Quote:I guess some companies NEEDS are not the same as others...I would make the claim that while one company feels no need for Unions, another company feels the need for Unions...If there was no need , no one would use Unions, so I would say that would be a decision made by the CEO and Board Of Directors as to the "need" for a Union, not to mention the thousands of people who elect to work for a Unionized company over a non Union company
I think that you might misunderstand how the decision is made for a company to accept or bargain with a union. No company "feels the need" for a union. Basically, all a company "needs" is employees to do whatever task (work) that they need done. The company owner/CEO/Board of Directors already have a certain budget in place for how much they are willing to pay for each employee. Within that budget the cost of pay, overtime, health insurance and/or a retirement plan is considered.
So let's just create a company that is starting up and is going to make "widgets". The founder/owner/CEO (whatever you want to call them) of the company has a budget of $100 an hour to pay a worker to make a widget. So starting pay for someone to go work at this company will be $100 per hour period. No health plan, no retirement plan, just straight pay. It is determined that it takes one employee say 1 hour to make one widget, and the company can sell the widget for $150. So the company is going to pay an individual $100 to make a widget in an hour, then they are going to sell the widget for $150 so they make a $50 profit.
So the company isn't attracting people because they don't offer any "benefits" such as a health plan. The company finds a health plan that would end up costing $50 per hour that they are paying their employee. Guess what? In order to attract a worker the company offers a wage of $50 per hour plus a "free" medical plan. The company is still within their budget of $100 per employee, but now rather than pay it in salary they pay it in salary + "free" health insurance. It goes on and on. The bottom line is, unions don't "get more benefits", they only get them rearranged to make it look like it's such a "good deal".
Every "benefit" or "extra" that you see on your paycheck is paid for out of the budget that the employer has for each employee. When a union enters, all they do is siphon off of the budget one way or another, and it's usually through gaining funds from the employee's final salary.
Quote:I think that you might misunderstand how the decision is made for a company to accept or bargain with a union. No company "feels the need" for a union. Basically, all a company "needs" is employees to do whatever task (work) that they need done. The company owner/CEO/Board of Directors already have a certain budget in place for how much they are willing to pay for each employee. Within that budget the cost of pay, overtime, health insurance and/or a retirement plan is considered.
So let's just create a company that is starting up and is going to make "widgets". The founder/owner/CEO (whatever you want to call them) of the company has a budget of $100 an hour to pay a worker to make a widget. So starting pay for someone to go work at this company will be $100 per hour period. No health plan, no retirement plan, just straight pay. It is determined that it takes one employee say 1 hour to make one widget, and the company can sell the widget for $150. So the company is going to pay an individual $100 to make a widget in an hour, then they are going to sell the widget for $150 so they make a $50 profit.
So the company isn't attracting people because they don't offer any "benefits" such as a health plan. The company finds a health plan that would end up costing $50 per hour that they are paying their employee. Guess what? In order to attract a worker the company offers a wage of $50 per hour plus a "free" medical plan. The company is still within their budget of $100 per employee, but now rather than pay it in salary they pay it in salary + "free" health insurance. It goes on and on. The bottom line is, unions don't "get more benefits", they only get them rearranged to make it look like it's such a "good deal".
Every "benefit" or "extra" that you see on your paycheck is paid for out of the budget that the employer has for each employee. When a union enters, all they do is siphon off of the budget one way or another, and it's usually through gaining funds from the employee's final salary.
I think you might be overstepping your assumption of a companies needs...You can't possibly believe that you know every company's needs...You certainly can't believe that you speak for every single company in the world, or even the United States when you assert that no company needs a Union...
what I was trying to get at, is no one other than a company knows what the company needs or doesn't need...my company feels like it needs the Union,and we Unionized employees feel we need the Union as well...The "need" for a Union can't be decided by you or anyone other than a company and it's employees...YOU may feel there is no need for Unions, but apparently companies do not share your idealism...If all companies agreed with your idealism, no company would use them...
