Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
*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*
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...
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
*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*
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.
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.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
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?
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/12/12 23:42:26
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/13 00:09:29
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.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
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.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
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.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
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.
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.
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.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
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.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/13 03:21:01
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Kovnik Obama wrote: 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.
That isn't what militant means. Look the word up - "Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause". Synonyms include belligerent and warlike.
It describes a union that takes a confrontational, aggressive approach to dealings with management.
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 misunderstand anything. I just know that there exists a culture within many unions that sees management not as a group to be negotiated with, but an enemy to be defeated. And when that culture exists the
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.
No, I perfectly explained the failing in your logic. That you failed to see it is a little boring, as now I have to spend more time explaining it all out more fully. It would be greatly appreciated if you'd try and make a few more of these logic jumps yourself, thanks.
Anyhow, I commented at one point; "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."
You jumped on this with the following; "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."
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.
Clear now?
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.
And that is not how most unions work. You are confusing personal experience with how the industry works on the whole.
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...
You found one example, of a story about how the union was ineffective in helping the women in question. Wow dude, that's totally changed everything.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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 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.
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
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.
Sure... we shouldn't be surprised. But does that excuse what those union members did?
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.
So... those who have differing opinions should stay home?
Do I particularly excuse or condone these obvious outcomes? Not particularly.
You kinda insinuated earlier... so, glad you don't approve.
But people today seem to think that their actions come free from reaction. Cause and effect.
Sure... we need to be practical. Again, it doesn't excuse the union member's behavior here.
I'm really only surprised that he didn't get the gak kicked out of him instead of a love tap.
Chipped tooth is a love tap? Man, I worry what you'd call a haymaker!
As for sympathy for his plight. Mr. Crowder can get inline behind this person.
Auston... I love you for posting this pic I can get behind her...
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/13 03:37:26
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
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'
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/12/13 05:05:59
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
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.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/13 05:15:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..