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.

 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