The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
Why is it people dislike unions so much on this board? Looked at from 10,000 feet, unions only exist in places where a majority of the employees vote them in. The laws protecting unions are the result of decades of compromise, which settled on a majority rule system in the workplace. A majority can vote the union in, a majority can vote the union out.

I have been a member of a couple of unions, one of which was one of the apparently particularly hated unions of teachers (University faculty and staff in this case). Yes, the union provided protection to teachers, some of whom were capable and some of whom were not. But it was more the civil service laws, the seniority system, and the tenure system that raised the problems with protecting less qualified or capable teachers in that particular case than the union itself; indeed, since that was a relatively young union, it would have been happy to cut back on seniority since the younger members were more activist.

But the union also provided very significant protection, and helped significantly improve the system by increasing pay enough so we could attract some real stars. In the absence of the union, I think the legislature would have been content with a University filled with mediocre products of its own system being paid the least possible.

And, at the end of the day, democracy rules. Just as a majority can decide to fund or not fund schools in the broader political system, a majority can decide to form or to dissolve a union. Yes, there may be rules along the edges that favor the incumbents, but I would no more view that as a reason to get rid of the system for unions than I would for our broader political system.

So, there was good and bad, but most of the sins laid at the union's doorstep were much more products of civil service.

The problems is the unions get involved with politics. Those sins laid at the civil service door are rules passed by a legilslature under the influence of unions.

In California teachers cannot be fired because of laws passed by the legislature paid for by the unions.

In politics unions are dangerous because they don't care about creating jobs, or reducing prices, or increasing efficiency, all they care about is protecting the jobs they govern.

In a world where only the economies that adapt to the changing markets thrive, all the unions do is try and prevent the economy from adapting.

Almost any law or policy unions support politically make the economy less responsive and adaptible, hurting everyone by increasing prices and preventing job creation.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I thought we had a truce and were making progress. Why so much hate?

No hate. I'm just acknowledging that I'm never going to change your mind about anything and you're never going to stop pissing me off when it comes to politics.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time, and you annoy the pig.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I think that every person who spouts off on the "free market" as the be-all and end-all should try to live as a worker in such a "free market" system.

I'm sure that you will have a new appreciation for the worker's freedom of job choice after a period of time making Nike sneakers for $2 a day in Indonesia.

What you fail to grasp is that someone is going to make sneakers paying 2$ a day in Indonesia no matter what the US government does. Either it will be an american company or another company. If you prevent the American company from doing it they will not be able to sell their shoes as cheaply around the world as the company that does and the american company goes out of business. So all the other jobs that the American shoe company provides in america (managers, shoe designers, consultants, lawyers etc) will all be lost.

There is no way to stop outsourcing. The only thing you can do is drive american companys out of business by preventing them from taking advantage of cheap labour .

We live in a world market. Either we compete in it or we go out of business. The choice is that simple.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Re your first paragraph, that is true. But unions also gave us an unsustainable level of expectation in terms of what workers were entitled to. Competing against foreign workers, companies utilizing our high priced workers simply can't compete. Unions never hedged for globalization.

In re to the second paragraph, you're taking a different view of the union member. I see him as uncreative and lacking ambition. You see him as a necessary lower level consumer who fuels the ambitious person's business plan. We're both right. I just have this naive ideal that if everyone tried to better himself, instead of just getting a union card and phoning in a worklife, we could achieve some amazing things. But from a pragmatic, practical perspective, your point - basically, "we can't have winners without losers" can't be debated.

Re: your first paragraph, I think you may have a point as to recent developments with unions, but at the outset, I think unions were a natural outgrowth of industrialization/mass production. With large employers, especially those who dominate the industry in a particular area, workers have very little bargaining power (even more so a bazillion years ago when communications and transportation were so much more primitive) and factory owners really were exploiting them and getting ridiculously rich. I think the choice at that point was between unions and socialism, and unions seem more market-y than socialism. It's people banding together to bargain. I don't think that bringing in armed guards to force people back to work has a role in a free market. I don't think that "company towns" where the mill or mine or factory owner controls the price of food and housing -- keeping them artificially high -- so that workers have no way to save etc. to leave and get a better life is part of a free market.

