Unions=Corporations

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

Do they?

[Recursion]

1. Unions are examples of corporations

All unions are corporations but not all corporations are unions (in fact, most corporations are not unions). The symbol you're looking for is not = but ⊂, ie

Unions ⊂ Corporations

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. All unions are corporations?

Please explain.

[madrchsod]

2. unions=no $

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. unions= some $

But are they = to corporations...under the "new" law?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Edited to kick

[dhpgetsit]

6. No, they are very different.

Unions heads are elected in a democratic process by union members.
CEOs are kings and employees are serfs.

[justanaverageguy]

13. What about employees of unions?

Are they serfs?

[fasttense]

14. No because mostly they are voting members of the Unions they work for.n/t

[justanaverageguy]

19. I wasn't referring to the union members, I was referring to the employees.

You know, like the woman who answers the phone every time I called the union hall. Is she a serf? She certainly was unionized and was paid far less than a first year apprentice union member.

[dhpgetsit]

23. Yes, the employee/employer relationship is like the serf/lord relationship.

But when the employee is a union member, he/she has the power and leverage of the union to protect him/her from abuses of corporate power.

[justanaverageguy]

30. As someone who actually employs people, I disagree with

your serf/lord analogy. Unless of course you are considering me the serf maybe? Unlike a serf to his lord, my employees have far more power over me than I do them. All I can do is fire them. Then they are free to move on to another job. However, my employees through their deliberate actions, if they so choose, could cost me far more money and risk to my personal security than I could ever cause them.

[Recursion]

17. Actually CEOs can be easily broken by boards

In many corporations, workers have some representation on the board, along with investors who basically always do.

[dhpgetsit]

21. As a practical matter, that never happens.

Yes, theoretically the stockholders can vote to fire a CEO, but the board is not required to act on that vote. They take it "under advisement". Corporate officers are not voted out of office in the real world.

[gratuitous]

7. If you're talking about financial heft, not by a long shot

Unions control a substantially smaller percentage of money than do corporations, I believe it can be best measured in tenths of one percent. And as for the ability of unions to spend money, not without a vote of the rank and file, which always seems to include some "just say no" fair-share payers, who object to any "political" spending by the union. In fact, unions have to account for every dime they spend on "political" activities, and refund the full amount of union dues spent on those activities to every member who asks for it.

Corporations, on the other hand, can spend whatever they want on anything they want. A counterbalance to what unions have to go through might be for any publicly traded corporation to have to go to each shareholder to spend anything on politics, account for all political spending to its shareholders, and issue a dividend check to any shareholder who asks that his or her portion of political spending be refunded.

It will, of course, never happen. Because capital doesn't have to play by the same rules as labor, and if the game goes against capital, it turns to the government to restore its advantage.

[DarthDem]

10. I'm Wondering About

The automatic assumption that every corporation will automatically give every dime it has to Republicans.

I don't like the SCOTUS ruling, naturally, but I don't think it's quite as bad as people think. Unions are effectively non-profit, so the amount that they have to give might actually come close to what corporations give anyway - - because it's not as though the largest corporations are going to pump every dime of profit into election campaigns. Not even close.

[laughingliberal]

15. No, they won't all automatically give all their money to Republicans

Just the ones with the most money who are screwing the American people the worst.

They may not dump every dime of profit into it but when you consider the health insurance industry has been spending $1.4 million per day lobbying Congress for the entire HCR debate and the unions spent a total of just over $2 million in the same time period, I think part of the problem becomes obvious.

[DarthDem]

16. You're Right - -

But that happened before the Supreme Court decision. Lobbying is almost certainly more effective than corporate donations, for a variety of reasons that are presumably obvious.

And even with all that money being pumped into the anti-HCR fight, it might still pass. So it's probably not time to throw in the towel just yet.

[laughingliberal]

33. The problem with the Supreme Court ruling is the ability to flood the airwaves with propaganda,

aka campaign ads.

The money pumped into the HCR fight has insured that the bill that passed the Senate does no damage to the industry and offers little help to us.

We know that negative ads work. How many good candidates have been taken out by attack ads? Add to that a corporation who can spend unlimited amounts to reinforce a negative campaign against one of our candidates and it looks grim.

[AlinPA]

20. Not every one will, but IMO most corporations will outspend unions by amounts we never

imagined, post SCOTUS ruling on campaign money, and they will spend it on republicans. Eliminating minimum wage laws, outlawing unions, eliminating environmental regulations are only three areas that appeal to both corporations and republicans. These things would swell profits and giving $20-$50 Billion in an election cycle (yes, I picked those numbers out of the air) would be a good investment for them. ($5B was spent in all elections in 2008 a number I heard on a Sunday "news" show)

[Hannah Bell]

24. hardly, since unionization is so low, while "corporations" in toto have $ power = to that of most

entire countries.

[DarthDem]

26. Enhhhhhh

I agree that it's tilted in favor of corporations. But I don't think the tilt is as dramatic as some fear, particularly when corporations have multifaceted agendas and unions have a narrower focus. Plus, as I mentioned initially, not all of the money will go to Republicans; not all corporations are inherently evil.

[Hannah Bell]

28. corporations all share one agenda, which is holding down the power of labor while

increasing the power of corporations.

