigger pie, but it's distributed more evenly. There's nothing wrong with that as long as people have access to education and capital, and as long as there's some measure of wealth redistribution.

American Unions are really shitty, essentailly just being mini corporations within a corporation. I don't dislike the idea of unions, but in practice they are utter shit tier and most need to be gutted from the ground up.

File: Clinton NAFTA.jpg (34KB, 525x294px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 525x294px

>>1732412
>Why did Unions in America (and other western countries) decline so rapidly after the 1970s (and earlier)?

LBJ's "Great Society.

The Democrats sold out their unionized worker base to support every fringe kook element of the Left instead; feminists, Blacks, gays, academia, illegals, etc.

File: adolftip.jpg (16KB, 500x435px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x435px

>>1733930
Explain, autismo.

>>1733405

Tell that to the guy who runs the gas station on the corner who works 100 hour weeks.

All this blaming of Unions is really interesting considering it's not a secret that one of the biggest reasons for adopting free trade deals was shipping labor jobs overseas.

It's called alienation

It does wonders

>>1734419

so a good question to ask is why did the left betray the very people, both in terms of the majority population generaly and in terms of class, that they were technicaly supposed to fight for?

the way i see it its that, once won trough some rather hard and protracted struggles, done mostly by the working people themselves, less by any given party, the welfare state systems negated the basic points that were suposed to be fought for, the size and power of the politico/economic system made it increasingly hard to actualy fight for anithing that matters, anithing that counts or changes things, let alone go into revolutionary mode, and so as the radical elements of the left sort of withered away after 68, the surviving parties metastased into harmless liberal centre parliamentary organisations, that actualy have no interest in fighting for anyone or anything, and so they are reduced to the ''controversial'' issues like minority rights and 3 wave feminism/gender bullshit, since that crap changes fundamentaly nothing and so the capitalist system dont even mind it

but that does not explain things in america, there it was probably social engineering and systematic dismantlement of the left during the cold war, remember reading somewhere about the statistics in places like kanzas, where working class and rural areas that were once hardcore leftist unionists got transformed in whichever way into biblehumping fundie land, but americans dont realy have a left, but then again neither does most of europe nowdays

the people do feel this, they feel betrayed, the right promises this in a way, its implicit every time a rightwing party goes to elections in west and central eu that somehow they will basicaly be a surrogate left, but thats bullshit of course

>>1735214
>kanzas

Kansas, my non-American friend.

But otherwise mostly good post, both the left and the right use issues like race, gender, and religion to divide the working and middle classes and distract them from the fact that both sides come together to pass laws that limit Constitutional freedoms, immigration policies that undermine unionization and low-skilled wages, and bullshit trade deals that hurt American workers for the benefit of the political and financial elites.

File: Reagan.jpg (56KB, 607x450px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 607x450px

>>1735214
>reading somewhere about the statistics in places like kanzas, where working class and rural areas that were once hardcore leftist unionists got transformed in whichever way into biblehumping fundie land

The post-WWII American working class had lost interest in the Left’s radical platform; (which was being manipulated by the U.S.S.R.) they had high paying, secure jobs with excellent benefits and pensions and didn’t really mind that Wall Street was also making a profit.

Thus the Left had to shift more and more of their support to the fringe kook element (feminists, Blacks, etc.) and simply expected the working class to continue following their lead. Except the working class is traditionally socially conservative and the more the Democrats promoted far Left policies, (school bussing, revolving-door-prisons, gay pride parades, etc.) the more the working class was driven into the arms of the Republicans.

The Dems insured Reagan’s victory and created the Conservative Rightwing element within the Rep party.

>>1734172
This.

no joke the collapse of the Soviet Union. My grandmother tells me stories about how as soon as the Berlin wall came down her Union grew more and more powerless and the company she worked for started cutting benefits and hours.

>>1734621
I kind of doubt that his workers are union

>>1732851
>Second I really have to ask, do you want a job where you tighten down a bolt for 40 hours a day?

Absolutely. I worked as a block piler in a mill (you take blocks from the chain, move them over to the various sawyers and splitters, utterly mindless work) and it was just the best. You spend all day focused on a task in such a fashion that you zone out and wind up alone with your thoughts. It's great, you should try it some time.

>Because that's what Chinese factory workers do. Its not glamorous or desirable.

It doesn't need to be glamorous and I disagree on the desirable part. It just needs to be reliable and pay a living wage.

>>1735976

the republicans also went for the southern working class vote hard post 1960 too, playing up the social conservatism to get their votes - hardly just the dems turning them away

i dont know about the us so much but i imagine its a similar story in a lot of places: weakening employees rights, making organising more difficult and giving more rights to non-unionised labor and allowing companies to discriminate against unionised labor

plus the general perception that people dont 'need' unions because theyre not working in potentially life-threatening jobs anymore

>>1736203

The Reps could play-up social conservatism BECAUSE the Dems had left working class Americans swinging in the wind and were forcing school bussing, cradle-to-grave welfare and other extreme Left policies onto the generally conservative citizenry, policies that were being encouraged by Soviet agents within the American Left to destabilize the U.S. during the Cold War.