Benefits are not all coming from the company...My vision and dental insurance is paid through my union health and welfare fund with no financial help from my employer...My short and long term disability plan(s) are Union funded with no financial help from the company, My life insurance is paid by my Union with no financial help from my company, so your example above isn't all together a correct assumption
That "free" health insurance you keep talking about, comes from a reply I made to a poster who said he gets free health insurance...It used to be commonplace for execs to have company paid health insurance which in essence labeled as "free" by the consumer because the consumer of the health insurance, doesn't pay for it, not because the health care industry is giving health care away...someone pays for everything, nothing is absolutely free, but if someone puts $15 of gas in my truck, I got $15 of "free" gas
Quote:what I was trying to get at, is no one other than a company knows what the company needs or doesn't need...my company feels like it needs the Union,and we Unionized employees feel we need the Union as well...The "need" for a Union can't be decided by you or anyone other than a company and it's employees...YOU may feel there is no need for Unions, but apparently companies do not share your idealism...If all companies agreed with your idealism, no company would use them
Yep. UPS. VW. Just a couple successful companies that are Union friendly.
CBAs provide protection for them as well. Limits law suits, discrimination, nepotism, etc etc. Of course there are drawbacks, but it's not a perfect solution...but corporate America certainly hasn't proved to be trustworthy. IF companies treated employees fairly, paid a fair days wage for a fair days work, Unions wouldnt exist. Ask some coal miners in Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. Just the safety rules are worth 2 hours of their hourly wage per month. We have OSHA? Lol. They equate their actions to covering a well after the cow fell in.
Quote:what I was trying to get at, is no one other than a company knows what the company needs or doesn't need...my company feels like it needs the Union,and we Unionized employees feel we need the Union as well...The "need" for a Union can't be decided by you or anyone other than a company and it's employees...YOU may feel there is no need for Unions, but apparently companies do not share your idealism...If all companies agreed with your idealism, no company would use them...
Negotiated benefits are not all coming from the company...My vision and dental insurance is through my union health and welfare plan with no financial help from my employer...My short and long term disability plan(s) are Union funded with no financial help from the company, so your example above isn't all together a correct assumption
I don't think that you really understand how things are done in the business world. I would almost guarantee that your employer funds your "union provided" vision and dental insurance as well as your long and short term disability plans.
I'll use another example that may or may not be your actual case. Let's just say that you earn $20 per hour. Your actual cost to the employer is probably WAY more than $100 per hour. For starters, your employer has to pay the other half of your Social Security Tax. That's right, what they take out of your paycheck is half of what your obligation is. They also have to pay workman's compensation insurance for you should you get hurt on the job. Then comes the benefits, and I suspect that this increases the cost to employ you well above $100 per hour. They have to pay your insurance premium for your healthcare. If your company has set up a 401k for you and has agreed to match contributions up to a certain level, then they have to pay that. They also have an agreement with your beloved union to pay a "fee" that covers your "free" dental, vision and disability insurance. I'm sure that part of the dues that you pay helps cover the cost of those, but it certainly is not paid for just from your dues. And let's not forget that the union has to make their money in order to pay their salaries and donate to political candidates that they choose.
Quote:I don't think that you really understand how things are done in the business world. I would almost guarantee that your employer funds your "union provided" vision and dental insurance as well as your long and short term disability plans.
I'll use another example that may or may not be your actual case. Let's just say that you earn $20 per hour. Your actual cost to the employer is probably WAY more than $100 per hour. For starters, your employer has to pay the other half of your Social Security Tax. That's right, what they take out of your paycheck is half of what your obligation is. They also have to pay workman's compensation insurance for you should you get hurt on the job. Then comes the benefits, and I suspect that this increases the cost to employ you well above $100 per hour. They have to pay your insurance premium for your healthcare. If your company has set up a 401k for you and has agreed to match contributions up to a certain level, then they have to pay that. They also have an agreement with your beloved union to pay a "fee" that covers your "free" dental, vision and disability insurance. I'm sure that part of the dues that you pay helps cover the cost of those, but it certainly is not paid for just from your dues. And let's not forget that the union has to make their money in order to pay their salaries and donate to political candidates that they choose.
