Sell me on unions

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.

**Frazzled**

Really? So illegal immigrants can walk thousands of miles and get a better job here, but Shmee the peasant is somehow blocked from walking down the street?

**Red_Zeke**

I think the whole "If you're poor, don't be dumb and have kids" mindset is ignoring the realities of life. Some families are doing alright but lose a good job because of lay-offs. Some moms have a husband walk out on them and their kids. Some people make bad decisions.

The difference is that if you're born poor, without some kind of a safety net, you have no room for error. Middle class kid can make a mistake and get knocked up, and recover because their family has the resources to help out.

I think its right to incentivize people to work hard to improve their lot in life, but I also think that you are ignoring some of the realities of the world, if you think the only way you can end up poor (with or without kids) is if you deserve it.

**Medium of Death**

I hope those displaying risible contempt for the poor live to experience poverty for themselves one day.

**squidhills**

Frazzled wrote:
Really? So illegal immigrants can walk thousands of miles and get a better job here, but Shmee the peasant is somehow blocked from walking down the street?

Many illegal immigrants end up selling themselves into slavery to get here. The Coyotes confiscate their documents so that they can't leave whatever building they dump them in, then force them to pay off the debt incurred in transporting them accross the border. Of course, they are paid less than minimum wage and will never make enough to repay the debt.

As for people already here; retraining requires education and education requires money. If you work a minimum wage job, money is something you don't have enough of. If you can barely afford to live, you don't have the money to pay for the education you need to get better skilsl to get a better job.

Stop pretending the solution is simple, because it isn't.

**hotsauceman1**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

So they're not earning enough to survive without extra help from the government despite working full-time and your solution is for them to go back to school (which costs money as well as time, cutting back on their availability to work and hence earn what little they can) or move (which costs money).

You don't see a problem with that scenario?

Night Classes, Online Classes, Weekend classes.
Going to a community college, their vocational programs are extremely short. The Welding one here is aboout 2 years.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

squidhills wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Really? So illegal immigrants can walk thousands of miles and get a better job here, but Shmee the peasant is somehow blocked from walking down the street?

Many illegal immigrants end up selling themselves into slavery to get here. The Coyotes confiscate their documents so that they can't leave whatever building they dump them in, then force them to pay off the debt incurred in transporting them accross the border. Of course, they are paid less than minimum wage and will never make enough to repay the debt.

As for people already here; retraining requires education and education requires money. If you work a minimum wage job, money is something you don't have enough of. If you can barely afford to live, you don't have the money to pay for the education you need to get better skilsl to get a better job.

Stop pretending the solution is simple, because it isn't.

I paid a total of 10$ a year for my college. 310$ if you include books

**Frazzled**

Medium of Death wrote:
I hope those displaying risible contempt for the poor live to experience poverty for themselves one day.

I have. How about you?

**d-usa**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

I paid a total of 10$ a year for my college. 310$ if you include books

I paid $10 a year for college. $310 if you include what I actually paid for college.

**Grey Templar**

squidhills wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.

That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.

There are loans available.

Going into debt is a good idea for only a very few reasons, but education is one of them.

We are not living in a feudal system and we don't have slavery. The comparison shows complete ignorance of what feudal systems were like and it is demeaning for the harsh reality of slavery, both past and present.

**Ensis Ferrae**

squidhills wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.

That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.

Ever heard of scholarships? or Pell Grants? If you call the school, even if you know you don't have money, they'll help you out as best they can.

**hotsauceman1**

d-usa wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

I paid a total of 10$ a year for my college. 310$ if you include books

I paid $10 a year for college. $310 if you include what I actually paid for college.

Yes....facepalm.....the ultimate comeback.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
squidhills wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.

That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.

Ever heard of scholarships? or Pell Grants? If you call the school, even if you know you don't have money, they'll help you out as best they can.

Hell, In california, if you are on foodstamps or welfare, they offer to free daycare for your children if you are going back to school.

**Grey Templar**

My College has free daycare for both faculty and students(its provided by the child development program, so students learn by working with real kids)

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
My College has free daycare for both faculty and students(its provided by the child development program, so students learn by working with real kids)

Ah, the barber college school of child care.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Ever heard of scholarships? or Pell Grants? If you call the school, even if you know you don't have money, they'll help you out as best they can.

No, they probably won't; as doing so costs them money. What you are describing is a sanguine view of the US admissions process.

**squidhills**

Grey Templar wrote:
squidhills wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.

That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.