>>1732424
>They survive by cutting corners
Which corners?
How do you compare the salary of a Chinese factory worker, to that of an American factory worker? Let alone compare either to the salary of an American CEO.
>>1732412
I'd say it has a lot to do with anti communist sentiment, and perpetuating the "american dream" fantasy.

File: 1423617233591.jpg (25KB, 295x418px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 295x418px

>>1732792
Capitalists are the risk takers. They put their money on the line by starting the business, risking their life savings, hiring workers and doing everything to keep the company afloat.

Workers take 0 (zero) risks, so why should they expect more than their paycheck?

>>1737168
Ironically the American Dream was achieved by a larger proportion of the population during the 1950s and 1960s BECAUSE of the prevalence of unions.

Daily reminder that unions are an inferior substitute for the real solution, which is wholesale redistribution of wealth.

>>1737192
If you want to live in the kind of society which redistributes wealth why do you go to North Korea?

>>1737180
>their money on the line by starting the business,
but that's mostly bullshit. they start companies that shield them from all liabilities of risk. most of the time if the company goes under they walk away unscathed. further more starting a business is not really a risk when you have access to millions requird to start it in the first place. Warren buffet isnt taking any real risk if he dumps $10 million into a startup.

>>1737189
Exactly. People say the American dream is now dead, but the income of the middle class adjusted for inflation has barely increased while the income for the upper class has skyrocketed since 1970.

>>1737195
Because private enterprise is more efficient.

Private enterprise is the engine that powers a proper welfare state.

>>1732422
They want 70% by 2020 nation wide

In my area it's about 60%

I know a couple towns over is like 80%

And another town over from them is 30%

>>1732919
Yea I disagree with tax evasion, but what does that have to do with unions? You're trying to paint out corporations as these giant mega-evil entities, which, doubtless some of them are, but if someone owns a business they aren't obligated to pay their employees more just because the company is earning more. Although managerial, sales, and recruitment positions are compensated mostly in bonuses, it is because their pay is tied directly to performance. But not a lot of people take these jobs, because that kind of accountability is stressful, and a guaranteed income is preferable to not knowing how much you will take in. Hence, why not everyone becomes a business owner, but when the risk pays off, it can pay off big.

File: 1423707354821.jpg (85KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 550x550px

>>1737223
Oh God you're hilarious.

You want to find the most efficient way for you to take other people's money. You're like a civilised street pick pocket.

File: 1424464239665.png (108KB, 319x367px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 319x367px

>>1732919
Ever heard of reinvesting profits back into the business?

If you just give workers a higher wage, who benefits? Just those workers. If you invest more into the business, you'll be able to grow and hire MORE workers. A much higher net benefit to society than GIBS ME DAT workers.

>>1737240
>other people's money
>implying they could have gotten that money without government making their business possible
>implying taxation isn't the cost of doing business in a given society

For real though, there are certain investments that the government can make profitably, and private enterprise can't.

If you don't make those investments, society as a whole will suffer.

>inb4 he fell for the anti-poverty doesn't work meme

>>1737250
In the real world, most profits are reinvested straight into share buybacks rather than expanding the business. That's why the stock market is so high. Investing is expensive and risky. Much cheaper to just take the profits and run.

Then again, there is a large segment of the population which trusts the business community to do everything right. The problem is that businesses aren't perfect institutions, which is why you need a plurality of institutions to survive and thrive.

I don't know, I can share what I have seen. I have seen union worker working slowly, and sabotaging work to get more money for the union and artificially create the need for more jobs. I have also seen them charging much more for labor than nonunion counterparts. I the industries I have worked unions are becoming a dirty word associated with poor work and incompetence.

>>1737257
>implying they could have gotten that money without government making their business possible
You mean with government's property spook since possession is nine tenths of the law? I agree.

>>1732851
College education is minimum for $10/h jobs these days.

Thats $2/h job in 1975 money. Thats minimum wage btw of '75.. Our current minimum wage is $7.25, or $1.60 in '75 money.

Return to college is a pretty lie, but reality has sunk lower than the 70s period.

>>1737322
I know I can share what I've seen. I've seen non-union workers working the same jobs as union workers getting treated like shit, paid shit, and fired for no reason because their jobs are "at-will employment." At least with unions they have to follow a process of disciplinary actions instead of just outright firing you without reason. I question if what you observed were not actually union workers; I've seen incompetent temp workers that companies with union workers contract to work alongside union workers when said companies are overwhelmed by demand, but don't want to hire more workers. They're the slowest and worst workers ever, and the union workers are the ones that have to pick up the slack after them.

>>1737715
>and fired for no reason because their jobs are "at-will employment."
I don't know what kind of shithole or shitty companies you worked at because that is illegal in most of the West.

>>1737740
>illegal in most of the West.
except in ameriblubberstan home of the freedumb dog bless

>>1736185
this. Nothing wrong with these kind of jobs.

>>1732971
And business owners and crooked police aren't shooting and terrorizing dissenting workers like they used to.

File: 565787.jpg (69KB, 450x618px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 450x618px

>>1737743
I saw a pretty entertaining letter to the newspaper a while ago.

