[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Bwahahaaha

ROFL! Wisconsin Teachers.... in [Market-Ticker]

-t

What the?!? That's funny as hell!

[OldManMac]

The deficit "problem" is only a problem when the Republicans need it to be.

The “Deficit Problem” Isn’t Financial. It’s Political. | Common Dreams

[turtle777]

Yeah, let's just ignore the voter's will here.

Walker completely lied about what he was going to do, and the people of WI only elected him because they were mislead

-t

[OldManMac]

^^That's entirely plausible. If you knew anything about human behavior, you'd know that people can be duped into doing things that are against their best interests.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

^^That's entirely plausible. If you knew anything about human behavior, you'd know that people can be duped into doing things that are against their best interests.

You mean, like voting for Obama

Big difference: Walker did NOT lie about what he was going to do. Obama, well, let's just say he wasn't exactly upfront, and definitely changed his mind on many topics AFTER the election.

-t

[OldManMac]

I don't disagree about Obama. He's turned into another George W. Bush, except he wears the Democrat label. I voted for him, and I'm extremely disappointed. I was hoping for more of a progressive.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Bwahahaaha

ROFL! Wisconsin Teachers.... in [Market-Ticker]

Might be funnier if it were accurate. Previous videos on various topics were amusing. As we already know, the union workers agreed to the cuts. Also, the video is incorrect about teaching hours. Teachers are expected 7 hours of direct instruction. That does not include 3 to 5 hours outside classroom instruction per day (including Saturday) for pre and post classroom preparation, lesson plans, grading, administrative duties, etc. That makes it 50 to 60 hours a week including Saturdays.

Teachers also do not get 2 months off. They generally spend 2 weeks after school ends and 2 weeks before school begins for cleanup and preparation respectively. That does not include mandatory training and inservice days.

Claiming teachers only work 190 days is ridiculous. Anyone who says so is completely ignorant of the requirements of a teacher. My mother is a teacher, I've worked on college campuses for six years, and worked in K-12 for the past eight. I've worked in the education system for a pretty long time, and given what I've heard so far, I can say definitively that very few of you know much of anything about what is going on in the school system.

I'm also going to go out on a limb here and state that I believe that Unions are one the few reason we still even have a middle class.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Teachers also do not get 2 months off. They generally spend 2 weeks after school ends and 2 weeks before school begins for cleanup and preparation respectively. That does not include mandatory training and inservice days.

When does school begin/end for your state? Here, school only goes into June if there were a lot of snow days and picks back up the last week of August. If a teacher spends an extra week at the end of the school year and returns two weeks before school starts, that's 11-12 weeks of vacation. FWIW, my mom has been teaching for the past 14 years and my dad has been an elementary school teacher/administrator for 34 years, so I'm at least vaguely familiar with how teaching works.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The point is that collective bargaining has been part of the fabric of American society for over 75 years.

There are a lot of things that have become part of this "fabric," both good and bad. Extending this tradition and tolerance to some of the stuff that really doesn't make any sense - doesn't make any sense.

It is one of the fundamental, cornerstone reasons why the middle class even exists. Clearly the state of Wisconsin has been able to balance its budget plenty of times over this time frame despite the collective bargaining rights of its public employees.

The auto companies have been able to for years as well. Not so much anymore. Maybe not so much in the future. The compounded effects of years of "give" ends up giving too much of other people's money to people to those who could not have gotten that compensation and those benefits in a competitive market. It's essentially a monopoly. This is why corporations oursource a lot of it's functions overseas where the labor market is more competitive. NO American jobs will do a lot more to hurt the middle class than a lack of collective bargaining.

Private sector unions have no power over who their "boss" is and the policies his/she creates. Public sector unions can work to have their immediate "boss" removed by appealing to their fellow "owners" of their work - the taxpayer.

So there's simply no budgetary or financial reason to eliminate it.

I'm pretty sure in the end, it will help them save money - otherwise there would be no real opposition.

This attempt to destroy the public sector unions is purely political ... as evidenced by the fact that the public sector unions that tend to support the GOP (i.e. police, firefighters, state troopers) were exempted from this blatant power grab.

Those public sector unions all seem to represent workers who often times die in the course of their duties. I'd say that puts them in a little different category of worker, requiring extra protections and benefits.