I just told you my company does not fund my dental and vision and the other stuff...I told you that because they do not...I can see what you mean in your examples, but once again, it's not YOU who makes the decision for companies needs...If companies didn't feel they need Unions, they would not use them...I am very knowledgeable about the business world as I am very well educated with a Bachelors in Business Management, and a Masters in Business Administration and a couple decades of running divisions for my former company(s)...The last division I ran had over 100 people in it, not to mention the temps we would bring in when needed...
The bottom line is, if Unions were not needed, they would no longer exist as companies wouldn't use them
Quote:I just told you my company does not fund my dental and vision and the other stuff...I told you that because they do not...I can see what you mean in your examples, but once again, it's not YOU who makes the decision for companies needs...If companies didn't feel they need Unions, they would not use them...I am very knowledgeable about the business world as I am very well educated with a Bachelors in Business Management, and a Masters in Business Administration and a couple decades of running divisions for my former company(s)...The last division I ran had over 100 people in it, not to mention the temps we would bring in when needed...
The bottom line is, if Unions were not needed, they would no longer exist as companies wouldn't use them
Companies don't "use" unions, they tolerate them. I would think that any college grad in the business field would understand that. I would also think that any "college grad" in the business field would realize that nothing is "free" and that ultimately a company pays for benefits. The only way that your beloved union can provide the benefits that you describe would be to charge a pretty good price for their "dues". That might be feasible since dental, vision and disability benefits are usually priced pretty low.
Here is something to ponder. What if health insurance companies were allowed to sell their coverage across state lines? What if your employer, rather than "provide" health insurance agrees to pay you a higher salary and it's up to you to shop for and pay for your own health insurance? You being a business major and all should be able to come up with an answer.
Companies pay the benefits, but so do the workers. You conveniently leave that out... why?
Your point on which to ponder is interesting, but flawed. You assume the company is going to provide compensation high enough that the employee would get the same benefits of health insurance with out losing any net pay.
You are being condescending to wrong box, I won't go that route with you. But I do wonder if you honestly believe the company's compensation would create a net zero. From my experience, your hypothetical would create a net loss for the worker...
Quote:Companies don't "use" unions, they tolerate them. I would think that any college grad in the business field would understand that. I would also think that any "college grad" in the business field would realize that nothing is "free" and that ultimately a company pays for benefits. The only way that your beloved union can provide the benefits that you describe would be to charge a pretty good price for their "dues". That might be feasible since dental, vision and disability benefits are usually priced pretty low.
Here is something to ponder. What if health insurance companies were allowed to sell their coverage across state lines? What if your employer, rather than "provide" health insurance agrees to pay you a higher salary and it's up to you to shop for and pay for your own health insurance? You being a business major and all should be able to come up with an answer.
Some companies are Union friendly, especially in the North...I would think that everyone would know better than to speak for every company...
I have stated several times, nothing is free, someone always pay for it...I even gave an example of if someone puts $5 gas in my truck...It's "free" to me simply because I did not pay for it, but someone did...
My company is both Union and non Union as I have mentioned...The non union employees do not get the vision and dental...the company doesn't even offer it to non union people...our vision and dental is paid for through the union health and welfare fund
with most of the biggest insurance companies being national coverages and some international such as the Blue Cross network(s) there is no need to sell across state lines...If they were to suddenly disband and all be a local/regional health care system( such as the Geisinger network), you would be out of network a lot...The geisinger network is a Pa. based health provider, and not everywhere in Pa. takes it...some doctors haven't added in to their accepted payments yet...I had that crappy geisinger insurance at my last job and my urologist did not take it and the nearest one who did was 60 miles away
Look...You as a single person, can not possibly speak for every ceo and bod of every company...what you are claiming is your own opinion and not fact because it's based on your opinion and there is no way you could possibly know how or what each and every company thinks and feels about unions...Up here in the North, Unions are more common and are still popular with both employers and employees
Quote:Companies pay the benefits, but so do the workers. You conveniently leave that out... why?
