2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I would agree with this thought if the workers were relatively untrained and low skilled.  Employers have to spend quite a bit to find good quality people and once they have them, often have to invest significant amounts in their training.  A journeyman level person for instance costs a lot to develop. So, if there are no external reasons for an employer to cut workers, like lost customers, there is in fact a penalty associated with a qualified worker leaving for any reason - even if they left on their own accord to the competition.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Tom,

I'm a working person, and I heard this program in the late evening.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Unions are like abortions. Nobody really wants to get involved with one until you need one.  They offer value to society when some party has failed to behave in their longterm interest.  It is unfortunate, I feel, that unions are necessary with some employers, as in my experience they create inefficiency, entitlement mentality, diminish the treatment of people as individuals, and can supress rewards for their individual achievment.   That said, they are an essential market force in the relationship between worker and employer in that they create a consequence to an employer if they cannot adequately care for the majority of their employees concerns.  Thus, the concept of the company making all ethical and honest efforts to convince their employees not to unionize is in itself a good thing as they will have faced the competition for the management of the employees welfare and will pay more attention to that responsibility in future.  If they fail they may not win that role the next round.   Any employer who does not accept this competition and fires employees for suggesting a union would likely have other behaviors in the marketplace that are unethical or illegal.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context