In any event, I find it amazing how some of our good friends on the right can see the value of checks and balances in government .... yet they are hostile to it in the private sector. I'm a capitalist for sure. Capitalism is one of the greatest systems for generating wealth the world has ever seen. However, its fundamental flaw is that left to its own devices, unbridled capitalism ... that is, capitalism without a mechanism for checks and balances .... will inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. It's just the nature of the beast.

There are inherent checks and balances in place. Most companies want the best price/performance for work that they can get. The job market is competitive. People will move to other jobs based on the wages/benefits that are most appealing. Also, there are laws which ensure that the most basic standards are enforced. It's not the job of capitalism to "spread the wealth". I think that's where you are confused. If you are a capitalist, then that really shouldn't be a concern of yours. If any of these entities aren't paying what a worker considers a fair and competitive wage, they are welcome to go where they are. The fact is, the public wants the best workers for the job. They'll want to pay what is competitive to get that. However, they don't want to pay more than what's competitive. When public sector workers, paid by taxpayers, have better deals in place than most of the taxpayers paying their wages and benefits, that's a sign that the "checks and balances" are out of whack.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The deficit "problem" is only a problem when the Republicans need it to be.

The “Deficit Problem” Isn’t Financial. It’s Political. | Common Dreams

NEWSFLASH: The deficit is not a problem ladies and gentlemen! It is only a fake problem that is real because of Republican Administrations prior!

I present to you the problem with the state of our education today. Your source is teaching history and economics to our students; a new class of indoctrinated young OldMen economists who won't know that Congress holds the purse strings in this country for example or historians that forget little things in our history such as the .com boom, a Republican Congress, and that you can only ride the previous President's failures so long as you aren't doubling-down on the folly that buried that president's approval rating and brought down two congresses.

Next...

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

NEWSFLASH: The deficit is not a problem ladies and gentlemen! It is only a fake problem that is real because of Republican Administrations prior!

I present to you the problem with the state of our education today. Your source is teaching history and economics to our students; a new class of indoctrinated young OldMen economists who won't know that Congress holds the purse strings in this country for example or historians that forget little things in our history such as the .com boom, a Republican Congress, and that you can only ride the previous President's failures so long as you aren't doubling-down on the folly that buried that president's approval rating and brought down two congresses.

Next...

Whooooosh

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Might be funnier if it were accurate. Previous videos on various topics were amusing. As we already know, the union workers agreed to the cuts. Also, the video is incorrect about teaching hours. Teachers are expected 7 hours of direct instruction. That does not include 3 to 5 hours outside classroom instruction per day (including Saturday) for pre and post classroom preparation, lesson plans, grading, administrative duties, etc. That makes it 50 to 60 hours a week including Saturdays.

Teachers also do not get 2 months off. They generally spend 2 weeks after school ends and 2 weeks before school begins for cleanup and preparation respectively. That does not include mandatory training and inservice days.

Claiming teachers only work 190 days is ridiculous. Anyone who says so is completely ignorant of the requirements of a teacher. My mother is a teacher, I've worked on college campuses for six years, and worked in K-12 for the past eight. I've worked in the education system for a pretty long time, and given what I've heard so far, I can say definitively that very few of you know much of anything about what is going on in the school system.

I'm also going to go out on a limb here and state that I believe that Unions are one the few reason we still even have a middle class.

My grandmother was a teacher, then a substitute for some 39 years, my mother was an aide, and I've put two children through the system which gives me over 11 years personal experience with the school system and given what I've heard so far, I can say definitively that you don't know much of anything about what is going on in the school system. It's not 190 days, it ranges from 180-210 work days per year and there are usually individual contracts for those who teach cheer, or band, or a sport requiring more of their time.

Of course, this still doesn't address why teachers should have a special seat at the State House for negotiating pay and bennies the rest of us, including Federal employees themselves do not get. They seem to have enough time to reform the grading scale to ensure the lowest common denominator can get a passing grade while making it near impossible to get a superior grade leaving our kids even less competitive than they were so the kids who aren't doing anything won't have to see a 0 next to their name.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Whooooosh

That's exactly what I thought when I read the article. How much would an economist and historian have to overlook to make a partisan talking point suitable for CommonDreams.org? Quite a lot as it turns out.

Whooooosh indeed.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

When does school begin/end for your state? Here, school only goes into June if there were a lot of snow days and picks back up the last week of August. If a teacher spends an extra week at the end of the school year and returns two weeks before school starts, that's 11-12 weeks of vacation. FWIW, my mom has been teaching for the past 14 years and my dad has been an elementary school teacher/administrator for 34 years, so I'm at least vaguely familiar with how teaching works.