Your point on which to ponder is interesting, but flawed. You assume the company is going to provide compensation high enough that the employee would get the same benefits of health insurance with out losing any net pay.
You are being condescending to wrong box, I won't go that route with you. But I do wonder if you honestly believe the company's compensation would create a net zero. From my experience, your hypothetical would create a net loss for the worker...
Oh I recognized what he is dong and it's obvious he is trying to bait me into some flawed logic debate, or a debate that has the possibility of multiple outcomes...One thing he just can't grasp is that my company is both Union and non union and has been for as long as anyone there can remember...My company does not offer vision and dental insurance to non union employees...As I told him, the Union provides vision and dental insurance from it's health and welfare fund with zero financial assistance from the company...For some reason he can't grasp that, and he can't let go of the "free" thing that began when I replied to another post where the poster said he gets "free" health insurance...I understand the concept of nothing is free someone pays for it thing, but he's hung up on that too...It's hard to believe that one person feels he can speak for every company in the entire world on how they all feel about the Unions
Quote:Some companies are Union friendly, especially in the North...I would think that everyone would know better than to speak for every company...
I have stated several times, nothing is free, someone always pay for it...I even gave an example of if someone puts $5 gas in my truck...It's "free" to me simply because I did not pay for it, but someone did...
My company is both Union and non Union as I have mentioned...The non union employees do not get the vision and dental...the company doesn't even offer it to non union people...our vision and dental is paid for through the union health and welfare fund
with most of the biggest insurance companies being national coverages and some international such as the Blue Cross network(s) there is no need to sell across state lines...If they were to suddenly disband and all be a local/regional health care system( such as the Geisinger network), you would be out of network a lot...The geisinger network is a Pa. based health provider, and not everywhere in Pa. takes it...some doctors haven't added in to their accepted payments yet...I had that crappy geisinger insurance at my last job and my urologist did not take it and the nearest one who did was 60 miles away
Look...You as a single person, can not possibly speak for every ceo and bod of every company...what you are claiming is your own opinion and not fact because it's based on your opinion and there is no way you could possibly know how or what each and every company thinks and feels about unions...Up here in the North, Unions are more common and are still popular with both employers and employees
No need for insurance companies to sell across state lines? Are you kidding me? As it stands now, insurance companies can't sell insurance across state lines. That does a couple of things.
First, it puts "monopolies" in certain states. The reason that companies like Blue Cross can operate is because they have "corporate offices" in several states. and second it pushes down the free market. That "Geisiger network" as you describe it not allowed to sell it's services over state lines. That means that they can't offer the services of the big insurance companies to everyone. A company like "Geisger" might actually flourish and become profitable if they weren't held down by government restrictions.
For the record, I am not a singe person. I've been married well over 20 years (I'll just leave the figure at that). I've for the most part paid for my wife and my routine healthcare out of my own pocket. I have leaned on insurance to pick up portions over the years, but for the most part I've paid my own way.
Quote:No need for insurance companies to sell across state lines? Are you kidding me? As it stands now, insurance companies can't sell insurance across state lines. That does a couple of things.
First, it puts "monopolies" in certain states. The reason that companies like Blue Cross can operate is because they have "corporate offices" in several states. and second it pushes down the free market.
That "Geisiger network" as you describe it not allowed to sell it's services over state lines. That means that they can't offer the services of the big insurance companies to everyone. A company like "Geisger" might actually flourish and become profitable if they weren't held down by government restrictions.
For the record, I am not a singe person. I've been married well over 20 years (I'll just leave the figure at that). I've for the most part paid for my wife and my routine healthcare out of my own pocket. I have leaned on insurance to pick up portions over the years, but for the most part I've paid my own way.