There are loans available.

Going into debt is a good idea for only a very few reasons, but education is one of them.

We are not living in a feudal system and we don't have slavery. The comparison shows complete ignorance of what feudal systems were like and it is demeaning for the harsh reality of slavery, both past and present.

The student loan situation is another problem. A lot of the debt that gets incurred is unreasonable. The costs of college have ballooned out of proportion to the economic benefits of having the college education. At this point, going into debt for education may not be worth it anymore.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
squidhills wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.

That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.

Ever heard of scholarships? or Pell Grants? If you call the school, even if you know you don't have money, they'll help you out as best they can.

Scholarships can be difficult to get, depending on requirements. They exist, but there aren't enough out there for eveyone who wants to go to college.

Pell Grants are great, as long as you are going to a local community college. They don't offer enough money to cover attending a four-year college (at least not any of the ones in Maryland). Sometimes, they don't even cover a non-local community college, as I found out when I had to take a class in the next county over and wound up paying out of pocket for a chunk of it (not all of it, but a couple hundred dollars' worth). Also, Pell Grants are finite in number and are first-come first-serve. If everybody is trying to go to college to better themselves, there won't be enough to go around.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
squidhills wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.

We are not living in a feudal system and we don't have slavery. The comparison shows complete ignorance of what feudal systems were like and it is demeaning for the harsh reality of slavery, both past and present.

In a feudal system wealth flows from the bottom up to the top. That is exactly what is happeneing with Walmart, and other minimum-wage jobs.

Yes, there are some other bits about knights performing military service by guarding the serfs who work their land, which don't apply here, as Walmart has no interst in protecting its employees at all, since it can always get more. Actually, GT you may be right. This isn't feudalism. It's worse, because at least medieval serfs could rely on their lord to protect them from bandits. Modern minimum wage workers don't even have that going for them.

**hotsauceman1**

dogma wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Ever heard of scholarships? or Pell Grants? If you call the school, even if you know you don't have money, they'll help you out as best they can.

No, they probably won't; as doing so costs them money. What you are describing is a sanguine view of the US admissions process.

Yes, Yes they do. Like i said, I paid only 10$ a year.

**Jihadin**

Join the National Guard. Hell they even add in a bigger monthly stipend for a student/part time student. Also the Government pretty much pays for it all Draw BAH to

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
44Ronin wrote:
As I said it's a modern reinvention of slavery.

Edit all you want. Ban me even. I'll still say it.

Then you're just trolling.

PLus you're ignorant. We don't like slavery. We like indentured servitude. Get it right peasant!

Gave him fair warning on going down that route

**hotsauceman1**

Jihadin wrote:
Join the National Guard. Hell they even add in a bigger monthly stipend for a student/part time student. Also the Government pretty much pays for it all Draw BAH to

*Sarcasm On* Oh, you mea you have to get shot at and get PTSD to make a living? The Military industrial complex is out to get black people, they always make sure africans get shot first. Ever notice how we havenet had a war against white people? THE MILITARY IS EVIL *off*
Real argument I heard

**Bullockist**

Frazzled wrote:
Really? So illegal immigrants can walk thousands of miles and get a better job here, but Shmee the peasant is somehow blocked from walking down the street?

What you guys need to do is build a moat round the US , then get a politician elected whos' catch phrase is "STOP THE BOATS" (I've heard it at least 1800 times now) it seems to work wonders.

**sebster**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree that it's the kids who usually suffer for their parents' stupidity... And depending on the job, yeah a real, full time job shouldn't be minimum wage either.

Shouldn't be, yeah. But to run a variation on a famous quote - you don't write laws according to the economy you want, you write laws based on the economy you have.

Me personally, and I know I've said it on other threads, but "Minimum Wage" should be for those who are in school and still living with parents getting that valuable work experience, or those who are so new to the country they don't speak the local language... In BOTH cases, it should be temporary as each one moves along in life... the kid grows up and gets better work elsewhere. The immigrant better learns the local language, and moves on to better work as well.

Nearly every. single. person. that I've seen working a minimum wage job who is older than 24, and doesn't have the obvious markers of being an immigrant are doing that crap job because they fethed up their life. Whether it was through drugs, dropping out of school because they were too cool, or they broke some other laws... Doesn't matter. There are, quite simply, too many opportunities for people to move up and on in this country that people simply waste, for me to have much sympathy for the people who bitch and moan about how you can't raise a family on min. wage... That's literally not what minimum wage was designed for.