Here in socialist Canada, teachers don't get paid for the weeks they're not working in the summer.

[turtle777]

So they get paid 30% more when school's in session ?

What matters is the annual salary. How much is that in Canada ?

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So they get paid 30% more when school's in session ?

What matters is the annual salary. How much is that in Canada ?

-t

Looks like it's between $40,000 and $70,000 (CAD of course). My understanding, after conversations with teachers, is that they're basically paid hourly; a teachers who earns $50,000 per year, is actually earning $50,000 per 10 months.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Here in socialist Canada, teachers don't get paid for the weeks they're not working in the summer.

So no paychecks during the summer? Why not take the annual salary and calculate it out so it ends up as 12 months of paychecks?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So no paychecks during the summer?

Exactly

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Why not take the annual salary and calculate it out so it ends up as 12 months of paychecks?

I'm not certain, but if I had to guess, I'd say it might have something to do with fighting the perception that teachers get 2 months of paid vacation.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

When does school begin/end for your state?

School start and end dates vary from district to district, the state only dictates how many days they're required to be in session. In my district here in California, school ends June 10th and picks up again August 12th. Our summer break is shorter than most schools, but we have a few extra days interspersed throughout the year.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Here, school only goes into June if there were a lot of snow days and picks back up the last week of August. If a teacher spends an extra week at the end of the school year and returns two weeks before school starts, that's 11-12 weeks of vacation. FWIW, my mom has been teaching for the past 14 years and my dad has been an elementary school teacher/administrator for 34 years, so I'm at least vaguely familiar with how teaching works.

If you're a full time classified employee in our district, you get 10 days of vacation a year that does not roll over (You have to use your vacation. Only sick leave rolls over.) Teachers do not get paid vacation outside of Federal holidays, which conveniently is 10 days just like classified.

Like Canada, teachers are only paid for the days they teach. It is technically salary and is based on the number days school is in session, but calculated hourly for various purposes (sick leave, personal days, inservice, training, etc.) However, when you sign your contract, you have the option to prorate your pay cheque for the days school is not in session. This ensures that regardless of which holidays are observed, your pay cheque is the same month to month even throughout summer. I would wager 95% of 9, 10, and 11 month employees do this, and this is where the false idea of teachers getting enormous paid vacation leave probably comes from. They do not.

Snow days are treated exactly the same as you described.

This year was actually different in terms of pay cheques because of mandatory furloughs, which made it a little difficult for some of the staff. Since our school year was several days shorter and not prorated, the pay cheques were different on some months by a few hundred dollars.

[Chongo]

The teachers I knew in grade school planned for their months off with a summer fund. Some took temp jobs. They also had a choice of getting paid less on the 1st and 15th for 12 months, or more for 9 (we went from Sept. to May in the 70's) I have cousins who taught, but all are principals now, and as administration level, work year round. I've never asked them what they did during the summer. There are several district here in AZ that are year round.

[olePigeon]

We use something similar to the Balanced Calendar, except take the 5 days off of Spring, Winter, and Fall breaks and add them to summer for 45 days.

Teachers are usually working during those breaks, by the way. Most training and inservice are held during the breaks because the students aren't there.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We are going at this from different directions. I didn't mean apathy and entitlement in terms of salaries and benefits, I meant apathy and entitlement in the entire learning process, the educational system in general and commitment to high educational standards.

I see all of it as related. When you have teachers saying "that's not in MY job description" you end up with students saying that too. It's all part of the same disease. Ultimately, the disease results in what we see in Detroit right now, or Wisconsin to some extent.

It's like the retirement thing. Nobody in their right mind can think that the contributions of 40 current firefighters in California paying for the retirement of ONE current retiree is sustainable. It just isn't.

The contracts as negotiated weren't sustainable, and nothing done in the short term will change that.

It comes down to this: it's a big game. Politicians use taxpayer dollars to buy votes from unionized employees (they can buy them a lot of ways, but thug union tactics give those votes a lot more predictability). Unions then negotiate sweet deals. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. The only people getting screwed here are the taxpayers. Unions make the management's job easier, unions make the employee's life easier (at a minimum, they don't have to negotiate on their own, aside from all of the other featherbedding that we know goes on). It's a big game at the expense of the taxpayer. And it's got to stop somehow. Sooner rather than later.

