[stumblinmike]

Thank you, labor unions of the past and present!

[turtle777]

While you're thanking them, don't forget to bend over and to hand them your money...

-t

[stumblinmike]

That is your normal presentation?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

While you're thanking them, don't forget to bend over and to hand them your money...

-t

If it weren't for them, you'd likely be working 60 hours a week with no overtime, and no health insurance, and no benefits; you know, like where it's headed now, as we bend over and hand the CEO all our money, while he lays us off!

[ghporter]

Labor unions have been demonized because of a few bad actors. The UMW, UAW, and the Teamsters all got painted with a broad brush because of unscrupulous people who cheated their way to the top, or got their membership to help them cheat. I would not suggest that everyone involved in today's labor unions is angelic or otherwise perfect, but the image most people have of unions is just plain wrong.

Here's an example: before my dad retired, he was a union officer and helped push for concessions. Safety concessions. Yep, that's all they pushed for. They got extra eye wash stations installed, better lighting, better signage, and even better training. What did they do to get that? The membership agreed to merge some jobs and to accept more "helper" level workers where more skilled positions had been required by the contract. Gee, that sure sounds greedy and unscrupulous, doesn't it?

As OldManMac says, without the labor movement, and the sacrifices made by people who actually DIED standing up for their rights as human beings, I do not think the US would have managed to become "the Arsenal of Freedom" in WWII, let alone THE world leader in economic prosperity (current reversal notwithstanding).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

If it weren't for them, you'd likely be working 60 hours a week with no overtime, and no health insurance, and no benefits; you know, like where it's headed now, as we bend over and hand the CEO all our money, while he lays us off!

Rrrriiight.

I already work 50-60 hours w/o overtime. I do get nice insurance and benefits though.

Make no mistake: those 35 hrs / week jobs making $ 80+k with huge benefits (like automotive industry) are a dream and will not happen again.
They brought the automotive industry into the financial troubles they're in right now.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Rrrriiight.

I already work 50-60 hours w/o overtime. I do get nice insurance and benefits though.

Make no mistake: those 35 hrs / week jobs making $ 80+k with huge benefits (like automotive industry) are a dream and will not happen again.
They brought the automotive industry into the financial troubles they're in right now.

-t

You probably get a stable salary that's pretty substantial if you're working that much without overtime, which means you're not a blue collar worker. Maybe you feel like one, but I'll bet you don't sweep the floors where you work-there's someone paid a LOT less who does that (and they're probably working for a contractor too).

The UAW's only recent flaw was pushing for stupidly high wages and benefits for what in most industries might be called "semi-skilled" jobs. Growing up in the Detroit area, I saw plenty of such jobs become "a boring 8 hours until I can go do what I want with my wages." And then they became "I hope I can keep getting bored all day because I need the money." Instead of pushing for safer, more productive work settings and processes, a lot of the UAW's negotiation went entirely to wage and benefit increases. Not great for anyone in hindsight.

Of course GM could have just said "go ahead and strike" and pressured the union to take something other than those concessions, like the afore mentioned safer, more productive working spaces.

What's really gone forever seems to be the concept of working in one place for the same employer for one's entire career. That's saddening, because it means that there's little to drive loyalty to the employer, which means there's little incentive for improvement from within.

[mduell]

America disagrees: PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup finds organized labor taking a significant image hit in the past year. While 66% of Americans continue to believe unions are beneficial to their own members, a slight majority now say unions hurt the nation's economy. More broadly, fewer than half of Americans -- 48%, an all-time low -- approve of labor unions, down from 59% a year ago.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Rrrriiight.

I already work 50-60 hours w/o overtime. I do get nice insurance and benefits though.

Make no mistake: those 35 hrs / week jobs making $ 80+k with huge benefits (like automotive industry) are a dream and will not happen again.
They brought the automotive industry into the financial troubles they're in right now.

