Ratbarf wrote:
It is, the missing part of the picture is where if Chrysler were to fire their entire workforce and start from scratch the union would likely riot. I mean, it's one thing to have the ability to freely negotiate contracts, it's another to be threatened with violence if you don't like what one side wants and decide to shop elsewhere. Or have you never heard of scabs getting beaten up?

The problem isn't with the potential for violence/strike action. The problem is that there is no such thing as freely negotiating contracts. When you employ a workforce, then you undergo the costs of setting them up, training them up, and all that other investment. And when the employee takes on a job he might relocate, or commit to a car loan or mortgage and that means he needs to needs to his job at that pay level.

And it isn't just employment. All business negotiation brings with it similar levels of entanglement. The idea of people individually contracting each business undertaking in their lives is a gross simplification. And it's because of this entanglement that so much exploitation is possible, and is one of the reasons that governments needs to step in and engage in the private sector.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The only one talking about labor laws from the middle ages in this thread is you and feeder. I don't need your permission, or a union's or any one else for me to engage in a private contract to sell the sweat of my brow to any one and the fact that you think it's okay to use mob violence to enforce your will on others is blatantly disgusting. You don't want to work? Fine, get out of the way of the people who do want to work.

And people WONDER why the hell I don't even like associating with my trade's guilds.

It isn't my will, it's the will of the majority of the workforce. Or do you now hate democracy?

feeder wrote:
I know what a scab is, and I think they are desperate losers at best and worthless scum at worst (depending on their motivation). I know that violence is a horrible thing, but in the end I feel it is a lesser of two evils.

That kind of idea really, really depends on why the union in question is on strike. If it's for improvements in basic worker safety, then crossing the picket line for cash is pretty odious. But the world is full of union pickets that are pretty stupid, the product of either militant union officials (often looking to expand their profile and advance up the food chain) or exploiting their positions in key industries to exort more cash for their already overpaid positions (wharfs are notorious for this).

The details matter.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The only one talking about labor laws from the middle ages in this thread is you and feeder. I don't need your permission, or a union's or any one else for me to engage in a private contract to sell the sweat of my brow to any one and the fact that you think it's okay to use mob violence to enforce your will on others is blatantly disgusting. You don't want to work? Fine, get out of the way of the people who do want to work.

And people WONDER why the hell I don't even like associating with my trade's guilds.

It isn't my will, it's the will of the majority of the workforce. Or do you now hate democracy?

Corrupt union bosses being the "majority of the workforce" sure "We're not getting enough kickbacks while stripping the people we represent of every spare penny" "Time for a strike then"

 whembly wrote:
See... this sort of attitudes is what gives unions a bad name... just saying.

Yep.

 sebster wrote:

feeder wrote:
I know what a scab is, and I think they are desperate losers at best and worthless scum at worst (depending on their motivation). I know that violence is a horrible thing, but in the end I feel it is a lesser of two evils.

That kind of idea really, really depends on why the union in question is on strike. If it's for improvements in basic worker safety, then crossing the picket line for cash is pretty odious. But the world is full of union pickets that are pretty stupid, the product of either militant union officials (often looking to expand their profile and advance up the food chain) or exploiting their positions in key industries to exort more cash for their already overpaid positions (wharfs are notorious for this).

The details matter.

I'd say that strikes for improvements in worker safety and the like are pretty rare in the modern day and age. OSHA and similar organizations exist in most first world countries and seems to have safety standards pretty well handled.

 whembly wrote:
Frankly, unions are losing the PR battle. Just look at MI for cripes sake! It's going to be a Right-to-Work state.

Yeah, the unions are losing, and losing bad. A simple, straight forward concept like 'its good for workers to have a body that is on their side' is being lost under a mass of manipulative and just plain boneheaded union behaviour.

The kind of militance that feeder is talking about is simply killing the unions. That kind of stuff needs to be left in the 1930s, where it made some kind of sense. But industrial relations have come a long way since then, and there are now industrial relations commissions and courts of arbitration that specialise in this stuff that can address grievances without needing to strike and beating up scabs.

The place for unions now is really as a worker's representative. Give simple, low cost legal advice. Come in and support a worker who is genuinely hard done by. Meanwhile, keep the costs of union dues down, because dropping memberships are a serious problem, because people see their $$$s disappear every pay, and all they get out of it is a meeting from a professional union guy who's never a worked a day in the trade he's meant to be representing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
You don't. You accept that the right to strike only allows YOU to refuse to work, it doesn't allow you to use the threat of violence to force other people to stop working.

Of course the ideal outcome is that you try to inflict your "minor beating" on someone who is carrying a gun, and you are shot to death in self defense.

Yep, and I dare say if the company can offer up a temp wage, and someone is willing to work at that temp wage and do a good enough job without experience/training that the company is happy to keep the situation going... then the strike is probably bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'd say that strikes for improvements in worker safety and the like are pretty rare in the modern day and age. OSHA and similar organizations exist in most first world countries and seems to have safety standards pretty well handled.

Definitely agree - for the modernised world.

 sebster wrote:


The place for unions now is really as a worker's representative. Give simple, low cost legal advice. Come in and support a worker who is genuinely hard done by. Meanwhile, keep the costs of union dues down, because dropping memberships are a serious problem, because people see their $$$s disappear every pay, and all they get out of it is a meeting from a professional union guy who's never a worked a day in the trade he's meant to be representing.

That is precisely what unions do. And file griefs. But sometimes, only sometimes, you get an gakky employer who does a lock-out. In these cases, you need militant unions.

And it's funny that you present union reps has legal advice givers all the while berating them for not having worked a single day in the trade he is representing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


Definitely agree - for the modernised world.

Yeah, really, because everyone knows there's no sweatshop in the Western world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Corrupt union bosses being the "majority of the workforce" sure "We're not getting enough kickbacks while stripping the people we represent of every spare penny" "Time for a strike then"

You can only blame poor labour laws if that's actually what happens in your country.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Frankly, unions are losing the PR battle. Just look at MI for cripes sake! It's going to be a Right-to-Work state.

Yeah, the unions are losing, and losing bad. A simple, straight forward concept like 'its good for workers to have a body that is on their side' is being lost under a mass of manipulative and just plain boneheaded union behaviour.

The kind of militance that feeder is talking about is simply killing the unions. That kind of stuff needs to be left in the 1930s, where it made some kind of sense. But industrial relations have come a long way since then, and there are now industrial relations commissions and courts of arbitration that specialise in this stuff that can address grievances without needing to strike and beating up scabs.

The place for unions now is really as a worker's representative. Give simple, low cost legal advice. Come in and support a worker who is genuinely hard done by. Meanwhile, keep the costs of union dues down, because dropping memberships are a serious problem, because people see their $$$s disappear every pay, and all they get out of it is a meeting from a professional union guy who's never a worked a day in the trade he's meant to be representing.

The concept's great, the execution's horrible.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That is precisely what unions do. And file griefs. But sometimes, only sometimes, you get an gakky employer who does a lock-out. In these cases, you need militant unions.

I don't think you understand what a militant union means. A union that attempts negotiation, arbitration and all other processes and finally resorts to strike isn't militant. A union that takes an aggressive stance and threatens strike from the outset is militant.