No, it WILL stop when we run out of money. When one state or another has to be bailed out.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This is why corporations oursource a lot of it's functions overseas where the labor market is more competitive. NO American jobs will do a lot more to hurt the middle class than a lack of collective bargaining.

Very true- and once again, people confuse collective bargaining in the private sector (Company with it's own profits and every incentive to stay solvent or go out of business vs. employee) vs 'collective bargaining' in the public sector (Government with taxpayers money and no incentive to even know what the word solvent means with the same agenda as the public employee. There's not 'bargaining' with an eye on reality; it's just two 'sides' going "Gimmie!" "Here ya go!""Gimmie!" "Here ya go!""Gimmie...!"

I get sick of this subject losing site of that fact, because the later is not only not responsible for creating the middle class, it's a MILLSTONE AROUND THE NECK OF THE MIDDLE CLASS because they freakin' PAY for it!

And as for unions being the great friend to the middle class anyway- that may be true in some cases, but not all, and certainly not with public employee unions.

The very industry I work in, -animation-, was completely destroyed by unions. Devastated.

If you were fresh out of school anytime before 1983, you could arrive in LA with zero experience and a modest amount of skill and in short order be working for one of a few dozen animation houses in LA, with a salary that would pay for a decent single family home, the two cars in the driveway, the picket fence, the 2.5 kids, etc. etc. If you didn't have a clue what needed to be done, the studios would gladly train you, and then put you to work.

But for the unions, none of that was good enough. They stuck the screws to the industry in '83 (though they love to tell a different tale, presenting the union always as innocent babes in the woods and the animation companies -that had been providing TENS OF THOUSANDS of people with all of the above for DECADES- as the evil villains) and they forced everyone to walk out in most crucial part of production. It was like Charlie Sheen ****in' up the program for everyone else- only x10,000. The studios lost a ton of money and the unions celebrated their 'victory' stickin' it to the man.

But virtually overnight, the studios said "never again" and shut down 90% of production. People showed up to their jobs after the great 'victory' and were told to clean out their desks and go home. All during the preceding years, Pacific rim studios had been courting Hollywood, offering to do the same work for cheaper. But productions stayed in the US, because the benefits of local labor outweighed dealing with the enormous expense and hassle of moving productions overseas.

But the unions SINGLE-HANDEDLY slammed the scales down the opposite direction. The SINGLE-HANDEDLY FORCED 90% of US animation production overseas, because their freakin' strikes cost the networks and the production companies more money than setting up for outsourcing would. They pushed the studios into never again being held over a fire with deadlines looming and production halts due to strikes costing millions of dollars a day in non-delivery fees. (WGA strikes notwithstanding)

Today, these dumb union bastards are still proud of what they 'accomplished'- their 'great victory for the middle class!' Yeah, right. The middle class of Taiwan, China, Japan, South Korea, etc maybe, but not the US.

So the end result is- yes, they pushed the wages of the jobs that remained here way up. I've made a very nice living in the skeletal production system that remains. But if you're some fresh off the bus kid with a modest amount of talent- FORGET IT. No one is hiring you anymore in this industry. The job you COULD have had and the comfortable middle class existence it COULD have provided you has long since been shipped overseas. Someone in S. Korea or the Philippines is doing that job. The few jobs that remain in the US are higher paid -yes, thanks the unions- but that's just it, they are FEW, and much much harder to get. Rather than the hundred thousand plus jobs in this industry that were here pre '83, today there are maybe a few thousand.

And that's just the industry I have 20+ years of experience in. There are many more industries that have been similarly gutted from what they once were. The unions and their cronies love to give themselves credit for everything, but NEVER own up to their part in outsourcing and gutting industries they're a part of. They love to paint everything as the choice between the shit we have now, and 'robber barons stealing everything' but then ALWAYS conveniently leave out the DECADES of the 'in-between' that actually DID build the middle class, and their role in helping destroy and outsource much of it.

[screener]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I've made a very nice living in the skeletal production system that remains.

So what's your problem?
And I don't buy your giving a crap about the middle class, the right hasn't in recent memory ever cared about anyone other than the rich.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Where's the fly swatter? I thought I heard the buzz of the forum gnat.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Where's the fly swatter? I thought I heard the buzz of the forum gnat.

Crap. Someone must have forgotten to close the screener door.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Politicians use taxpayer dollars to buy votes from unionized employees (they can buy them a lot of ways, but thug union tactics give those votes a lot more predictability).