-t

You keep believing that, as if management had nothing to do with it. Every time this subject comes up, you blame the unions; you still haven't figured out who's in charge of giving out those supposed $80K paychecks, and you apparently ignore the outrageous executive pay and benefits that they're somehow "entitled" to. There's plenty of blame on both sides, but the facts are that, without the unions attempting to balance the scales, there would be no middle-class in America.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You keep believing that, as if management had nothing to do with it. Every time this subject comes up, you blame the unions; you still haven't figured out who's in charge of giving out those supposed $80K paychecks, and you apparently ignore the outrageous executive pay and benefits that they're somehow "entitled" to. There's plenty of blame on both sides, but the facts are that, without the unions attempting to balance the scales, there would be no middle-class in America.

I agree with you that some of the executive pay packages are outrageous.

But handing out outrageous union benefits and pay to make up for high executive pay is stupid and ruins the company.

-t

[Shaddim]

I think we have a union, I remember eating doughnuts and drinking coffee at the meeting... right before I told the rep what he could go do with himself.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The biggest problem I have with modern unions is many of them are completely clueless about the businesses their members are in. Rather than actively supporting the business, and the business model that allows the union to exist in the first place, acting business partners and recognizing they have a stake in the business thriving- many unions just act like leeches trying to squeeze whatever they can out of the business, with little care for the industry.

In my own profession, entertainment, I see most of the union leaders absolutely 100% CLUELESS (moreso even than the upper crust of industry executives) as to what it entails to run an entertainment business,or even be a productive part of one.

And worse, most couldn't care less. They don't give a rat about the business, they don't care about the 'artistry' of anything- they only care about putting the squeeze on the business to keep the union going. Most of them freely admit they aren't in the entertainment business- they're in the 'let's get bennies' business. Their chief focus is on squeezing bennies out of the companies their members work for, and even if that means destroying the business, or driving it out of the country, and throwing thousands of their own members or potential members out of work rather than concede one inch (as has happend in many cases already) then so be it.

So sure, it's a two way street. On the one hand, yes, unions have done a lot for labor and wages. But it's not all the sugarcoated pap as seen through rose-colored glasses that the pro-union sycophants make it out to be. Unions have certainly done thier fair share of tearing apart and destroying the very industries and professions they should be in support of and partners in, not at odds with. To not recognize this and try and sweep it under the carpet is just being dishonest, but then again, enter politics into it, and that's exactly what you're going to see a lot of.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I think we have a union, I remember eating doughnuts and drinking coffee at the meeting... right before I told the rep what he could go do with himself.

...and then you woke up. Lighten up, Francis.....

[andi*pandi]

Unions are a useful check and balance to industry, and sure some have become as bad as the behemoths they struggled against... That by no means they were/are a bad idea and we should never have them.

You only have to do a history project on the Industrial Revolution to appreciate the air-conditioned luxury cubicles we work in, compared to hot, dusty, dangerous places our forefathers, mothers, and their little children, toiled in.

I enjoyed my day off, how about you?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

...and then you woke up. Lighten up, Francis.....

Francis? Not that the name isn't... serviceable, I suppose. But I think you're confused (as usual).

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Unions are a useful check and balance to industry, and sure some have become as bad as the behemoths they struggled against... That by no means they were/are a bad idea and we should never have them.

You only have to do a history project on the Industrial Revolution to appreciate the air-conditioned luxury cubicles we work in, compared to hot, dusty, dangerous places our forefathers, mothers, and their little children, toiled in.

I enjoyed my day off, how about you?

Unions were a useful check and balance, now they're simply another expense for companies and workers. 100 years ago profit margins were much higher on goods than they are today (for the most part). In a day where we have instant global communications and much more stringent labor laws, unions have become an unnecessary weight around the necks of our market. If there ever comes a day when they're needed again, I'll change my position, but for now they're little more than legalized extortion.

Day off? Well, I put in 8 hours instead of 12, so I guess that was a break, of sorts. Oh well, when I retire at 40 it will all be worth it.

[smacintush]

What does "labor" have to do with unions? Unions are about as opposed to performing labor as they come.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What does "labor" have to do with unions? Unions are about as opposed to performing labor as they come.

? What unions do you have real experience with? The numerous unions I've encountered are there to HELP the members do what they are trained and experienced in, without management coming in and let's say changing what a master electrician does as an electrician, or making a skilled worker do menial tasks unrelated to his skill. Not doing EXTRA stuff, especially stuff that prevents the worker from doing his trained and often licensed duties is a different matter altogether.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I think we have a union, I remember eating doughnuts and drinking coffee at the meeting... right before I told the rep what he could go do with himself.