Re: your second paragraph, I wasn't saying "we can't have winners without losers." I was saying, we can't develop a modern, industrialized society if everyone is an entrepreneur and does the bootstrap thing. Small businesses may drive growth, but hugenormousgantic businesses (not as much industrial anymore) are the backbone of the economy. And, for some people, becoming what you see as a drone is a big step up and is challenging.

Go suck on that silver spoon you've had since birth. Your forebears would be ashamed of you.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is a distinction without a difference.

If the employer is forced to pay their dues, then in reality they are forced to join. Now if the employer could refund the dues to the employee who did not join the union there would be freedom of choice and action.

I'm not sure that I understand this, or perhaps there is a typo. Employers don't pay union dues. Employees do. An employer may have dues checkoff and send the payment to the union every month, but it still comes out of the employee's pocket, whether the employee is in the union or is a fair share fee payer.

I'm not arguing whether union membership it is good or bad, I am simply responding to your statement that in some closed shops, everyone is required to join the union. That is incorrect. There are also religious exemptions that do relieve an employee from paying anything to the union. Some religious sects (normally a Christian Sect) interpret the bible to mean that members of that church CANNOT be a member of a union and CANNOT pay any money to even support the union. If the individual can show that he or she has this religious conviction, then the fair share fee amount will be donated to a charity that has been mutually agreed upon by the employee and the union.

aV

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
The problems is the unions get involved with politics. Those sins laid at the civil service door are rules passed by a legilslature under the influence of unions.

In California teachers cannot be fired because of laws passed by the legislature paid for by the unions.

In politics unions are dangerous because they don't care about creating jobs, or reducing prices, or increasing efficiency, all they care about is protecting the jobs they govern.

In a world where only the economies that adapt to the changing markets thrive, all the unions do is try and prevent the economy from adapting.

Almost any law or policy unions support politically make the economy less responsive and adaptible, hurting everyone by increasing prices and preventing job creation.

All large organizations get involved with politics, you simplistic twit. Almost any law or policy industry supports politically makes the economy less responsive and adaptable, or hurts the sustainability of human life, or drains resources from the majority of people. Employers/corporations/industries don't care about creating jobs or reducing prices (other than reducing the prices of things they buy), they care about making money and to hell with anything else. They don't want any change that will hurt them economically, either.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Do you really think your PA bar registration is any better? Seriously, each of the 50 states and DC all have laws that prohibit an attorney from one jurisdiction from practicing in another, except under limited circumstances. Isn't that the same sort of barrier to entry as a union card?

I suggest you put the brand on your ass. Less possibility of communicating burns or infection to vital organs.

The bar system in this country is ridiculous and should be an illegal monopolistic practice.

I have no problem with unions fighting for higher wages. I have no problem with unions lobbying for a higher minimum wage. I have no problme with unions lobbying for worker safety laws. It is just when the try and distort the market to protect their jobs, that is when they screw everyone and don't really help themselves.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
What you fail to grasp is that someone is going to make sneakers paying 2$ a day in Indonesia no matter what the US government does. Either it will be an american company or another company. If you prevent the American company from doing it they will not be able to sell their shoes as cheaply around the world as the company that does and the american company goes out of business. So all the other jobs that the American shoe company provides in america (managers, shoe designers, consultants, lawyers etc) will all be lost.

There is no way to stop outsourcing. The only thing you can do is drive american companys out of business by preventing them from taking advantage of cheap labour .

We live in a world market. Either we compete in it or we go out of business. The choice is that simple.

I don't think it's feasible to make a lot of stuff domestically now. But your much-admired corporations are working at least as hard as the unions to keep their companies alive, through subsidies and trade restrictions and all that other crap.

You can have the shoe designers and consultants and upper management stay here in the US, even if production is overseas.

I think you need to take some time off from here. Normally your logic and analysis aren't totally fucked.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
All large organizations get involved with politics, you simplistic twit. Almost any law or policy industry supports politically makes the economy less responsive and adaptable, or hurts the sustainability of human life, or drains resources from the majority of people. Employers/corporations/industries don't care about creating jobs or reducing prices (other than reducing the prices of things they buy), they care about making money and to hell with anything else. They don't want any change that will hurt them economically, either.