That sounds pretty similar to the conspiracy theories about how politicians use political power to buy votes from the Christian Right (religious leaders use their positions to influence votes in their flocks in exchange for political decisions favouring the positions of the religious leaders).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That sounds pretty similar to the conspiracy theories about how politicians use political power to buy votes from the Christian African Americans (religious leaders use their positions to influence votes in their flocks in exchange for political decisions favouring the positions of the AA religious leaders).

Fixinated. Conservative candidates tend not to violate the IRS prohibition on campaigning in churches, while liberal candidates violate it every election cycle. Black preachers can advocate for candidates from the pulpit with impunity. It was LBJ that had the prohibition added to the IRS code to silence his critics.

The most infamous violation, Algore at the Hsi Lai temple.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Fixinated. Conservative candidates tend not to violate the IRS prohibition on campaigning in churches, while liberal candidates violate it every election cycle. Black preachers can advocate for candidates from the pulpit with impunity. It was LBJ that had the prohibition added to the IRS code to silence his critics.

Pure conjecture on your part.

Some of you younger people might want to do some research, and reflection, on what unions have done to elevate your standard of life! Your forefathers fought against working 60 hour weeks, with no overtime. Your forefathers fought for affordable health care. Your forefathers fought for pensions. All these things you're enjoying now (and which are slowly, but surely, being repealed) came about with more than a little bloodshed.

If you want to go back to working for dirt, with no benefits, no vacations, no overtime, no health care, keep voting Republican. I saw an article recently where a representative in GA (I believe, but I can't recall currently) wants to eliminate child labor law protections, so companies can work 14 year olds past 10 p.m., and with no weekly hourly restrictions, and no benefits. This is what your "free market" is leading to.

The immense growth in the middle class after WWII was built on much higher corporate taxes, with the construction of the federal highway system, and working people being able to buy the cars they made, and the explosion in the average length of life due to research largely funded at the federal level.

That was done at a time when those who wanted to succeed could still be wealthy, while still earning 20 times what their average workers earned. Today, some aren't satisfied unless they're earning 500 times what their workers do, and the gullible here are facilitating their own demise, being too stupid to realize it, preferring instead to regurgitate what they've been spoon fed by their handlers.

I never thought that I'd see the demise of America within my lifetime. It saddens me greatly.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Pure conjecture on your part.

Some of you younger people might want to do some research, and reflection, on what unions have done to elevate your standard of life! Your forefathers fought against working 60 hour weeks, with no overtime. Your forefathers fought for affordable health care. Your forefathers fought for pensions. All these things you're enjoying now (and which are slowly, but surely, being repealed) came about with more than a little bloodshed.

If you want to go back to working for dirt, with no benefits, no vacations, no overtime, no health care, keep voting Republican. I saw an article recently where a representative in GA (I believe, but I can't recall currently) wants to eliminate child labor law protections, so companies can work 14 year olds past 10 p.m., and with no weekly hourly restrictions, and no benefits. This is what your "free market" is leading to.

The immense growth in the middle class after WWII was built on much higher corporate taxes, with the construction of the federal highway system, and working people being able to buy the cars they made, and the explosion in the average length of life due to research largely funded at the federal level.

That was done at a time when those who wanted to succeed could still be wealthy, while still earning 20 times what their average workers earned. Today, some aren't satisfied unless they're earning 500 times what their workers do, and the gullible here are facilitating their own demise, being too stupid to realize it, preferring instead to regurgitate what they've been spoon fed by their handlers.

I never thought that I'd see the demise of America within my lifetime. It saddens me greatly.

Unions used to about helping the worker. It looks like the AFL-CIO has a different agenda now.
Union Boss Trumka Admits Main Goal is Using Unions To Fundamentally Change America into His Progressive Vision, Not Negotiate Wages

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Some of you younger people might want to do some research, and reflection, on what unions have done to elevate your standard of life!

Yes, and they've received their fair share of the credit. It's time to move on, because the corruption and socialist political bias within unions has made them irrelevant or even dangerous to the viability of our economic system. They are no longer promoting a "fair shake" but involved in transferring great amounts of wealth, almost in perpetuity, to their members, and most importantly, to their political coffers.

And let me say that some of you older people might want to do some research, and reflection, on what unions have done to elevate state budgets and transfers of wealth to benefit their political power. The union structure in California, for example, is completely unsustainable. NOTE THAT the competition for funding will be between ordinary services and these outrageous benefits in the coming years, so the suffering is just getting started.