And it's funny that you present union reps has legal advice givers all the while berating them for not having worked a single day in the trade he is representing.

I don't think you understand the concept of specialisation. A union can have both local reps and legal staff.

Yeah, really, because everyone knows there's no sweatshop in the Western world.

Seriously dude, think this stuff through... I mean, in the last, say, 40 years, the number of instances of exploited sweatshops workers in a modernised country forming a union and claiming their proper pay and conditions is exactly zero. This is because the conditions in those factories are already below the minimum legal standard, and are dependant on the exploitation of vulnerable workers who don't know their rightful rate of pay and proper conditions. Once the sweatshops is exposed, existing legal processes resolve the issue.

It just isn't what unions are for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The concept's great, the execution's horrible.

Sort of. I mean, the execution was great for a time, and a really important part of delivering the middle class we have today. The working conditions and pay we have today is due in no small part to the fights won by various unions around the world in the first half of the 20th century.

The problem is that the conditions in which they fought and won those rights are really the conditions we have today. Employers have neither the power nor the culture they once did, so taking up an aggressive, militant stance generally works against not only the interests of the employer but also of the employees. Unions that work with the employer to improve productivity and efficiency, with increased pay tied to those improvements can be a great success.

But instead the culture that the employer is the enemy carries on, despite being 50 years out of date.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The concept's great, the execution's horrible.

Sort of. I mean, the execution was great for a time, and a really important part of delivering the middle class we have today. The working conditions and pay we have today is due in no small part to the fights won by various unions around the world in the first half of the 20th century.

The problem is that the conditions in which they fought and won those rights are really the conditions we have today. Employers have neither the power nor the culture they once did, so taking up an aggressive, militant stance generally works against not only the interests of the employer but also of the employees. Unions that work with the employer to improve productivity and efficiency, with increased pay tied to those improvements can be a great success.

But instead the culture that the employer is the enemy carries on, despite being 50 years out of date.

Which would be the execution as it concerns us Sebs. The execution then was what was needed. The execution from then now is a clusterfeth.

 sebster wrote:

But instead the culture that the employer is the enemy carries on, despite being 50 years out of date.

With ~50% of recent college graduates un/underemployed, I'm not surprised.

 Ouze wrote:
How is Obamacare affecting this situation, is my question?

You took the words out of my mouth.

 whembly wrote:

feeder wrote:


Look, I said it was a lesser of two evils. I'm not gleeful or gloating about it. Generally crossing a picket line starts with shouting and shoving before degenerating into actual violence. It's not going to be a surprise. And clearly it's not legal.

If you are pro-union, then how would you prevent a scab from crossing a picket line? By agreeing to scab, one has already broken from his fellows.

I would rather a few scabs deal with their injuries for a few weeks than an entire shop full of workers lose their livelihood.

And sometimes, you can only look after yourself and your family.

Again... that 'ttude you're expressing here is why unions have a bad name...

For the record, I have no problems with unions. Just as I have no problems about big business. Both group can do good things just as well as bad things.

Frankly, unions are losing the PR battle. Just look at MI for cripes sake! It's going to be a Right-to-Work state.

In that vein I support the rights of scabs to use bulldozers to cross the picket lines.

Although I hate public unions as a joyous creature of crony labor, private unions should be allowed to exist. There should be no requirement however, that one have to join a union, or have any monies taken to support a union.

Of course if you disagree I support you fully. It means more jobs for us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

feeder wrote:
If you are pro-union, then how would you prevent a scab from crossing a picket line?

You don't. You accept that the right to strike only allows YOU to refuse to work, it doesn't allow you to use the threat of violence to force other people to stop working.

Of course the ideal outcome is that you try to inflict your "minor beating" on someone who is carrying a gun, and you are shot to death in self defense.

Works for me, and by that I mean, I want video and some popcorn!

When some pissant clerk union can close down one of the largest ports in the world, the union heads should be sent to a Mexican prison.

hotsauceman1 wrote:What are "Teamsters"

Technically a teamster is a guy that drives a wagon, or modern, a truck. The Union itself covers a wider range of jobs but for the most part they all involve logistics. Cabinet shops belong in the Carpenters union or similar which I think was what relapse had pointed out.

For a recent reference the Teamsters were the second largest union in Hostess and they voted to take a pay and benefits cut in exchange for thier jobs and some other compensations.

 sebster wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
It is, the missing part of the picture is where if Chrysler were to fire their entire workforce and start from scratch the union would likely riot. I mean, it's one thing to have the ability to freely negotiate contracts, it's another to be threatened with violence if you don't like what one side wants and decide to shop elsewhere. Or have you never heard of scabs getting beaten up?

The problem isn't with the potential for violence/strike action. The problem is that there is no such thing as freely negotiating contracts. When you employ a workforce, then you undergo the costs of setting them up, training them up, and all that other investment. And when the employee takes on a job he might relocate, or commit to a car loan or mortgage and that means he needs to needs to his job at that pay level.

And it isn't just employment. All business negotiation brings with it similar levels of entanglement. The idea of people individually contracting each business undertaking in their lives is a gross simplification. And it's because of this entanglement that so much exploitation is possible, and is one of the reasons that governments needs to step in and engage in the private sector.

NO. The problem IS with the potential for violence.

If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?

 Easy E wrote:
If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?

If violence is permitted then, under that framework, we're back to the 1880s. Time to bring out the Pinkertons to shoot us some union strikers.

VIolence begets violence and should be avoided. When Frazzled is telling you this something has gone wrong.

This is interesting, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research further bolsters the economic case for worker freedom. The Institute's findings show that citizens in Right to Work states enjoyed faster growth and more purchasing power than their counterparts in forced unionism states over the past 10 years.... just gotta dig deeper to see if the numbers make sense (not familiar with the group either):
http://www.nilrr.org/files/NILRR%20FACT%20SHEET%20RTW%20States%20Benefit%202011.pdf (links to pdf, copy/paste get all funky)

Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power – 2011 Update

Percentage Growth in Non-Farm Private-Sector Employees (2000-2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +0.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -5.5%
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -3.3%
Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Percentage Real Growth in Private-Sector Employee Compensation (2000-2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7%
(2000-2010) National Average . . . . . . . . . 4.3%
BEA; BLS

Cost of Living-Adjusted Compensation Per Private-Sector Employee (2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . $56,575
Forced-Unionism States . . . . . . . . . . . $55,420
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $55,896
Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC);
BEA; Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (BOC)

Also, I can't tell if these numbers include both private and public unions (I'm assuming that's the case).

I'd be interested to see what the numbers stacks up to on Unions in Private businesses compared to Public Unions (ie, SIEU).

Its a conservative funded group that actively fights unions, so of course their research isn't going to be surprising.

Relapse wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Wait, I thought conservatives were in favor of the free market? What possible objection could you make to a private business choosing to re-hire employees, or for employees to negotiate contracts with their employers? Shouldn't you be holding this up as a shining example of how the free market works?

Read the article, the guys were drinking and possibly doing weed during work hours. These guys don't give a crap about the quality they're putting out and we're going to end up facing having to bail that company out again because these are the type of workers the union defends.

Nobody working at Chrysler gives a crap about the quality they're putting out. It's been this way since the early 70s. In an actual Free Market, Chrysler would have died in the mid 80s.