Simplistic? Simplistic is the union saying - if we stop free trade we will save our jobs. Their jobs are lost. That is just a fact of life. All they do when trying to preven the loss is screw everyone else in the process.

I didn't say I didn't expect unions to get involved in politics, but when they do they almost are always on the wrong side of economic issues. They are always pushing for regulations that make american businesses less competitive.

That is why I consider Unions one of the, if not the biggest threat to the economic future of the United States. If the unions had their way we would turn into a third world nation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
All large organizations get involved with politics, you simplistic twit. Almost any law or policy industry supports politically makes the economy less responsive and adaptable, or hurts the sustainability of human life, or drains resources from the majority of people. Employers/corporations/industries don't care about creating jobs or reducing prices (other than reducing the prices of things they buy), they care about making money and to hell with anything else. They don't want any change that will hurt them economically, either.

I had bacon for lunch. mmmmmmm. and sausages!

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
What you fail to grasp is that someone is going to make sneakers paying 2$ a day in Indonesia no matter what the US government does. Either it will be an american company or another company. If you prevent the American company from doing it they will not be able to sell their shoes as cheaply around the world as the company that does and the american company goes out of business. So all the other jobs that the American shoe company provides in america (managers, shoe designers, consultants, lawyers etc) will all be lost.

There is no way to stop outsourcing. The only thing you can do is drive american companys out of business by preventing them from taking advantage of cheap labour .

We live in a world market. Either we compete in it or we go out of business. The choice is that simple.

I don't fail to grasp it. I even think that it can be a good thing, as the $2 a day wage may be more than the guy would be making had Nike not put the factory there.

My point had nothing to do with free trade, globalization, etc. I was simply pointing out that a labor market where there are no unions to "artificially interfere" with the supply and demand of labor is not a labor market where I would like to be a factory worker. And, AoN, not a place where a factory worker's son has a shot at becoming a lawyer.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
My point had nothing to do with free trade, globalization, etc. I was simply pointing out that a labor market where there are no unions to "artificially interfere" with the supply and demand of labor is not a labor market where I would like to be a factory worker. And, AoN, not a place where a factory worker's son has a shot at becoming a lawyer.

Bite your tongue! With a little initiative, anyone can realize the Indonesian dream!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by andViolins
I'm not sure that I understand this, or perhaps there is a typo. Employers don't pay union dues. Employees do. An employer may have dues checkoff and send the payment to the union every month, but it still comes out of the employee's pocket, whether the employee is in the union or is a fair share fee payer.

I'm not arguing whether union membership it is good or bad, I am simply responding to your statement that in some closed shops, everyone is required to join the union. That is incorrect. There are also religious exemptions that do relieve an employee from paying anything to the union. Some religious sects (normally a Christian Sect) interpret the bible to mean that members of that church CANNOT be a member of a union and CANNOT pay any money to even support the union. If the individual can show that he or she has this religious conviction, then the fair share fee amount will be donated to a charity that has been mutually agreed upon by the employee and the union.

aV

OK now I am confused. Absent a religious objection, are there not some companys where for every worker at the company the union gets money. Either it comes from the worker, or from the employer. Is that not ture?

Or can any company in the United STate hire someone who can then choose not to be part of the union and does not cause by their presence more money to be paid to the union by the employer?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I had bacon for lunch. mmmmmmm. and sausages!

On sunday I realized I was out of bacon. But don't get too stressed, I bought some last night.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK now I am confused. Absent a religious objection, are there not some companys where for every worker at the company the union gets money. Either it comes from the worker, or from the employer. Is that not ture?

Or can any company in the United STate hire someone who can then choose not to be part of the union and does not cause by their presence more money to be paid to the union by the employer?

It's deducted from wages. Where the actual incidence falls would of course depend on elasticity and so forth, but it is nominally paid by the employee, just as health care premiums, etc. are nominally paid by the employee.

I'm sure there are probably studies on who really pays the union dues.

When I worked at a grocery store, I had union dues withheld from my check after some waiting period. I didn't have a choice about it. But it reduced my pay and was visible to me.

ETA you are so totally not qualified even to be participating in this discussion. By revealing how you make utterly confident statements when you have no knowledge, you are undermining the effectiveness of anything you've ever said on this board. Kudos.