Unions have been phased out in many private industries (unfortunately, at the expense of jobs shipped out of the country - unions are SO patriotic!) and it's time to recognize that and move on.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But virtually overnight, the studios said "never again" and shut down 90% of production. People showed up to their jobs after the great 'victory' and were told to clean out their desks and go home. All during the preceding years, Pacific rim studios had been courting Hollywood, offering to do the same work for cheaper. But productions stayed in the US, because the benefits of local labor outweighed dealing with the enormous expense and hassle of moving productions overseas.

But the unions SINGLE-HANDEDLY slammed the scales down the opposite direction. The SINGLE-HANDEDLY FORCED 90% of US animation production overseas, because their freakin' strikes cost the networks and the production companies more money than setting up for outsourcing would. They pushed the studios into never again being held over a fire with deadlines looming and production halts due to strikes costing millions of dollars a day in non-delivery fees. (WGA strikes notwithstanding)

Today, these dumb union bastards are still proud of what they 'accomplished'- their 'great victory for the middle class!' Yeah, right. The middle class of Taiwan, China, Japan, South Korea, etc maybe, but not the US.ction system that remains. But if y
So the end result is- yes, they pushed the wages of the jobs that remained here way up. I've made a very nice living in the skeletal produou're some fresh off the bus kid with a modest amount of talent- FORGET IT. No one is hiring you anymore in this industry. The job you COULD have had and the comfortable middle class existence it COULD have provided you has long since been shipped overseas. Someone in S. Korea or the Philippines is doing that job. The few jobs that remain in the US are higher paid -yes, thanks the unions- but that's just it, they are FEW, and much much harder to get. Rather than the hundred thousand plus jobs in this industry that were here pre '83, today there are maybe a few thousand.

You raise some excellent points here Crash. It's all about supply and demand. The ability of unions to negotiate for higher wages, working conditions, etc ... or IOW, their ability to secure a larger share of the profits for the labor force ... is fundamentally dependent upon there being a relatively fixed labor pool subject to the same rules, regulations, salary expectations, etc. But when a company can simply outsource a job function overseas where the rules of the game are very different and labor costs are a fraction of what they are in the US ... the leverage that unions have is greatly diminished. I work in IT so I've seen similar outsourcing being done for positions that require college degrees and a highly skilled workforce. I'll quibble with you a bit because unions are practically non-existent in the private sector in my industry and yet such outsourcing occurs on the regular. It's hard for a company to overlook the opportunity to pay an IT contractor in India $10-15/hour when an IT contractor in the US would cost them $50-70/hour. Sure it's self-defeating for the US economy in the long-run for companies to diminish the US middle class ... but let's face it, corporations tend to focus on the next quarterly earnings report and rarely look at the bigger picture.

In any event, my point here is that the issue you raised may be more an indictment of so-called "free trade agreements" than of unions per se. Simply because the type of outsourcing you describe is occurring anyway even in non-unionized work forces. Perhaps the solution would be for the US government to introduce regulations that say that if a company wants to do business in the US then X% of its workforce must be in the US. We have to keep in mind that corporations ... especially multi-nationals ... aren't in the business of pursuing what's in the best interest of the people of the United States. They are in the business of pursuing what's in the immediate financial interests of its shareholders. It's the job of the US government to look out for the US. I hardly see how allowing companies that do business in the US to ship out more and more jobs overseas is in the best interest of the US. And giving companies tax breaks to do it is beyond retarded.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Unions have been phased out in many private industries (unfortunately, at the expense of jobs shipped out of the country - unions are SO patriotic!) and it's time to recognize that and move on.

This is a complete lie. There is no relationship between outsourcing to other nations and unionization.

For instance, call centres are internationally outsourced, but that certainly wasn't caused by unionization, since there isn't any. Or look at consumer electronics, which is heavily outsourced to Asia, but that industry wasn't much unionized when the outsourcing began. But auto manufacturing is heavily unionization, but that hasn't resulted in international outsourcing, since cars are still mostly built in the country they are to be sold in.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by screener 

So what's your problem?
And I don't buy your giving a crap about the middle class, the right hasn't in recent memory ever cared about anyone other than the rich.

I hope you spend the $20 wisely the guy gave you at the end.

YouTube - Wisconsin Labor Protests and International Socialism

PS- Your Noodles are quite good. Keep cleaning those dishes for us capitalist pigs.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

I hope you spend the $20 wisely the guy gave you at the end.