My own sample is very small, as there's only a couple of people who's life story I know that has led to them on the minimum wage, but it doesn't differ from your own observations. I've got a cousin who just lost his minimum wage job because he was caught and is soon to be convicted of spraying graffiti on a train - at the age of 26... I mean for feth's sake.

Though I'd argue against you when you say that isn't what the minimum wage is for. I'd argue at its simplest form the minimum wage says if you're willing to work a full week, then the law will guarantee that you earn enough to live okay. Exactly where 'okay' begins and ends is a whole other argument, and how much you can increase 'okay' before you start losing jobs and making lots of people 'not okay' is another argument still, but the idea that if you're willing to work then you'll have enough to get by is the absolutely core of what minimum wage is about - whether you're a feth up or not, at least you're working and that means you should do okay.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

squidhills wrote:
The student loan situation is another problem. A lot of the debt that gets incurred is unreasonable. The costs of college have ballooned out of proportion to the economic benefits of having the college education. At this point, going into debt for education may not be worth it anymore.

College loans have one of the highest rates of repayments... for graduates. The issue of debt is with kids who drop out after a semester or two.

I do agree that the costs of college are a big issue though. Not so much at the Ivy League level, but the mid-tier level charges outrageous fees for education that is delivered better for less elsewhere in the world. But even with the cost blow out it's an excellent investment.

**Jihadin**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Join the National Guard. Hell they even add in a bigger monthly stipend for a student/part time student. Also the Government pretty much pays for it all Draw BAH to

*Sarcasm On* Oh, you mea you have to get shot at and get PTSD to make a living? The Military industrial complex is out to get black people, they always make sure africans get shot first. Ever notice how we havenet had a war against white people? THE MILITARY IS EVIL *off*
Real argument I heard

Its okay Little Guy. Though that was not directed at you. I do want to point out that the word "African" which was used in conjunction with "African American" has been phased out of circulation in the US Military for awhile.

I also want to point you cannot make a living off of one weekend a month pay let alone two weeks a year training. Your National Guard with time on your hand not Active Duty with hardly anytime on your hand

Edit

Oh also its African

**Ensis Ferrae**

sebster wrote:

Though I'd argue against you when you say that isn't what the minimum wage is for. I'd argue at its simplest form the minimum wage says if you're willing to work a full week, then the law will guarantee that you earn enough to live okay. Exactly where 'okay' begins and ends is a whole other argument, and how much you can increase 'okay' before you start losing jobs and making lots of people 'not okay' is another argument still, but the idea that if you're willing to work then you'll have enough to get by is the absolutely core of what minimum wage is about - whether you're a feth up or not, at least you're working and that means you should do okay.

As I know people's definitions differ, my definition for what min. wage "should" get you:

rent on a small place (not some place completely bug/crime riddled) of your own. be able to pay the insurance/note on a "reliable" vehicle (it doesn't have to be the best thing out there, just that it runs and goes from point A to B when you need it), be able to cover your utilities, if you live conservatively/smartly, food on the table, internet/ cell phone, and, if you're smart with the money, a bit for a movie or a "date" each month/quarter (I say quarter, because sometimes we want to be a bit more extravigent).

Where many people go wrong of course, is that they "need" the most expensive package of cable/satellite TV provider, big TVs, iPads, iPhones, iCars, etc. and complain that they don't make enough money.

**Jihadin**

I think the wage discussion would be better off if we stick to someplace tangible. Right now we're using a highway lamp post to beat the dead horse even further.

**Mike1975**

OIIIIIIO wrote:
Let's get one thing straight...

Employers and Corporations did not feel generous and decide to give you two days off every week to have a social/personal life. (We now call them weekends). Corporations did not just feel like being nice one day and give their employees paid vacations. CEOs didn't get together in a board room and say "Let's give our employees more rights at work" or "Maybe there should be laws to limit our power over an employee".

Virtually ALL the benefits you have at work, whether you work in the public or private sector, all of the benefits and rights you enjoy everyday are there because unions fought hard and long for them against big business who did everything they could to prevent giving you your rights. Many union leaders and members even lost their lives for things we take for granted today.

The right-wing attack on unions is nothing more than ignorance, lack of education, and propaganda.

If republicans would rather support corporations instead of organized groups of workers working to secure a fair work environment A.K.A a union, I ask them to walk the walk as well. Give up every benefit and right that you use that unions are responsible for.