Because of the national companies there is no need to sell over state lines...Blue Cross and the other HUGE providers eliminate the need to sell over state lines which is why they don't...Blue Cross Network and the other HUGE health care providers, are in every single state and some countries... If they were not and you lived in Florida with a Florida based health care provider, and you went to Georgia for some reason and twisted your ankle and needed it to be checked out, you would be out of network and would have to pay a lot more being out of coverage... What if some thing happened to your wife or kid that was an emergency and your insurance wouldn't pay enough for them to do anything more than stabilizing treatment? There is a law that hospitals only have to give life saving and stabilizing treatment if you have no insurance...When there are networks covering all 50 states and some countries, why would there be a need to mandate over state lines to sell?
I travel A LOT and a network such as Geisinger is junk for me...I am from Idaho originally, I vacation there every year...We ride horses, we hit the lakes in boats, we do all kinds of outdoor activities...If something were to happen that I needed medical care, Geisinger wouldn't even pay half of the cost because I was out of network, but the BIG companies such as Blue Cross network would cover me and my family completely...I pay for health care services and I expect to be able to use them when I need them
Quote:Because of the national companies there is no need to sell over state lines...Blue Cross and the other HUGE providers eliminate the need to sell over state lines which is why they don't...Blue Cross Network and the other HUGE health care providers, are in every single state and some countries... If they were not and you lived in Florida with a Florida based health care provider, and you went to Georgia for some reason and twisted your ankle and needed it to be checked out, you would be out of network and would have to pay a lot more being out of coverage... What if some thing happened to your wife or kid that was an emergency and your insurance wouldn't pay enough for them to do anything more than stabilizing treatment? There is a law that hospitals only have to give life saving and stabilizing treatment if you have no insurance...When there are networks covering all 50 states and some countries, why would there be a need to mandate over state lines to sell?
I travel A LOT and a network such as Geisinger is junk for me...I am from Idaho originally, I vacation there every year...We ride horses, we hit the lakes in boats, we do all kinds of outdoor activities...If something were to happen that I needed medical care, Geisinger wouldn't even pay half of the cost because I was out of network, but the BIG companies such as Blue Cross network would cover me and my family completely...I pay for health care services and I expect to be able to use them when I need them
You do know that BCBS charges you out of network rates too, right?
Quote:You do know that BCBS charges you out of network rates too, right?
yes but it's much more difficult to be out of the blue cross network...there are so many different blue cross provider entities, that being out of network is pretty rare...You mentioned one of the Blue Cross providers..(Blue Cross Blue shield) I have Capitol Blue Cross, both are part of the Blue Cross network so it's not out of network for me to use a BCBS provider nor is it out of network for BCBS to use a Capitol Blue Cross provider...That's why I mentioned that Geisinger Health care system...If I had that and went to a BCBS provider, I would be out of network, where as nearly everywhere in the country, there is some sort of Blue Cross provider to use so I can stay in network, not everywhere, but most everywhere
Quote:yes but it's much more difficult to be out of the blue cross network...there are so many different blue cross provider entities, that being out of network is pretty rare...You mentioned one of the Blue Cross providers..(Blue Cross Blue shield) I have Capitol Blue Cross, both are part of the Blue Cross network so it's not out of network for me to use a BCBS provider nor is it out of network for BCBS to use a Capitol Blue Cross provider...That's why I mentioned that Geisinger Health care system...If I had that and went to a BCBS provider, I would be out of network, where as nearly everywhere in the country, there is some sort of Blue Cross provider to use so I can stay in network, not everywhere, but most everywhere
Can you explain why selling across state lines is a bad thing? Seems to me there is no downside to doing so. If I misentrpeted what you have said I apologize.
Quote:Because of the national companies there is no need to sell over state lines...Blue Cross and the other HUGE providers eliminate the need to sell over state lines which is why they don't...Blue Cross Network and the other HUGE health care providers, are in every single state and some countries... If they were not and you lived in Florida with a Florida based health care provider, and you went to Georgia for some reason and twisted your ankle and needed it to be checked out, you would be out of network and would have to pay a lot more being out of coverage... What if some thing happened to your wife or kid that was an emergency and your insurance wouldn't pay enough for them to do anything more than stabilizing treatment? There is a law that hospitals only have to give life saving and stabilizing treatment if you have no insurance...When there are networks covering all 50 states and some countries, why would there be a need to mandate over state lines to sell?