Oh, and The National Institude for Labour Relations (NILRR) is an anti-union Republican think-tank. You can tell this is the case for three reasons:

1. Their own description, found on their own site, describes themselves as an "Anti-union organization which does research and provides analysis to "expose the inequities of compulsory unionism'."

2. They use obfuscating, spin-doctored language like "labour freedom".

3. whembly posted their link.

 d-usa wrote:
Its a conservative funded group that actively fights unions, so of course their research isn't going to be surprising.

Are they really a "conservatve funded group" though? Sure, Right-to-Work is generally a Conservative plank, but I know plenty of lefty liberals who dislikes union.

It is definately anti-union though....

Here's a bit about their objective:

NILRR’s primary function is to act as a research facility for the general public, scholars and students. It provides the supplementary analysis and research necessary to expose the inequities of compulsory unionism.

It publishes research papers designed to stimulate research and discussion with easy-to-read summaries of current events. NILRR also conducts nonpartisan analysis and study for the benefit of the general public.

It will render aid gratuitously to individuals suffering from government over-regulation of labor relations and will provide educational assistance to those individuals who have proved themselves worthy thereof.

So, yes, there may be some bias... that's way I'm interested in looking at the raw data...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Oh, and The National Institude for Labour Relations (NILRR) is an anti-union Republican think-tank. You can tell this is the case for three reasons:

1. Their own description, found on their own site, describes themselves as an "Anti-union organization which does research and provides analysis to "expose the inequities of compulsory unionism'."

2. They use obfuscating, spin-doctored language like "labour freedom".

3. whembly posted their link.

Damn... I feel... AWESOME!



Would this make me... INFAMOUS!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?

Time to bring out the Pinkertons to shoot us some union strikers.

http://www.securitas.com/en/

 AustonT wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?

Time to bring out the Pinkertons to shoot us some union strikers.

http://www.securitas.com/en/

Not rent a cops. The Pinkertons weren't rent a cops. They were rent a killers.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?

Time to bring out the Pinkertons to shoot us some union strikers.

http://www.securitas.com/en/

Not rent a cops. The Pinkertons weren't rent a cops. They were rent a killers.

The Pinks became a part of Securitas. It's just a piece of trivia I happen to remember.
http://www.securitas.com/pinkerton/en/
http://www.securitas.com/us/en/About-Securitas/History/

I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.

feeder wrote:
I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.

...errr what?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

feeder wrote:
I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.

...errr what?

I'll second that.

Relapse wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

feeder wrote:
I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.

...errr what?

I'll second that.

Thirded...

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

feeder wrote:
I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.

...errr what?

I'll second that.

Thirded...

I mean just logically it makes all the pay raises I ever got (none of which were won for me by a union but given freely by corporate policy) very odd indeed. Or massive hallucinations.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

feeder wrote:
I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.

...errr what?

I'll second that.

Thirded...

I mean just logically it makes all the pay raises I ever got (none of which were won for me by a union but given freely by corporate policy) very odd indeed. Or massive hallucinations.

Maybe it's a Canadian (Quebec) thing?

Maybe, it'd certainly explain why they're so violent about strike breaking.

 AustonT wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?

Time to bring out the Pinkertons to shoot us some union strikers.

http://www.securitas.com/en/

Not rent a cops. The Pinkertons weren't rent a cops. They were rent a killers.

The Pinks became a part of Securitas. It's just a piece of trivia I happen to remember.
http://www.securitas.com/pinkerton/en/
http://www.securitas.com/us/en/About-Securitas/History/

Not your daddy's Pinkertons!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Which would be the execution as it concerns us Sebs. The execution then was what was needed. The execution from then now is a clusterfeth.

Yeah, definitely. I was just adding to your comment, pointing out that it isn't the execution that's the problem per se, but the execution of unions right now that's the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
With ~50% of recent college graduates un/underemployed, I'm not surprised.

College graduates shouldn't really have anything to do with unions. The idea of college is to get skills that have enough market power that you don't need collective bargaining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
NO. The problem IS with the potential for violence.

You've missed the point.

Ratbarf said people ought to be able to freely negotiate contracts. I pointed out that violence or no, there isn't really free negotiation of contracts. Violence is obviously bad, and I think everybody has taken the time to point out how feeler was wrong, but it isn't the only issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

feeder wrote:
I think, given that management is required by law to try and reduce worker's pay and benefits whenever possible, people in this thread calling for dismantlement or obsolescence of unions are remarkably short-sighted.

...errr what?

I'll second that.

Thirded...

I mean just logically it makes all the pay raises I ever got (none of which were won for me by a union but given freely by corporate policy) very odd indeed. Or massive hallucinations.

I can bet dollars to donuts he's running off one of Marx's poorer ideas combined with a misunderstanding of corporations law.

The first is the idea put forward by Marx that the nature of business is to seek ever growing profits, and this means extorting more profits from the working class by paying them less for their labour. So the prediction was that companies would steadily cut wages more and more over time. It would have seemed reasonable and made intuitive sense in the world of sweatshops inhabited by Marx, but the rise of the middle class and steady growth of mean and median incomes means Marx' theory obviously didn't work, even without having to go into the various graphs needed to explain its failings. I'm not sure why so many kids today fall for it.

The second idea is that corporations are required to maximise profits. This is kind of true - when trying to protect minority interests in a company, if the charter doesn't say otherwise then the courts will assume the proper purpose of the company is the generation and distribution of profits to shareholders. But that's only in the event that the a minority shareholder takes the company to court, and if it does courts are very wary about interfering to the extent that they challenge business decisions - they tend to limit themselves to instances of overt abuse by majority shareholders. They certainly wouldn't question the business sense in whether the costs of cutting pay by a $1 (reduced staff retention, no longer and employer of choice etc) are greater than the savings. So basically there's exactly zero legal force making companies strive for every dollar and cut wages wherever.

Add those two things together, ignore that they're not true, and you get feeder's idea.

 sebster wrote:
[...corporations law.
corporations are required to maximise profits. This is kind of true - when trying to protect minority interests in a company, if the charter doesn't say otherwise then the courts will assume the proper purpose of the company is the generation and distribution of profits to shareholders. But that's only in the event that the a minority shareholder takes the company to court, and if it does courts are very wary about interfering to the extent that they challenge business decisions - they tend to limit themselves to instances of overt abuse by majority shareholders. They certainly wouldn't question the business sense in whether the costs of cutting pay by a $1 (reduced staff retention, no longer and employer of choice etc) are greater than the savings. So basically there's exactly zero legal force making companies strive for every dollar and cut wages wherever.

... you get feeder's idea.

You kind of get my point. The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law? Where I live the provincial (ie state) government is actively engaged in union busting. Multi national franchises flout labour law with relative impunity. The federal government is trying to change labour laws to bring in workers to do the mining and oilfield jobs my friends and brothers do for fractions of the wage.

We still need Unions, fact.

sebster wrote:The first is the idea put forward by Marx that the nature of business is to seek ever growing profits, and this means extorting more profits from the working class by paying them less for their labour. So the prediction was that companies would steadily cut wages more and more over time. It would have seemed reasonable and made intuitive sense in the world of sweatshops inhabited by Marx, but the rise of the middle class and steady growth of mean and median incomes means Marx' theory obviously didn't work, even without having to go into the various graphs needed to explain its failings. I'm not sure why so many kids today fall for it.