Complete trust and submit yourself to the corporate agenda you fight for. Play by their rules with no influence from democrats or labor unions to try to force rights among the workers of this country. Dedicate your life to their life goal of making your company more money than the year before. Just understand that this may mean sacrificing the union fought rights you enjoy everyday. I mean, you don't want to be a hypocrite, do you? Like bashing unions on your union fought lunch break? Which means if you practice what you preach, you don't get a lunch break.

Corporations use to work employees 80+ hours a week, offer no breaks, hire children, offer horrid, unsanitary work conditions, paid literally next to nothing, and even murder. Not murder with a pen like they do today, but actual murder. They basically did whatever they wanted.

This is what they were like before unions. Don't take my word for it, look it up. (Links at bottom of page). If we rid the world of unions tomorrow, who is to say that they won't go right back to the way they were merely 70 years ago? The GOP governor of Maine signed a bill to repeal child labor laws this year, maybe they are going back to their roots whether we have unions or not.

So conservatives, please practice what you preach and give up all these rights and leave the umbrella of these laws for they were brought to you by unions...

36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union

•Weekends
•All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
•Paid Vacation
•FMLA
•Sick Leave
•Social Security
•Minimum Wage
•Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
•8-Hour Work Day
•Overtime Pay
•Child Labor Laws
•Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
•40 Hour Work Week
•Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
•Unemployment Insurance
•Pensions
•Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
•Employer Health Care Insurance
•Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
•Wrongful Termination Laws
•Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
•Whistleblower Protection Laws
•Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
•Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
•Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
•Sexual Harassment Laws
•Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
•Holiday Pay
•Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
•Privacy Rights
•Pregnancy and Parental Leave
•Military Leave
•The Right to Strike
•Public Education for Children
•Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
•Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

So will conservatives give up all 36 of these union fought rights? Will they stand by their rhetoric that unions are thugs and refuse to take benefits from these "thugs" or will they hypocritically carry on the diatribe that unions are ruining this country while enjoying their weekends and paid vacations?

Or...

Maybe they could just admit that while not perfect, like anything else, unions have done great things for working people that they use and benefit from everyday of their lives?

Maybe a conservative union-hating family got to have some of the best moments of their lives while on vacation from work, and they still got to come to a job still there waiting for them, because of unions?

Maybe a conservative can't wait for their lunch break at work so they can turn on the radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Back talk about how horrible unions are?

If you don't want to give up all your union fought rights and benefits at work, I understand. I don't want to either, that's why I'm pro-union and vote Democrat.

But maybe you could just admit that unions are not demons spawned from hell, and admit the FACT that they have improved your life in more ways than one?

Or am I asking too much?

Taken from this site ....http://la.aflcio.org/gnoaflcio/index.cfm?action=article&articleID=257e8c90-0ac8-43f7-b0c6-dce69756e21c

Educate yourself about it. Unions are not perfect but they are a necessary evil.

hehehe, your funny, this is a cut and paste from some liberal blog. What they are saying is that Unions have done a lot of good, most of what they did helps and is now federal law. What is their main purpose today. For the most part, maintain political connections with money taken from their members.

Here is some impartial data. You can find a lot of the above from one party or the other but impartial and unfiltered data speaks for itself.

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/contributors.asp?id=1189

**sebster**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
As I know people's definitions differ, my definition for what min. wage "should" get you:

rent on a small place (not some place completely bug/crime riddled) of your own. be able to pay the insurance/note on a "reliable" vehicle (it doesn't have to be the best thing out there, just that it runs and goes from point A to B when you need it), be able to cover your utilities, if you live conservatively/smartly, food on the table, internet/ cell phone, and, if you're smart with the money, a bit for a movie or a "date" each month/quarter (I say quarter, because sometimes we want to be a bit more extravigent).

I think that's pretty reasonable. At a minimum wage of, say, $10 an hour, with tax paid and benefits received breaking about even, the person is looking at $400 a week for everything you mention there. Which I think is about fair, from my experiences of the cost of living in the US (though we did visit the more expensive, touristy places, and I understand it varies pretty considerably from place to place).

Where many people go wrong of course, is that they "need" the most expensive package of cable/satellite TV provider, big TVs, iPads, iPhones, iCars, etc. and complain that they don't make enough money.

That's not just a mistake made by low income earners. My brother in law earns in excess of $150k, and they've never got any money. Their son is just slightly on the autism spectrum and they were referred to a specialist, who was going to charge $2,000 for a short course of treatment. They were saying how they were going to do this, but had no idea where they'd find the money. I could help but stir and so I asked when they were picking up her new eternity ring, that came in at about $5,000... she didn't get the connection at all.