YouTube - Wisconsin Labor Protests and International Socialism

PS- Your Noodles are quite good. Keep cleaning those dishes for us capitalist pigs.

Those knuckleheads are tools, what's your point.

[screener]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Where's the fly swatter? I thought I heard the buzz of the forum gnat.

No, it's a middle class worker bee, swat away, the right has been doing that for decades anyway.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This is a complete lie. There is no relationship between outsourcing to other nations and unionization.

For instance, call centres are internationally outsourced, but that certainly wasn't caused by unionization, since there isn't any. Or look at consumer electronics, which is heavily outsourced to Asia, but that industry wasn't much unionized when the outsourcing began. But auto manufacturing is heavily unionization, but that hasn't resulted in international outsourcing, since cars are still mostly built in the country they are to be sold in.

You forgot textile manufacturing, which was ALL outsourced due to cost pressure from unions. In that instance, I've seen it happen up close. It moved south from New England when they unionized up there, and it moved south to Mexico and elsewhere when the unions eventually followed it south.

We can add tool & die, movie production, and a bunch more things that we don't even think about anymore because they've been offshore so long that we don't think about them. Thank the unions.

[screener]

Originally Posted by finboy 

You forgot textile manufacturing, which was ALL outsourced due to cost pressure from unions. In that instance, I've seen it happen up close. It moved south from New England when they unionized up there, and it moved south to Mexico and elsewhere when the unions eventually followed it south.

We can add tool & die, movie production, and a bunch more things that we don't even think about anymore because they've been offshore so long that we don't think about them. Thank the unions.

Pretty selective.
How about this as part of it,
Augusta, Ga., Textile Mill Closes Down, Leaves 306 People Unemployed. - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News | HighBeam Research - FREE trial

Domestic textile producers have been suffering at the hands of Pacific Rim competitors since the 1997 Asian financial crisis devalued Far East currencies and resulted in a flood of cheap imports to the U.S.

The Walmarts had a big hand in the demise of the industry by selling crap and consumers by buying the crap.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Pretty selective.
How about this as part of it,
Augusta, Ga., Textile Mill Closes Down, Leaves 306 People Unemployed. - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News | HighBeam Research - FREE trial

The Walmarts had a big hand in the demise of the industry by selling crap and consumers by buying the crap.

I agree with the WalMart point, but I've also seen consumers given a choice: they picked the sh*tty stuff. People decided that they didn't want to pay more for towels that could last 10 years or longer with regular use.

2001 - the last gasps of a dying industry (no pun intended). Same with hosiery mills. As long as they could continue to operate the same business model without major upgrades to equipment, they did. Or, as soon as the union came to town the end was in sight. It happened throughout the Southeast long before the Asian crisis of 1997 (but that was probably the context most remembered in 2001).

An example, dated 1998. It omits the 1991 contested vote that led to this, after years and years of chipping away.

1999 brought more. It was all over within a few more years.

And the folks organizing for those unions? The layabouts. The losers. Those types had ALWAYS been the ones to cry "Union" first chance they got. Without the union, they had no chance to get ahead (short of hard work).

This is just one part of the equation, but union types refuse to accept responsibility for this type of thing. They don't care if communities are destroyed over "organizing" as long as they can milk it for a few years.

You can start to see how important organizing government employees has become - after all, they can't be moved offshore.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by screener 

No, it's a middle class worker bee, swat away, the right has been doing that for decades anyway.

Why do you always look at others as stereotypes? Do you live in a soap opera?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Why do you always look at others as stereotypes?

Pot meet kettle.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yes, and they've received their fair share of the credit. It's time to move on, because the corruption and socialist political bias within unions has made them irrelevant or even dangerous to the viability of our economic system. They are no longer promoting a "fair shake" but involved in transferring great amounts of wealth, almost in perpetuity, to their members, and most importantly, to their political coffers.

Please. When the top 400 people in this country have more wealth than the bottom 150 million, it isn't because of the unions.

And let me say that some of you older people might want to do some research, and reflection, on what unions have done to elevate state budgets and transfers of wealth to benefit their political power. The union structure in California, for example, is completely unsustainable. NOTE THAT the competition for funding will be between ordinary services and these outrageous benefits in the coming years, so the suffering is just getting started.

Unions have been phased out in many private industries (unfortunately, at the expense of jobs shipped out of the country - unions are SO patriotic!) and it's time to recognize that and move on.