No, that's exactly how things work; and it is only competition of wages and/or government-regulated minimum wage that prevents it. However, the most recent recession has given most companies an excuse to universally cut back on wages (not quite like price fixing, but close).

Also, you'll see this theory of Marx's (one of his stronger ones, actually) come into play even more in the USA as their middle class is further eroded.

So, how does Fiduciary Responsibility play into all of this?

Easy E wrote:So, how does Fiduciary Responsibility play into all of this?

It is the basis for the schism between the owners and the employees: the owners or directors are responsible to themselves or the shareholders to turn the greatest profit possible. Often, this means trying to underpay the employees. If the director instead has the best interests of the employees in mind, then it likely creates a conflict of interest.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Easy E wrote:So, how does Fiduciary Responsibility play into all of this?

It is the basis for the schism between the owners and the employees: the owners or directors are responsible to themselves or the shareholders to turn the greatest profit possible. Often, this means trying to underpay the employees. If the director instead has the best interests of the employees in mind, then it likely creates a conflict of interest.

Not really, it's proven if you don't treat your employees like gak you get a better over all product and more efficient work environment thus increasing productivity.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Easy E wrote:So, how does Fiduciary Responsibility play into all of this?

It is the basis for the schism between the owners and the employees: the owners or directors are responsible to themselves or the shareholders to turn the greatest profit possible. Often, this means trying to underpay the employees. If the director instead has the best interests of the employees in mind, then it likely creates a conflict of interest.

Not really, it's proven if you don't treat your employees like gak you get a better over all product and more efficient work environment thus increasing productivity.

That's not universally true: it doesn't apply at all to a lot of jobs; and many jobs will only see a marginal increase in productivity such that it's more economically sound to run at 90% whilst paying employees 70%, than it would be to pay the employees 90% and receive a 100% effort. For example: production lines do not really function based on employee satisfaction; their output levels are generally determined by timed mechanisms. Further, Wal-Mart employees are not going to increase their productivity in any way that it is economically worthwhile to justify a base pay increase.

Cost Co, a national Walmart competitor here in the states pays and generally takes care of it's employees better (source, friends who have worked for both companies) it's stock is presently trading just shy of 25 points higher then Wally World's.

Now you'd have to dig into corporate reports and financials for a more detailed overview, but going with stock as a base line indicator of corporate health...

(correlation is not causation I know... but it's still interesting)

Not all Unions are bad...

Just like Not all Corporations are bad...

But... those WI unions... whoooo mama... it ain't looking good.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Cost Co, a national Walmart competitor here in the states pays and generally takes care of it's employees better (source, friends who have worked for both companies) it's stock is presently trading just shy of 25 points higher then Wally World's.

Now you'd have to dig into corporate reports and financials for a more detailed overview, but going with stock as a base line indicator of corporate health...

(correlation is not causation I know... but it's still interesting)

They're competitors in the sense that they both sell merchandise, yes. That's generally where the similarities end. Costco charges an annual membership fee, only sells in bulk, and has enough of a market share that they can bully suppliers into far better deals than would otherwise be seen (no complaints, mind you). Wal-mart, on the other hand, tries to find the cheapest gak possible from all over the world and sell it to the consumer for low prices. Other than both selling toilet paper, they really have little in common. Costco's revenue is a little less than 90 billion. Wal-mart's revenue is a little less than 450 billion.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Cost Co, a national Walmart competitor here in the states pays and generally takes care of it's employees better (source, friends who have worked for both companies) it's stock is presently trading just shy of 25 points higher then Wally World's.

Now you'd have to dig into corporate reports and financials for a more detailed overview, but going with stock as a base line indicator of corporate health...

(correlation is not causation I know... but it's still interesting)

They're competitors in the sense that they both sell merchandise, yes. That's generally where the similarities end. Costco charges an annual membership fee, only sells in bulk, and has enough of a market share that they can bully suppliers into far better deals than would otherwise be seen (no complaints, mind you). Wal-mart, on the other hand, tries to find the cheapest gak possible from all over the world and sell it to the consumer for low prices. Other than both selling toilet paper, they really have little in common. Costco's revenue is a little less than 90 billion. Wal-mart's revenue is a little less than 450 billion.

I think he meant Cosco vs Sam's <--- a Walmart Co.

feeder wrote:
The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law? Where I live the provincial (ie state) government is actively engaged in union busting. Multi national franchises flout labour law with relative impunity. The federal government is trying to change labour laws to bring in workers to do the mining and oilfield jobs my friends and brothers do for fractions of the wage.

We still need Unions, fact.

What province do you live in? I don't know of any multi national that openly flouts labour laws in Canada on a company scale. Sure there are bad managers here and there but not usually company wide. As for the importing of workers, well there is a labour shortage yes? I mean now that Newfoundland's got it's own oil there is little reason for them to go elsewhere looking for work.

Ratbarf wrote:

feeder wrote:
The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law? Where I live the provincial (ie state) government is actively engaged in union busting. Multi national franchises flout labour law with relative impunity. The federal government is trying to change labour laws to bring in workers to do the mining and oilfield jobs my friends and brothers do for fractions of the wage.

We still need Unions, fact.

What province do you live in? I don't know of any multi national that openly flouts labour laws in Canada on a company scale. Sure there are bad managers here and there but not usually company wide. As for the importing of workers, well there is a labour shortage yes? I mean now that Newfoundland's got it's own oil there is little reason for them to go elsewhere looking for work.

I can't speak for Ratbarf's reference, but the current BC provincial government has a hard-on for union busting.

Also, it's very, very commonplace for companies (franchises and relailers are particularly bad) to commit minor infractions on a large-scale. Issues surrounding unpaid work breaks and shift durations is the first thing that comes to mind.

feeder wrote:
You kind of get my point. The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law?

Who speaks for me in the absence of real labour law? No-one. No-one has to. I've got a specialised skill set that the market competes for by offering pay and working conditions. That's what created the middle class.

Unions were essential in ensuring decent wages and working conditions for unskilled and semi-skilled labour, no doubt about it. And all kinds of good, positive reform were responsible for the children of the unionised working class moving into the middle class (universal education being a major one).

But ultimately, what delivered pay and working conditions to the middle class was evil, evil capitalism.

We still need Unions, fact.

Unions can be valuable. Unions caught up in the rhetoric of a class war that's a century out of date, on the other hand, are worse than useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, that's exactly how things work; and it is only competition of wages and/or government-regulated minimum wage that prevents it.

Actually, the primary preventative measure is the competition for labour as a means of production, combined with growth in productivity making that labour more valuable (and therefore worth more to each firm).

However, the most recent recession has given most companies an excuse to universally cut back on wages (not quite like price fixing, but close).

The feth? Seriously, the fething feth?

You can't just ignore the basic economics of cyclical economies, and replace it with some grand conspiracy theory.

Also, you'll see this theory of Marx's (one of his stronger ones, actually) come into play even more in the USA as their middle class is further eroded.