It's also worth recognising that depending on your social circumstances, a lot of that stuff is cheap. I've told the story before about some guys I knew at uni, who bought a really nice TV and a satellite deal, despite earning bugger all money. But watching TV and playing console games was pretty much what they did. They didn't go out to the movies or to pubs. From where I am now, without that much spare time, I see that stuff as a luxury because I'd be watching maybe an hour of pay TV a night, but when you're in the house killing time like six hours a day, pay TV actually becomes a smart option.

That said, I've got nothing to justify the spinning rims on the car

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike1975 wrote:
hehehe, your funny, this is a cut and paste from some liberal blog.

I think we all assumed that

What they are saying is that Unions have done a lot of good, most of what they did helps and is now federal law.

I saw an interesting argument that if people want the union movement to rebound, they should give the libertarians what they want - take out the federal labour laws, but also take out the controls on union activism. Let the free market and bargaining decide employee conditions. People would flood back to the unions.

**Bullockist**

Every time I've been in a union the bastards have given away my penalty rates for an under inflation pay rise. I felt like a chump.
I've heard amazing tales about strong unions though.

**dogma**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Yes, Yes they do. Like i said, I paid only 10$ a year.

The majority of people can count on their ability to pay factoring into whether or not they are admitted. And how much effort an admissions (or bursar's) office is willing to dedicate to their case.

There are, of course, exemptions for minorities, the poor, and those with special needs; all of which attract funding from the state.

**Jihadin**

Penalty rates?

**Bishop F Gantry**

Jihadin wrote:
Eesshh. That sounds like something that has "Comrade" all over it....

Its much better to cease production locally and move it overseas to COMMUNIST CHINA, instead of supporting the local area, its much better to support COMMUNIST CHINA just like a good Little Capitalist!

Aerethan wrote:
So I've lived in California my entire life. We have a few unions here, mostly related to construction and food service jobs. I've never been in one.

What EXACTLY is their current purpose?

People say it's to negotiate this or that benefit, but don't people do that when they get hired? If you don't like the benefits a job offers, don't work there.

I'm just very confused on the entire thing. Mostly on how there are people whose ONLY job is to manage the union for other people, which off the top of my head makes zero sense as that person will just make decisions that benefit themselves(as humanity has proven time and again).

So help me out here people. Why on earth are these things around?

Well unions intentions is to give workers etc a powerblock to work from so managment wont have as an easy time to ruthlessly exploiting the workforce. Oh I see American union... BEHIND YOU

*leaps out window*

**Frazzled**

Bullockist wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Really? So illegal immigrants can walk thousands of miles and get a better job here, but Shmee the peasant is somehow blocked from walking down the street?

What you guys need to do is build a moat round the US , then get a politician elected whos' catch phrase is "STOP THE BOATS" (I've heard it at least 1800 times now) it seems to work wonders.

We have a moat, its just not deep enough. We need to dredge it out. But where can get w hard working crew of thousands who will work cheaply? What to do what to do...

**nkelsch**

Jihadin wrote:
Penalty rates?

Many unions in states with 'right to work' allow employees to 'opt-out' of the union, but you still have to pay dues. Your salary and benefits is still negotiated with the union, the only difference is they won't support you if there is an issue. It is basically a way to force people to be in the union.

When I worked for the school system, I was a highly paid "support service" position which means I was a 30$+ an hour combined into a union with 10$ an hour bus drivers. They basically hated the few weird positions who were lumped in to the support service union and they did not at all look out for the needs of my positions. They would often only negotiate increases for specific tiers and even attempt to negotiate that 'the higher positions will forgo pay increases or take a decrease'.

But, if I wanted to opt-out, instead of dues, I would have had to pay an equal amount out of every paycheck which goes to a political fund which the union can spend how it chooses. Technically it didn't go to the union directly but it was still forced for me to pay. So it is better to be in the union in that situation even when they are negotiating against your needs and probably won't support you if you got into an issue with administration.

**Redbeard**

nkelsch wrote:

Many unions in states with 'right to work' allow employees to 'opt-out' of the union, but you still have to pay dues. Your salary and benefits is still negotiated with the union, the only difference is they won't support you if there is an issue. It is basically a way to force people to be in the union.

I'm not sure you're right about this. "Right To Work" states are the ones that don't allow this to happen - the union cannot automatically collect dues from non-members. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law).