& doing a damn fine job, too.

[DarthDem]

29. Oh, Come On

I hear where you're coming from, but let's be real. Not every corporation is Wal-Mart. There are some very good companies out there with excellent labor relations and good corporate philosophies.

[laughingliberal]

35. Fewer and fewer of the good ones every year

The corporations who have profited wildly by drastic reductions in labor are able to drive the competition out easily. Look how Walmart has taken down the grocery industry in many communities. That was once a business where a kid who didn't have the means for higher education could go to work, apply him/herself and move up. People could raise their families with jobs there. It is the rare community where that would be true, now.

[Hannah Bell]

36. "excellent labor relations" "good corporate philosophies" doesn't mean they're not trying

to hold down wages & increase their own power.

Microsoft used to be the poster child for high wages.
They're currently the poster child for h1b workers.

*Every* corporation tries to hold down labor cost & labor's power, as much as possible. Without exception.

[Recursion]

18. Actually not according to CU vs. FEC

In fact, unions have to account for every dime they spend on "political" activities, and refund the full amount of union dues spent on those activities to every member who asks for it.

Because until now they have had to use special set-aside funds for it. No longer. They can use general fund monies.

[ParkieDem]

8. It depends on the definition of "corporation"

In the purest, technical form of the word "corporation," a corporation is simply a group of people formed to take on a certain task. It is derived from the Latin term "corpus," for "a body of people."

In the primitive legal sense, a "corporation" is a separate entity formed with a legal status that is completely separate from those of its members.

While the legal term "corporation" is usually used to connote a chartered entity which has a distinct legal status, the term "corporate," as an adjective, can oftentimes refer to some sort of collective right or benefit. For example, until the Roberts court came along, the Supreme Court recognized a "corporate," rather than individual, right to bear arms. This did not mean that corporations had the right to bear arms, but rather that the people have the collective right to bear arms (e.g., through a militia, gun club, etc.) rather than an individual right.

I think this is at the core of the recent Citizens United case, in the sense that the people have an individual and "corporate" right to free speech (e.g., they can exercise their right to free speech collectively, through a corporation, union, assembly, etc).

[Xicano]

9. Corporations are entities for profit. Unions are organized labor for fairness.

Enough said. n/t

[Recursion]

11. Ahem. "CPB is a non-profit corporation" NT

[NoNothing]

12. Not true

Many, many corporations are non-profit. Some are also charitable. All unions are non-profit corporations. Heck, even the DNC is a non-profit corporation.

[Political Heretic]

32. Uh yeah, that's wrong. And I didn't realize there was so much confusion about what corporations are

When people are angry about corporations, they are specifically talking about publicly traded, for profit corporations.

There are non-profit corporations, LLCs, and then there are also private non-incorporated businesses, then there are also non-profits that are not formed into corporations, do not have shareholders, do not have a corporate charger, but organize under rules established for 501(c3s) - full tax exempt, with restrictions on activities -501(c4) not fully exempt, with less restrictions on activities, or 527s (think moveon.org)

[Hannah Bell]

22. No. They're non-profit, for starters, & they don't have a "product".

[Sgent]

25. What does being non-profit

have to do with being a corporation or not?

[Hannah Bell]

27. in practice, quite a bit. are a significant number of business corporations in any area

besides health care organized as not-for-profit corps?

[Political Heretic]

31. Actually, everything.

Public corporations - which is what people are talking about when they say "corporations" are set up under a structure of limited liability and public control through "shares" and "sharehoders." Public corporations are also defined by corporate charter, held with the state, and exist only because the state allows them to exist (corporate charters can be revoked.)

Private institutions can be organized in a variety of ways, but 501(c3), 501(c4) and 527 non-profits are very different entities from public corporations.

[Robb]

34. Chinos=khakis. nt

[Hannah Bell]

37. pants (e.g. khakis) = pants (quick breaths)

[LaPera]

38. Get real! Is there even ONE corporation who is in favor of a union?

Corporations are only concerned with maximum profits....paying employees money and benefits takes away (as corporate heads see it) potential profits from the corporations - Slave workers would be ideal & a way for corporations to achieve maximum profits...untimely & ideally, is what corporations and their lobbyist are always trying to get as close to, even achieve if possible, corporate heads certainly wouldn't be broken-hearted if slavery was ever to become a reality.

Unions are workers untied, formed to stand directly in the corporations way, of wanting to sharing the wealth, the profits, the fruits of the labor, republicans despise this concept, yet they want & expect the workers to be consumers. The corporations whole concept is offering the lowest possible amount of pay to it's workers...While unions are to try to achieve the highest possible wages & benefits (health care, vacation pay, sick pay and on the job safety) for all it's workers.

Corporations see unions the same way they see environmentalist, or regulations on polluting, the EPA consumer watch dog groups, etc.... As pests, obstacles to higher profits, that profits should come ahead of all else....The richer more wealthy & successful the corporation usually the more they fight against unions and regulations...

It's NOT a matter of unions or regulations blocking their incredible wealth, it's becomes more about greed, caring nothing about being fair to their workers, they just want more & more profit, they want it ALL!

Unions are there to fight for a small percentage of it for it's workers for actually put out the profit making product.