Nah, the idea is terrible. Absolute economic gobbledigook. Gibberish. Nonsense. A thing that makes no sense.

"Just you wait, it's totally just about to happen... okay it didn't just happen, but now it's totally just about to happen" is the mating call of the junk theory. Whether it's doomsday prophecies or the Labour Theory of Value.

I like being on Sebster's side, saves me actually contributing to threads and gives me more time to google search cat pictures with funny captions.

feeder wrote:

 sebster wrote:
[...corporations law.
corporations are required to maximise profits. This is kind of true - when trying to protect minority interests in a company, if the charter doesn't say otherwise then the courts will assume the proper purpose of the company is the generation and distribution of profits to shareholders. But that's only in the event that the a minority shareholder takes the company to court, and if it does courts are very wary about interfering to the extent that they challenge business decisions - they tend to limit themselves to instances of overt abuse by majority shareholders. They certainly wouldn't question the business sense in whether the costs of cutting pay by a $1 (reduced staff retention, no longer and employer of choice etc) are greater than the savings. So basically there's exactly zero legal force making companies strive for every dollar and cut wages wherever.

... you get feeder's idea.

You kind of get my point. The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law? Where I live the provincial (ie state) government is actively engaged in union busting. Multi national franchises flout labour law with relative impunity. The federal government is trying to change labour laws to bring in workers to do the mining and oilfield jobs my friends and brothers do for fractions of the wage.

We still need Unions, fact.

So do you support what the Unions did to this guy? He was just asking question...

 whembly wrote:

feeder wrote:

 sebster wrote:
[...corporations law.
corporations are required to maximise profits. This is kind of true - when trying to protect minority interests in a company, if the charter doesn't say otherwise then the courts will assume the proper purpose of the company is the generation and distribution of profits to shareholders. But that's only in the event that the a minority shareholder takes the company to court, and if it does courts are very wary about interfering to the extent that they challenge business decisions - they tend to limit themselves to instances of overt abuse by majority shareholders. They certainly wouldn't question the business sense in whether the costs of cutting pay by a $1 (reduced staff retention, no longer and employer of choice etc) are greater than the savings. So basically there's exactly zero legal force making companies strive for every dollar and cut wages wherever.

... you get feeder's idea.

You kind of get my point. The fact that there is a union presence in the workplace and lobbying government is the only reason we still have a sizable middle class. Who do you think is going to speak for you in absence of real labour law? Where I live the provincial (ie state) government is actively engaged in union busting. Multi national franchises flout labour law with relative impunity. The federal government is trying to change labour laws to bring in workers to do the mining and oilfield jobs my friends and brothers do for fractions of the wage.

We still need Unions, fact.

So do you support what the Unions did to this guy? He was just asking question...

*Tries to protect people in the line of Union violence and ask reasonable questions: Gets yelled and and sweared at, then physically assaulted twice and threatened with death*

Unions: Good for the People?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

*Tries to protect people in the line of Union violence and ask reasonable questions: Gets yelled and and sweared at, then physically assaulted twice and threatened with death*

Unions: Good for the People?

Or the magic of video editing.

This is relevant.

 sebster wrote:


I don't think you understand what a militant union means. A union that attempts negotiation, arbitration and all other processes and finally resorts to strike isn't militant. A union that takes an aggressive stance and threatens strike from the outset is militant.

I only ever heard it being used to refer to unions which scouts out workforces that have been known to have issues, and try to get them affiliated. Which means that yes, they are bound to be agressive because they start in a (more than usual) confrontational situation. There's no reason why this shouldn't be. If you are in a legal struggle, you might call your old-time lawyer, or you might be approached by a firm specialised in your type of issue.

Of course, your problem with it is the possibility of a strike, and you misunderstanding the fact that it's only that possibility which balance out the power relation between the workforce and the employer.

I don't think you understand the concept of specialisation. A union can have both local reps and legal staff.

I don't think you understand the meaning of 'I don't think you understand ...'. You are supposed to tell me afterward why I was wrong, not prove my point. That's exactly how my union works. The president of our cell is allowed 4 hours a week to deal with union matters, and the rest of the time he is a regular employe. Beyond collective convention dealings, and emergency issues, he only has to keep the communication between the Union and the Cell up. When there's a legal issue, he defers to the Union.

Seriously dude, think this stuff through... I mean, in the last, say, 40 years, the number of instances of exploited sweatshops workers in a modernised country forming a union and claiming their proper pay and conditions is exactly zero. This is because the conditions in those factories are already below the minimum legal standard, and are dependant on the exploitation of vulnerable workers who don't know their rightful rate of pay and proper conditions. Once the sweatshops is exposed, existing legal processes resolve the issue.

It just isn't what unions are for.

Dude, think this stuff through, this is the Internet, people are going to check facts, and dismiss your argument entirely if they can but find one exception to your absolute statement. Like this : http://www.cswa.org/www/archive/newsletter/1997/Fall_V5_I2_Sweatshop_Women_Discuss_Contract.html Which shows a sweatshop getting union representation as early as 1987. Which took about 1 minute to find, and only so long because Sweatshop Union is a rap group...

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

*Tries to protect people in the line of Union violence and ask reasonable questions: Gets yelled and and sweared at, then physically assaulted twice and threatened with death*

Unions: Good for the People?

Or the magic of video editing.

This is relevant.

Still... the brawl is making the unions look bad.

Which is a shame because not all unions are bad. What I don't get is why everyone so against Right-to-work laws? It isn't like the Union can't operation in those states... all it does is give works a choice whether to join unions (thus paying dues) or not.

 sebster wrote:


College graduates shouldn't really have anything to do with unions. The idea of college is to get skills that have enough market power that you don't need collective bargaining.

Specialisation doesn't change anything to the power relation between employees and employers, especially if there's no lack of specialised workforce.

In Quebec City we have programmers working at 14$/hour for one of the most succesful gaming giant in the world. Why? Because there's about 200 graduates hitting the market every year. Now you might say that this means that they are not specialised, but that would be ridiculous, when you think about the actual complexity of programming.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Quebec City

Third world cities don't count!

 whembly wrote:


Which is a shame because not all unions are bad. What I don't get is why everyone so against Right-to-work laws? It isn't like the Union can't operation in those states... all it does is give works a choice whether to join unions (thus paying dues) or not.

Can't speak for everyone else, but for me it's because it defeats the purpose of the union. A union is only as strong as the possibility to strike, which is usually not available if the union doesn't have the funding to back a part of the worker's salary. Cut on the fees, you cut on the negociation power they have.

There's also the idea that affiliation is viewed as a democratical process. You don't get to avoid taxes because you voted against Obama, do you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Quebec City

Third world cities don't count!

Hey that's my home town! And a beautiful city...

And for all our socialist values, we survived the last recession better than almost every other north american cities.

 whembly wrote:

Still... the brawl is making the unions look bad.

Not to me. I see a guy who happens to be in a union punching a noted douche, who very willingly fought back, in the face.

Also, when he claims that he was assaulted due to a punch, he is incorrect. He was battered, and he most likely assaulted the union protesters (who also most likely assaulted him) well before.

 whembly wrote:
What I don't get is why everyone so against Right-to-work laws? It isn't like the Union can't operation in those states... all it does is give works a choice whether to join unions (thus paying dues) or not.