>my boss was ranting about Sarah Palin, and I said she wasn't actually that bad
>he fired me, and said he didn't want anyone that stupid working for him

>mfw the only reason that was legal in my state is because of Republicans

>>1737195
>le go to le shitty country so i can le strawman more le XDDDD

>>1737240
Not an argument.

>>1737322
>unions are becoming a dirty word associated with poor work and incompetence.

Not to go all /pol/ but this is because unions heavily recruit Blacks and women, (for example, well over half the work force at Chrysler's Dodge City truck plant are Black) as they're guaranteed to vote Democrat whereas White union workers, tend to go their own way.

The corporations they work for also tend to hire Blacks and women, as this allows them to justify moving over-seas (i.e. quality is improved).

Basically suicide. Greed did them in. They were programmed to strike agaiinst the rich bosses, but they really were screwing their neighbors and fellow ctizens with increased costs to everyday consumer goods whenever they won a payraise.

>and other western countries

WHAT other western countries? I'm pretty sure it's just the US.

>>1738415
Britain.

>>1738415
Australia

>>1732412
Not in brazil. Everyday in march a full workday pay is taken from everyone and given to unions, wether they are good or not, wether you wish or not :^). You can't even make this shit up. Thanks Vargas.

this >>1738406
they also resisted technological change because "muh jerbs"

File: IZAWOL.68-chart1.png (133KB, 608x388px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 608x388px

Not in the Nordic Countries. Probably because we have institutional employers' unions as well.

>>1738852
also there are union monopolies which kinda force some people to join unions, for example if you are a lawyer and wish to become an advocate you have to be in a union.

>>1738852
WTF happened in Portugal?

>>1738860
>lawyer unions
Are they unions or bars?

>>1738868
denbts or kids who grew out of red phase

File: Thank God we have such a talented CEO.jpg (49KB, 997x739px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 997x739px

>>1737180
>Workers take 0 (zero) risks, so why should they expect more than their paycheck?

>We need to offer executives top dollar in order to attract top talent.

>>1737180
>this kind retard spouting this shit
How can you say something after 50% General Electric was financial stuff? Just moving money arround and lending and spending debit money? At a certain stage it's impossible to fuck up, even if the company closes the "top brass" will still keep their mansions and a small fund of a few millions. And there is always the government to help them :^). At least GE sold the financial arm.

>>1739312
i'm portuguese and can confirm, the communists even tried to execute a coup in 75'

>>1732792

>most union workers are not parasites...

I'm a union worker myself, I'm all for the unions, the thing i hate is how an employee base of 230 only has maybe 20-30 employees worth a damn, the rest are fucking useless plebs, and its not a shit workplace where i work we have the highest salaries of the region. And those fucking worthless parasites get the same union protection and benefits I get. Nothing changes no matter how much we complain to the union. In the end it doesn't matter union or not everyone pays because humans will be humans and we'll always have a massive number of useless parasitical filth.

>>1740979
A big organization in which only 10% of the people in it are worth a damn is pretty common no matter what the field or occupation. Most people are fucking retarded, the same ratio would be true at any non-union shop.

>>1741110
This

20% of people doing 80% of the actual work is true for most companies

File: dc6dab61820dd60e4b085a077aae3a5b_5a3.jpg (138KB, 948x688px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 948x688px

>>1737180
>Capitalists are the risk takers.

>>1741266
Wow, really makes you think...

>>1733027
You're wrong if you think any criticism of capitalism is inherently leftist. Ever hear of fascism?

I never understood the connection jews have with leftism. Is it an american thing to clump all the things you imagine you dislike into a single blob of all the worlds problems? What is next? Left is in cahoots with jews in cahoots with terrorists?

>>1732412
Reagan killed the unions by using the labor equivalent of the nuclear option, when he fired the striking tsa agents ever since then strikes have declined for fear of the same happening.

>>1737180
"Oh no, I lost all my money! Now I'm like all those people that used to work for me! Noooooooo!"

>>1737250
Higher wages = more productivity you diplard

>>1738860
the US has union monopolies too

>2016
>being a unioncuck

File: RED WHITE AND BLUE FAGGOTS.png (62KB, 1302x892px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1302x892px

>>1732412
because america hasn't had a clue since it got kicked off Mums teet. see: union jack

File: success doesnt pander to democracy-mob-collective-stocks.jpg (8KB, 125x92px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 125x92px

>>1739894
avoid: democracy, national, socialism = succeed

leverage, path to success

>>1732412
Unions are fucking cancer

Right to work

>>1741830
There was a lot of Jewish leadership in the bolshevik movement

Because unions usually are led by people that have long since work a day of honest labor, and adopt a "hardline" if only to oppose the hardline of the corporations lobby.
In the end both sides are far and away from Joe Sixpack interests and point of view, as he doesn't agree with his corporate masters, nor with the people that still think they're relevant spouting 40 years old communist memes.
At least that's what happens in my country.

>>1738068
Mad gommie

>>1743662
Which country?

>>1743625
This. Public Unions are just a racket.

>>1741886
And better workers!

>>1743331
Nice thumbnail, dumbass.