Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (601059)	2/18/2011 12:43:09 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571216

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.” Franklin Roosevelt, on April 16, 1937

To: bentway who wrote (601059)	2/18/2011 6:11:46 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1571216

Unionized corporations also give a lot to executives and board members. All else being equal (which in exact terms it never is, since there are always other factors, but this point does generally hold anyway) the more unions can increase labor costs the less profits their are to distribute. If they also reduce flexibility in applying labor, they decrease what your calling the "gross profit" (which apparently your using to mean something like revenue minus non-labor costs). Even if they allow for flexibility in hiring, firing, and redeploying labor (and often they try to reduce such flexibility), the lower rates of return can reduce the attractiveness of investment in a company or industry and can make companies less competitive, again reducing their "gross profit". In cases where there isn't much competition, so losing business isn't a huge concern, the higher labor prices increase prices for consumers. Something like that point applies very strongly to public sector workers. Just change "prices" to "taxes" (or government debt), and change "consumers" to "tax payers". What makes it particularly bad in the case of public sector unions is that governments essentially have a monopoly, the unions don't worry about making the government uncompetitive. Also the public sector unions become politically powerful, and so have some control over the other side of the negotiating table.