They erode union authority.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Which is a shame because not all unions are bad. What I don't get is why everyone so against Right-to-work laws? It isn't like the Union can't operation in those states... all it does is give works a choice whether to join unions (thus paying dues) or not.

Can't speak for everyone else, but for me it's because it defeats the purpose of the union. A union is only as strong as the possibility to strike, which is usually not available if the union doesn't have the funding to back a part of the worker's salary. Cut on the fees, you cut on the negociation power they have.

No... the Union still there.

Right to Work just means that you don't have to join the union or pay the dues.

I have family who's in carpentry/electrical/plumbing unions in Missouri (a Right to Work state)... and some are independent contractors, because it works better for them. See? It's choice.

There's also the idea that affiliation is viewed as a democratical process. You don't get to avoid taxes because you voted against Obama, do you?

I don't understand this... what do you mean by this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Still... the brawl is making the unions look bad.

Not to me. I see a guy who happens to be in a union punching a noted douche, who very willingly fought back, in the face.

Also, when he claims that he was assaulted due to a punch, he is incorrect. He was battered, and he most likely assaulted the union protesters (who also most likely assaulted him) well before.

Check out the full video... he most certainly didn't throw the first punch.

Hey may be a douche, but that doesn't warrent this aggression. If nothing else, it makes all Unions look bad (which is the shame).

 whembly wrote:
What I don't get is why everyone so against Right-to-work laws? It isn't like the Union can't operation in those states... all it does is give works a choice whether to join unions (thus paying dues) or not.

They erode union authority.

And why is that a bad thing?

The reason why it's being fought so hard is that the Unions leaders are doing a good job to rally the cause... but, follow the money... it's the dues that empowers the union leaders.

 whembly wrote:

No... the Union still there.

Right to Work just means that you don't have to join the union or pay the dues.

I have family who's in carpentry/electrical/plumbing unions in Missouri (a Right to Work state)... and some are independent contractors, because it works better for them. See? It's choice.

Yes the union is still 'there', but as I explained, it can't do anything if it can't offer a certain amount of protection to it's members. If the employer knows that your central cannot afford to strike, then he can pretty much get whatever he wants out of the next collective convention negociations. The less people paying dues, the less funds the central has to back it's members.

I don't understand this... what do you mean by this?

The idea of a union is to transform the power relation of the modern workplace, which is structurally something between a tyranny and an oligarchy, into something more democratical. Depending on the laws under which it is created, it requires a majority sign-up and a majority vote. Just like any democratical process, the decision of the majority is binding for the minority, hence why you cannot, as a member falling under the job description to be affiliated, decide afterwards that the vote doesn't matter to you.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

I don't understand this... what do you mean by this?

The idea of a union is to transform the power relation of the modern workplace, which is structurally something between a tyranny and an oligarchy, into something more democratical. Depending on the laws under which it is created, it requires a majority sign-up and a majority vote. Just like any democratical process, the decision of the majority is binding for the minority, hence why you cannot, as a member falling under the job description to be affiliated, decide afterwards that the vote doesn't matter to you.

Two bosses bringing you down are better then one.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

I don't understand this... what do you mean by this?

The idea of a union is to transform the power relation of the modern workplace, which is structurally something between a tyranny and an oligarchy, into something more democratical. Depending on the laws under which it is created, it requires a majority sign-up and a majority vote. Just like any democratical process, the decision of the majority is binding for the minority, hence why you cannot, as a member falling under the job description to be affiliated, decide afterwards that the vote doesn't matter to you.

Two bosses bringing you down are better then one.

By that logic, U.S. democracy is inherently flawed because you have the federal governement and the local state government.

So, again, I guess you are against democracy.

When a union forces a company to hire back people that are habitualy drunk or stoned in the workplace, it has lost any credibility.
On the other hand, when management runs a company into the ground all the while handing itself huge bonuses, they lost any moral high ground they might have had.

Happy medium in my book, a company whose management realizes workers are it's best asset and treats them accordingly and workers who realize they owe their best effort to help their company suceed.

Relapse wrote:

Happy medium in my book, a company whose management realizes workers are it's best asset and treats them accordingly and workers who realize they owe their best effort to help their company suceed.

Pre-right to work my dad worked at a factory/warehouse. Conditions were pretty crappy. They talked about forming a union and the company realized that working with the workers is better than working with a union and they made a lot of improvements.

Right-to-work doesn't just curtail and weaken unions. It also weakens the threat of a union which often is a strong tool that the workers have against management.

 whembly wrote:


So do you support what the Unions did to this guy? He was just asking question...

Well first of all "the Unions" didn't do anything to Mr.Crowder. Unionmembers did, but the Unions did not.
And do I support it? Absolutely.
Just to get the bias out of the way up front. I think Right to Work is an absolutely moronic law that is disingenuous in name and intent. If it was called "Deliberate Union Busting" at least it would be honest. All RTW does is excuse employers to pay lower wages to unskilled workers to break the backs of a skilled workpool.

That aside Mr.Crowder and anyone else who deliberately provokes a crowd should expect that their actions have consequences. His sneering tone and deliberately inflammatory "basic questions" held an obvious outcome. It's kind of a no brainer. If you set up a tent in the middle of a cross burning and ask passersby what they have against interracial marriage, or show up at a NBB meeting to ask what people have against the term colored you can expect the same results. Do I particularly excuse or condone these obvious outcomes? Not particularly. But people today seem to think that their actions come free from reaction. Cause and effect. I'm really only surprised that he didn't get the gak kicked out of him instead of a love tap.
As for sympathy for his plight. Mr. Crowder can get inline behind this person.

I like you, AustonT.

Not just because you bring reason to a thread where people have claimed that shooting a gun at a rioting crowd was the best outcome to scabs and strikers fighting.

Because you do that, AND you bring boobs to the thread.

Relapse wrote:When a union forces a company to hire back people that are habitualy drunk or stoned in the workplace, it has lost any credibility.

Why does being black factor into your objection?

AustonT wrote:As for sympathy for his plight. Mr. Crowder can get inline behind this person.

Spoiler:

See, I was happy to agree with you wholeheartedly until you went and said that. I would have expected better of you than "She was asking for it because of how she was dressed". There is a big difference between wearing revealing clothing and being harassed, and deliberately picking a fight over a hot-button issue and getting one. I'm not going to get into the entire discussion as I'm pretty sure that thread already happened, and got vitrolic in a hurry. All I'll say is that AustonT, I am disappoint.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

I don't understand this... what do you mean by this?

The idea of a union is to transform the power relation of the modern workplace, which is structurally something between a tyranny and an oligarchy, into something more democratical. Depending on the laws under which it is created, it requires a majority sign-up and a majority vote. Just like any democratical process, the decision of the majority is binding for the minority, hence why you cannot, as a member falling under the job description to be affiliated, decide afterwards that the vote doesn't matter to you.

Two bosses bringing you down are better then one.

By that logic, U.S. democracy is inherently flawed because you have the federal governement and the local state government.

So, again, I guess you are against democracy. [/quote

Nope not at all, so one boss with many layers, though allegedly those pricks work for us.