So that's what you do at your Universal Union Church.

Sharing your ideas.

[hyteckit]

I think any organization that has become too big for its own good, can be bad whether it's:

1. Corporations
2. Unions
3. Government
4. Political Parties
5. Religious organizations

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

? What unions do you have real experience with? The numerous unions I've encountered are there to HELP the members do what they are trained and experienced in, without management coming in and let's say changing what a master electrician does as an electrician, or making a skilled worker do menial tasks unrelated to his skill. Not doing EXTRA stuff, especially stuff that prevents the worker from doing his trained and often licensed duties is a different matter altogether.

Go hang out at a UAW auto plant sometime. It is one thing to try prevent management from hindering you or allowing another to do your job, but I have seen production shut down for hours and holding up vendors from doing their job because of something as simple as a forklift driver being late for work and moving (literally) a few pallets.

Pretty hard to remain competitive when you are paying people exorbitant wages to do nothing.

I work in the auto industry and am happily NON-union.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Go hang out at a UAW auto plant sometime. It is one thing to try prevent management from hindering you or allowing another to do your job, but I have seen production shut down for hours and holding up vendors from doing their job because of something as simple as a forklift driver being late for work and moving (literally) a few pallets.

Pretty hard to remain competitive when you are paying people exorbitant wages to do nothing.

I work in the auto industry and am happily NON-union.

But the union kept unskilled people from driving the fork lift, right? That's what my point was. Of course in this particular situation it's sort of silly, but what about truly skilled labor? Do you want a "helper" deciding that it's safe to work on a conveyor system because it's been disconnected from power, or would you really prefer to have a qualified electrician tell you that? That the UAW has been sucking the auto industry dry is NOT a "union" issue. It's an issue with the interaction between the "we can't ever go out of business" auto companies and the "these jobs are so dull we need to make them attractive somehow" union leadership. The UAW is certainly NOT a model of ALL unions.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

That the UAW has been sucking the auto industry dry is NOT a "union" issue. It's an issue with the interaction between the "we can't ever go out of business" auto companies and the "these jobs are so dull we need to make them attractive somehow" union leadership. The UAW is certainly NOT a model of ALL unions.

I guess it's just a coincidence that all heavily unionized industries are in big trouble.

Automotive, airlines, heavy manufacturing...

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

But the union kept unskilled people from driving the fork lift, right? That's what my point was. Of course in this particular situation it's sort of silly, but what about truly skilled labor? Do you want a "helper" deciding that it's safe to work on a conveyor system because it's been disconnected from power, or would you really prefer to have a qualified electrician tell you that? That the UAW has been sucking the auto industry dry is NOT a "union" issue. It's an issue with the interaction between the "we can't ever go out of business" auto companies and the "these jobs are so dull we need to make them attractive somehow" union leadership. The UAW is certainly NOT a model of ALL unions.

The forklift incident seems most likely a liability insurance issue. Also OSHA regulations.

Only an authorized, trained, and licensed personnel should operate a forklift.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The forklift incident seems most likely a liability insurance issue. Also OSHA regulations.

Exactly. What people like Turtle and Smacintush don't understand is that the Union is there to make sure the rules and laws are followed. Unions don't control who gets hired and who gets fired, they just make sure that the appropriate process is followed for everyone.

OSHA requires you to be certified to run a forklift or other heavy machinery. That's how it is. Some yahoo on a forklift is gambling with death. If the entire operation fails because one guy doesn't show up doesn't reflect bad on the Union because they're enforcing the law, it reflects badly on the pinheaded manager who thought it would be a good idea to save money by only having one person certified to run the forklift.

Negotiating terms for salaries, benefits, etc. is handled by both parties. It is a bilateral agreement. If an organization can not operate in a reasonably profitable manner, they can always say no. A union is not going to risk closure of their employer.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If the entire operation fails because one guy doesn't show up doesn't reflect bad on the Union because they're enforcing the law, it reflects badly on the pinheaded manager who thought it would be a good idea to save money by only having one person certified to run the forklift.