The wealthy in this country shipped jobs overseas, and used union busting as a handy excuse, so they could become wealthier, and buy our government in the process. They've succeeded. You're giving unions way more power than they actually have.

Average wages have been stagnant for decades, yet the cost of living has risen exponentially in the past several decades. That doesn't affect the wealthy, but it sure as hell affects someone who made $15/hour 20 years ago, and is still making $15/hour today. People like the Koch brothers have become billionaires on the backs of those who made them rich, and now they're going after pensions and benefits, so they can have even more money. These people have no ethics, morals, or compassion. They operate on one "principle" only; I got mine, now screw you.

[screener]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Please. When the top 400 people in this country have more wealth than the bottom 150 million, it isn't because of the unions.



The wealthy in this country shipped jobs overseas, and used union busting as a handy excuse, so they could become wealthier, and buy our government in the process. They've succeeded. You're giving unions way more power than they actually have.

Average wages have been stagnant for decades, yet the cost of living has risen exponentially in the past several decades. That doesn't affect the wealthy, but it sure as hell affects someone who made $15/hour 20 years ago, and is still making $15/hour today. People like the Koch brothers have become billionaires on the backs of those who made them rich, and now they're going after pensions and benefits, so they can have even more money. These people have no ethics, morals, or compassion. They operate on one "principle" only; I got mine, now screw you.

Exactly.
The gap between the middle class and the rich has grown wider, even in that socialist country, Canada.
Canada's rich getting richer faster - CBC News

The report also draws on another unspecified private sector study that notes 3.8 per cent of Canadian households control $1.78 trillion in wealth. That accounts for 67 per cent, two-thirds of the money in Canada.

Since the 1970s, the richest one per cent have seen their share of income double. The richest 0.1 per cent have seen their share of income triple, while the wealthiest 0.01 per cent have seen their income share quintuple.

And while in 1948 those in the top tax bracket paid about 80 per cent of their income in taxes, today top earners pay a maximum of 42.9 per cent.

And we can still cover everyones health care, freaking amazing.

How about the UK,
Rich Get Richer When Governments Tout Austerity: Matthew Lynn - Bloomberg

In fact, we just had a “rich-get-richer” recession. U.K. data suggest the gap between the wealthy and the poor has widened. We can give up any idea that it is going to close by itself. The government usually bails out the rich; the wages that the highly skilled can command are rising all the time; and globalization means the well-off increasingly occupy a whole different economy than the rest of the country they live in.

These are countries some here consider socialist yet the rich are doing just fine, hell, better than ever and have better social safety nets than the US.

Yet you'all applaud a state trying to break a teachers union, whose members educate your kids under the guise of saving a buck.
If this spreads your future is bleak, what person in his right mind would venture into a world where the teaching profession is held in such disrepute.
Oh, they already are.

You'all are really fu#$ed.

[screener]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Why do you always look at others as stereotypes? Do you live in a soap opera?

Not just me, you did watch Lint Police's link?

If your opinions mirror the stereotypes I point them out.
If you can't see it, not my problem, it's yours.

[Wiskedjak]

Apparently, Fox News can't tell the difference between Wisconsin and Florida or California.
YouTube - Fox News Lies About "Violent Wisconsin Protests"

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Apparently, Fox News can't tell the difference between Wisconsin and Florida or California.
YouTube - Fox News Lies About "Violent Wisconsin Protests"

Fox News is instrumental in the dumbing down of America. Roger Ailes is in bed with the far right, and he's literally manufacturing millions of sheeple, simply by incessantly repeating lies. Most Fox viewers are so stupid they don't even realize they're being manipulated.

[turtle777]

Oh come on, you fail to entertain, tell us something *new*

-t

[OldManMac]

You're no doubt one the Fox news regulars.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

You can start to see how important organizing government employees has become - after all, they can't be moved offshore.

Hey, what I said:

Looky.

"Why? Because unlike in the private economy, a public union has a natural monopoly over government services. An industrial union will fight for a greater share of corporate profits, but it also knows that a business must make profits or it will move or shut down. The union chief for teachers, transit workers or firemen knows that the city is not going to close the schools, buses or firehouses."

Public unions enjoy a monopoly. Wow, what a concept. Public unions have grown while private unions have shrunk. Amaaaaazing.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're no doubt one the Fox news regulars.

Sure, I don't even watch TV, but if you say so

-t