Federal
^
State
^
Local
^
Citizen

Where a unionized business is more like thus:

Unions - Corporate bosses

Workers


You're getting screwed by fat cats from either end.

No, again, you just proved my point.

This :

 sebster wrote:
because people see their $$$s disappear every pay, and all they get out of it is a meeting from a professional union guy who's never a worked a day in the trade he's meant to be representing.

is in complete opposition to your statement that

 sebster wrote:
In doing so, you presented the idea that a union can't have union reps drawn from the profession they're representing, and have lawyers providing legal advice. This is, of course, very silly, once we consider the idea that an organisation can have specialisation - people in different positions with different backgrounds and experiences. That is, you can have union reps who are actually from that profession, while back in the main office you can have lawyers and receptionists and all kind of other jobs.

You are the one who posited that people only get a representation from a professional who only works in Union. My point is precisely that that is not the case, and that you have to have local representative in your cell, and that said representative will necessarily be part of the collective convention negociation.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:When a union forces a company to hire back people that are habitualy drunk or stoned in the workplace, it has lost any credibility.

Why does being black factor into your objection?

Might want to re-read that dude. 'back' not 'black'

 azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:As for sympathy for his plight. Mr. Crowder can get inline behind this person.

Spoiler:

See, I was happy to agree with you wholeheartedly until you went and said that. I would have expected better of you than "She was asking for it because of how she was dressed". There is a big difference between wearing revealing clothing and being harassed, and deliberately picking a fight over a hot-button issue and getting one. I'm not going to get into the entire discussion as I'm pretty sure that thread already happened, and got vitrolic in a hurry. All I'll say is that AustonT, I am disappoint.

Yeah we've already circled the drain on that one once. You connected the wrong thread of argument however. I have more sympathy for Ms. Caruso than Mr. Crowder. She still falls into the category of obvious outcomes, I just have more sympathy for her. Not much you understand but demonstrably more.

 sebster wrote:


They are specialised. The problem, of course, is that with so many new programmers coming out every year supply is quickly outstripping demand. The answer in that case just isn't union action. All you get then is a false market, a high wage that will lower the number of programmers hired and mean many people coming out of university will not get jobs in the profession.

What you need, instead, is to pull back on the number of programmers trained each year. If there's only a market for 50 new programmers, then you train just 50. Wages will then stabilise at a position that justifies the rate of pay.

There's already a false market going on, because the employer can afford to employ a workforce at a lower cost than warranted by its specialisation. Because of factors external to supply and demand of goods, it can produce at a higher margin of profit, while already providing less return to it's employees.

And pulling back on the number of diplomas isn't going to fix anything, it's probably just going to cause bigger issues in the eventuality that the profession hits a boom. There's already a mass of programmers available, and another one which has accepted it's current wage. Training a limited amount will not raise the wage, actually, only training a lower amount than necessary will actually raise the wage, as the programmer would then be in a power relation with the employer.

sebster wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:When a union forces a company to hire back people that are habitualy drunk or stoned in the workplace, it has lost any credibility.

Why does being black factor into your objection?

Might want to re-read that dude. 'back' not 'black'

That's what I get for procrastinating on Dakka whilst writing a term paper on race and 'other-ing'.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:When a union forces a company to hire back people that are habitualy drunk or stoned in the workplace, it has lost any credibility.

Why does being black factor into your objection?
.

Er, what? Caught by the power of suggestion with that paper, eh?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
There's already a false market going on, because the employer can afford to employ a workforce at a lower cost than warranted by its specialisation. Because of factors external to supply and demand of goods, it can produce at a higher margin of profit, while already providing less return to it's employees.

And here is the Labour Theory of Value in all it's stupid.

That doesn't actually happen. It just isn't a description of how labour markets work. Marx completely failed to account for the ability of labour to move and chase the highest dollar. And he completely failed to see how profits would be driven by productivity increases through improved processes, not through increased exploitation.

Now, Marx has an excuse. He was forecasting the future, he didn't know what was going to happen in the greater world in the next hundred years. But you can see what happened, and still choose to believe in his failed theory. You've got no excuse for choosing to believe in something history has shown was just wrong.

Training a limited amount will not raise the wage, actually, only training a lower amount than necessary will actually raise the wage, as the programmer would then be in a power relation with the employer.

Now you're getting it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
You are the one who posited that people only get a representation from a professional who only works in Union. My point is precisely that that is not the case, and that you have to have local representative in your cell, and that said representative will necessarily be part of the collective convention negociation.

Yes, of course you can have a union rep who's drawn from among your co-workers. The problem is that all too often you don't, and when you do the guy is side-lined entirely by the full time union rep, who just hasn't worked in the field in his life. The guy who's come through student politics at uni, and sees the union position as a stepping stone to a political career.

Which, of course, has exactly nothing to what that has to do with the idea that there's other people working in professions back in the main office. Your little effort at a 'gotcha' there makes no sense at all.

 whembly wrote:

Check out the full video... he most certainly didn't throw the first punch.

That doesn't mean he didn't commit assault.

 whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:

snip

Well first of all "the Unions" didn't do anything to Mr.Crowder. Unionmembers did, but the Unions did not.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to paint ALL unions like this... like I said earlier these actions are PR nightmare for all unions.

And do I support it? Absolutely.

What exactly do you support? Just wanna be clear here...

Just to get the bias out of the way up front. I think Right to Work is an absolutely moronic law that is disingenuous in name and intent. If it was called "Deliberate Union Busting" at least it would be honest. All RTW does is excuse employers to pay lower wages to unskilled workers to break the backs of a skilled workpool.

Citations please.

I can get data where RTW states are doing well.

Do you really need citations? It's a pretty well demonstrated fact that RTW states have lower wages and lower employer benefits. There are reports from partisan organization like the Economic Policy Institute and non partisans like the CRS June of this year. More people being paid less doesn't mean doing better, that's a Wal Mart model.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Check out the full video... he most certainly didn't throw the first punch.

That doesn't mean he didn't commit assault.

True....

Frankly... it's bad PR for Unions in general and Steve Chowder, et al. milking it for all their worth, it's sickening...

Can we agree it's just a fubar situation all over?

The WI state congress campaigned on this... and they won. The "people" has spoken.

 AustonT wrote:
Do you really need citations? It's a pretty well demonstrated fact that RTW states have lower wages and lower employer benefits. There are reports from partisan organization like the Economic Policy Institute and non partisans like the CRS June of this year. More people being paid less doesn't mean doing better, that's a Wal Mart model.

Do they have lower unemployment, though?

Relapse wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:When a union forces a company to hire back people that are habitualy drunk or stoned in the workplace, it has lost any credibility.

Why does being black factor into your objection?
.

Er, what? Caught by the power of suggestion with that paper, eh?

Admittedly so, it would seem!

Seaward wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Do you really need citations? It's a pretty well demonstrated fact that RTW states have lower wages and lower employer benefits. There are reports from partisan organization like the Economic Policy Institute and non partisans like the CRS June of this year. More people being paid less doesn't mean doing better, that's a Wal Mart model.

Do they have lower unemployment, though?

In all likelihood, yes. And for the exact same reasons that third-world sweatshop cities have very low unemployment rates.

So let's reset this argument guys.

