Are we talking about Unions in general, or just teachers and police officers?

Aren't they government employees in the first place?

Interesting, very interesting...

Why? If their work is valuable, you think there would be some negociating power there...

Without the unions...the management will simply fire anyone who complains about the working conditions or the wages.

Get real, man.

If you owned a business, and paid a certain amount, but someone decided that what you wanted to pay wasn't enough, but there was someone else who would take the low wage and didn't care at all about the conditions he had to work in...would you keep the person doing the complaining around??

Oh by the way...as soon as the workers get together and demand higher wages and better working conditions...they have BECOME a union. Even if they don't necessarily have the name.

So you are arguing that workers cannot band together without a declared union?

And oh yeah, that would be at the tax payers' expense if you are talking about police officers and teachers.

And I do agree, they are underpaid. Although, there are a few police officers and teachers i can think of that are overpaid...

What power do banded workers have against a company that can hire a new work force if the other one became a problem?

Besides that why should we back track and do it all again when we know the history of this thing. We know what happens when the workers have no backing, no standing, no legal rights, don't we?

If there are people willing to work for less, than that is what the job is worth.

Supply and demand has an affect on everything in the economic system. Including the workforce.

Are you kidding???

It's all about the bottom line. If a job is worth 12 bucks an hour...but the company can get away with paying minimum wage for it....what do YOU think they are gonna do???

No matter how valuable the work...the company is ALWAYS going to go for the cheaper option.

Wanna know what the company I work for takes as their favorite position??

" You'll take what we give you because if you don't like it...there are a thousand more just like you. "

I have to disagree with teachers being underpaid. I wish I didn't work a quarter of the year and still hit the average household income.

police officers, however, I agree I would definitely not want that job. Either way, pay should be left up to the marketplace.

You think it's that simple for a company to replace it's whole staff?

If there is any skill involved, much. The costs of replacing an employee are fairly substantial if any training is involved. However, if it is an unskilled job that requires minimal training, they deserve to be paid less.

Hell yea the only reason striking and the lines work outside of companies is the unions.

If the company can get away with paying an average of minimum wage than the market value of the job is not $12.

Wow. I am just gonna take a guess here that you have NEVER had a job where you thought you didn't get nearly enough money for what you were doing???

If you haven't...then I will accept your position with no further argument.

If you have ever thought that you were worth more than you were getting paid, then you are just being blind.

One thing I will say is this....until you have worked in all the places where unions have set the wage scale, you have absolutely no right to determine what a job is or isn't worth.

Exactly. That is an entirely unfair advantage that will ALWAYS result in the management giving up more. There is no winning against a union, you only lose less.

It's about understanding the principles of economics and accepting that there are many that would love to have you job.

Where will those other workers work if they don't get your job?

Hmmm...

Perhaps needing more capital producing jobs is our problem...

Anyhow, you are right, if they can get away with paying less they will.

...But what you have to ask youself, is "What is the job worth, if the employees are willing to work for less?" The answer to the question is, "less".

If people think that is B.S. they will pick a different career, and the employer will get below average workers if he or she is lucky. This means, lower profits for the employer. Notice a pattern?

Again. The company is never, EVER, going to want to pay what the job is actually worth. They also don't want people in their place of business who might point out that conditions aren't safe.

They will want people to work for as little as they can possibly pay them, in conditions that could potentially cause harm.

Companies simply do not care about the people that work for them.

A livable wage is important still. Regardless to what an employer wants to pay.

In a perfect ungreedy, noncapitalistic world, employers would pay their employees in hope of keeping them healthy, happy and long term. Not this planet and not our humans. There has to be standards set and enforced. Otherwise we would all be just like the illegals who work here for less than minimun wage with no benes and no legal backing.

Well...in the state I live in...there aren't a whole lot of choices. The company I work for is the only game in town, and they know it.

The people that work where I do don't ask for unreasonable amounts of money. As a matter of fact, in my job, I make a little under 10 an hour.

However, the conditions I work in are a whole lot better than they would be if the union wasn't there.