I travel A LOT and a network such as Geisinger is junk for me...I am from Idaho originally, I vacation there every year...We ride horses, we hit the lakes in boats, we do all kinds of outdoor activities...If something were to happen that I needed medical care, Geisinger wouldn't even pay half of the cost because I was out of network, but the BIG companies such as Blue Cross network would cover me and my family completely...I pay for health care services and I expect to be able to use them when I need them
Obviously you don't seem to understand the free market concept or competition.
Quote:Obviously you don't seem to understand the free market concept or competition.
Have you heard of Oligopolies? The across state lines thing makes no difference when all the companies have consolidated. So yeah, your state lines argument that McCain was pushing in 2008 is kinda not relevant anymore. Unless... We decide to break up the oligopolies. Which I'm all for.
I think Comcast should be broken up too... I also think that the fiber optics should be nationalized, it would create a level playing feel, open up more competition of access and increase service while breaking the in-elasticity of the current set up.
The fact that we no longer recognize the anti-trust laws of the Sherman Act is a major cause of alot of the problems we are seeing now-a-days.
Quote:Can you explain why selling across state lines is a bad thing? Seems to me there is no downside to doing so. If I misentrpeted what you have said I apologize.
I didn't say it would be a bad thing, it's just not necessary for
all
health care providers to do so...There is enough national coverage health care providers to compete with clients that it's leaving enough room for smaller local/regional health care companies to pick up their local markets and do pretty nicely with cheaper premiums for more localized coverage areas...The only difference would be that there would be more health care providers to choose from that have larger or national coverages...It wouldn't be a bad thing, it's just not necessary...
One thing is, for every health care provider to sell across state lines will do one of two things...it will cause competition and premium prices will drop, or it will simply be another health care provider that prices according to where the other national providers are at so all the national health care providers would stay practically the same...I don't believe the free market would change anything...I believe it would simply be similar to gas pricing...All of the gas prices generally stay within a few pennies of each other in the same general area ( or neighborhood)...When one goes up, they all go up, when one goes down, they all go down...
Quote:Obviously you don't seem to understand the free market concept or competition.
I don't think health care providers selling over state lines would make a difference even with the free market concept...I believe they would all just keep their pricing nearly identical and keep it that way...If one went down, they would all go down, if one went up, they would all go up...Something like collusion...The free market isn't a cure all for everything...As long as the health care providers were in direct competition with similar sales and price range of each other, they would stay that way...
Quote:I don't think health care providers selling over state lines would make a difference even with the free market concept...I believe they would all just keep their pricing nearly identical and keep it that way...If one went down, they would all go down, if one went up, they would all go up...Something like collusion...The free market isn't a cure all for everything...As long as the health care providers were in direct competition with similar sales and price range of each other, they would stay that way...
This is spot on. ^^^
The fact that there are so few insurers creates what you call collusion. I'm not saying collusion is the wrong word to use, but it is illegal. The problem is that we have politicians that have been bought out by so many of these industries that collusion is ignored.
When we have only a few companies in the market, and entrance into the market is darn near impossible, it doesn't matter how big or small the market is in terms of interstate commerce. They all know what the other is doing. Heck, most of them have shares in eachother, and the board of directors are usually within the same industry as well.
When you have oligopolies, you don't have a free market. The only way to have a free market is to regulate it in order to protect it. Yes, regulation is needed, otherwise the free market is destroyed by monopolies and oligopolies. As we are seeing now.
![[Image: Hailing_From_Hippo_Island_by_EnterPraiz.jpg]](http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs32/f/2008/215/5/b/Hailing_From_Hippo_Island_by_EnterPraiz.jpg)