The crux of the issue is that unions in their position of defending the working man, keep dirtbags who shouldn't have a job employed. This is true both at this jeep factory and in every other kind of union. (Teachers unions in particular come to mind)

What's the middle ground solution?

 azazel the cat wrote:
In all likelihood, yes. And for the exact same reasons that third-world sweatshop cities have very low unemployment rates.

Because they lack a minimum wage?

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
In all likelihood, yes. And for the exact same reasons that third-world sweatshop cities have very low unemployment rates.

Because they lack a minimum wage?

Because there are fewer workers' rights than in other places (of which minimum wage is an element). The same is true for Right to Work states.

Well, that brings up a question: is it better to have 15% unemployment and slightly higher wagers, or 7% unemployment and slightly lower ones?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Which is a shame because not all unions are bad. What I don't get is why everyone so against Right-to-work laws? It isn't like the Union can't operation in those states... all it does is give works a choice whether to join unions (thus paying dues) or not.

Can't speak for everyone else, but for me it's because it defeats the purpose of the union. A union is only as strong as the possibility to strike, which is usually not available if the union doesn't have the funding to back a part of the worker's salary. Cut on the fees, you cut on the negociation power they have.

There's also the idea that affiliation is viewed as a democratical process. You don't get to avoid taxes because you voted against Obama, do you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Quebec City

Third world cities don't count!

Hey that's my home town! And a beautiful city...

And for all our socialist values, we survived the last recession better than almost every other north american cities.

Except every city in Texas of course.

 sebster wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Specialisation doesn't change anything to the power relation between employees and employers, especially if there's no lack of specialised workforce.

Of course it does. When a thing is scarce it is worth more money.

In a global workforce is any teachable skill really scarce?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So let's reset this argument guys.

The crux of the issue is that unions in their position of defending the working man, keep dirtbags who shouldn't have a job employed. This is true both at this jeep factory and in every other kind of union. (Teachers unions in particular come to mind)

What's the middle ground solution?

Every system will have some flaws or errors. Perhaps we shold accept that no system is perfect and free of defects.

This remindds me of the silly debate over Insurance/Benefit Fraud. Do you punish 95% of the people who are doing what they are suppose to do, to eliminate a system where 5% percentage take advantage of it? By the way, those numbers are completely made up.

 Easy E wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Specialisation doesn't change anything to the power relation between employees and employers, especially if there's no lack of specialised workforce.

Of course it does. When a thing is scarce it is worth more money.

In a global workforce is any teachable skill really scarce?

Yes, depending on the educational and technological requirements of a particular job not all skills are available. Beyond that service jobs require both skills and communication which nearly guarantees the employment of indigenous workers.

Seaward wrote:Well, that brings up a question: is it better to have 15% unemployment and slightly higher wagers, or 7% unemployment and slightly lower ones?

I agree, that is a good question.... although I think your numbers are arbitrary and skewed. Perhaps it would be best to use actual unemployment numbers (not made-up ones that are more than double in comparison) and determine some way to find a scale of comparison between wages and unemployment.

Of course, this is nearly impossible without a state-by-state index of both, and so we shall continue to speculate.

No you won't have to speculate.

As of October, the average unemployment rate in right-to-work states is 6.9 percent but 7.6 percent unemployment in non-right-to-work states. The national rate for that month: 7.9 percent.

Wait do those numbers not make sense. That cause thier from Fox. So even when you make gak up the difference is only .7%

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Well, that brings up a question: is it better to have 15% unemployment and slightly higher wagers, or 7% unemployment and slightly lower ones?

I agree, that is a good question.... although I think your numbers are arbitrary and skewed. Perhaps it would be best to use actual unemployment numbers (not made-up ones that are more than double in comparison) and determine some way to find a scale of comparison between wages and unemployment.

Of course, this is nearly impossible without a state-by-state index of both, and so we shall continue to speculate.

Look up Texas and Michigan. They are no that far off actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
No you won't have to speculate.

As of October, the average unemployment rate in right-to-work states is 6.9 percent but 7.6 percent unemployment in non-right-to-work states. The national rate for that month: 7.9 percent.

Wait do those numbers not make sense. That cause thier from Fox. So even when you make gak up the difference is only .7%

Hey at least their made up numbers are statiscially significant. Message, They Care!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Michigan 9.3%

http://www.google.ca/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST260000&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=michigan%20unemployment%20rate

Texas 6.8%

Nevada is right to work. What's thier unemployment?

 AustonT wrote:
Nevada is right to work. What's thier unemployment?

Who cares?

 AustonT wrote:
No you won't have to speculate.

As of October, the average unemployment rate in right-to-work states is 6.9 percent but 7.6 percent unemployment in non-right-to-work states. The national rate for that month: 7.9 percent.

Wait do those numbers not make sense. That cause thier from Fox. So even when you make gak up the difference is only .7%

I would look at the state population and the type of industries in addition to those numbers as well... different industries go through booms and bust at different times, so that's another thing to consider.

But I think the point is, RTW vs UNION only States... at surface glance, there isn't that much of a difference.

 whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
No you won't have to speculate.

As of October, the average unemployment rate in right-to-work states is 6.9 percent but 7.6 percent unemployment in non-right-to-work states. The national rate for that month: 7.9 percent.

Wait do those numbers not make sense. That cause thier from Fox. So even when you make gak up the difference is only .7%

I would look at the state population and the type of industries in addition to those numbers as well... different industries go through booms and bust at different times, so that's another thing to consider.

But I think the point is, RTW vs UNION only States... at surface glance, there isn't that much of a difference.

We have better food. That much is certain.

Best comparable to Michigan could be Tennessee. Tennessee has Honda, Nissan/Infiniti, and Toyota plants and is pretty much the Japanese manufacturing hub in the US.

 Seaward wrote:
Well, that brings up a question: is it better to have 15% unemployment and slightly higher wagers, or 7% unemployment and slightly lower ones?

It's better to earn $20 an hour in the US, than $0.85 an hour in Thailand. Which is, obviously, a really unfair comparison.

But that's going to be the nature for any such comparison, including your 15% unemployment vs 7% unemployment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
In a global workforce is any teachable skill really scarce?

Yes. We can speculate on why this is. We could say it's due in part to the time taken to acquire those skills (either in training or on-the-job experience). We could say it's due to the scarcity of educational institutions . We could say it's due to the cultural conditions in some places so that education is not only valued but doesn't just produced wrote learning but instead produces the kind of creative, lateral minded decision making that is most valued.

Or we can just note that a doctor earns a lot more than the kid on the supermarket checkout and realise that yes, teachable skills command a serious premium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Look up Texas and Michigan. They are no that far off actually.

Claiming that the difference is driven entirely by legislation over unions is pretty screwy though. See my Thailand/USA comparison above.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Check out the full video... he most certainly didn't throw the first punch.

That doesn't mean he didn't commit assault.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/13/fox-news-contributor-gets-punched-in-face/

Actually if you watch the full video, without the painfully obvious edit, the guy who punches him he pushes over onto the ground.

Presumably to provoke him so they could film it, edit it and then.....

NM....saw the unedited video where Crowder pushed/knocked the guy down..and started mockingly yelling.."UH OH" UH OH


GG