Certification isn't the point in this situation. Everyone in the plant could be certified but if they are in the wrong job classification…too bad.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Negotiating terms for salaries, benefits, etc. is handled by both parties. It is a bilateral agreement. If an organization can not operate in a reasonably profitable manner, they can always say no. A union is not going to risk closure of their employer.

That's funny because that is EXACTLY what the UAW did at one of our union plants in Michigan. AGAINST the will of the rank-and-file membership.

Union leadership operates effectively as a third party with their own interests in mind, no matter what their propaganda says.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That's funny because that is EXACTLY what the UAW did at one of our union plants in Michigan. AGAINST the will of the rank-and-file membership.

Which one?

Union Representatives are not only voluntary positions, but they're also voted in. They represent the will of the rank-and-file membership. It may not be in the best interest of every individual, but it is in the best interest of the group as a whole.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Union leadership operates effectively as a third party with their own interests in mind, no matter what their propaganda says.

So vote for someone else.

[Doofy]

Unions are a blight on society. They're not required for checks and balances over business owners, because other business owners in free competition provide those services.

Let's assume that you have a factory and you're paying $100 per week for a 60 hour week. A guy opens another factory down the road which is in the same skill-level ballpark. He pays $120 per week for 50 hours. Which factory is going to have workers, and which one is going to cease operations?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Unions are a blight on society. They're not required for checks and balances over business owners, because other business owners in free competition provide those services.

Let's assume that you have a factory and you're paying $100 per week for a 60 hour week. A guy opens another factory down the road which is in the same skill-level ballpark. He pays $120 per week for 50 hours. Which factory is going to have workers, and which one is going to cease operations?

Presumably the guy paying $120 per hour for his workers, however successful he might be, doesn't have the capacity to hire everyone in town, and it's perfectly likely that both factories will sustain operations.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Presumably the guy paying $120 per hour for his workers, however successful he might be, doesn't have the capacity to hire everyone in town, and it's perfectly likely that both factories will sustain operations.

This is true. But then there's never only two operations in town. The whole web of workplaces forms a marketplace for workers who'll flock to whichever employer has the best deals. New employers will come in and adjust that market, the worst employers will be forced out. Thus a trend towards better hours and better pay will manifest itself.

This trend follows the natural market, which gently works its way into the entire system - lower end staple goods prices adjust to suit the lower end wages (to catch all the customers). It all happens organically.

When a union gets involved, it artificially distorts the markets (both job and staple goods) and creates problematic market resonances. Which is what you're seeing now - that is, the artificial markets attempting to correct themselves back to the natural.

[SpaceMonkey]

True to a point. I would only point out that the union does not develop independent of the marketplace. I wouldn't say it "artificially" distorts anything. The union forms when the workers perceive a benefit from combining their influence as actors in the market to negotiate for a better price for their labor. They are behaving as rational economic actors.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

True to a point. I would only point out that the union does not develop independent of the marketplace. I wouldn't say it "artificially" distorts anything. The union forms when the workers perceive a benefit from combining their influence as actors in the market to negotiate for a better price for their labor. They are behaving as rational economic actors.

Good point. However, can it not be said that unions tend to very quickly get too big for their boots? That is, they demand more and more of the employers without understanding the mechanics of business, thus exerting too much upward pressure on the markets too quickly? Of course, the individual can be said to be acting in his own best interests by joining a union, but we can't assume that the union itself is at all rational. As we know, rationality is often lost in large groupings of otherwise rational individuals.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

True to a point. I would only point out that the union does not develop independent of the marketplace. I wouldn't say it "artificially" distorts anything. The union forms when the workers perceive a benefit from combining their influence as actors in the market to negotiate for a better price for their labor. They are behaving as rational economic actors.

Exactly. I find it interesting that some people get their panties in a bunch over the fact that people in some labor markets have discovered that they have more bargaining power with their employer collectively than they do individually, and choose to exercise that power. Unions are a construct of the free market.

That's not to say there aren't problems - clearly the leaders of some unions believe they're 'too big to fail', and their behavior isn't good for anyone. Just because there are some bad CEOs doesn't mean all corporations are bad, and just because there are some bad unions doesn't mean all unions are bad.

[Chuckit]

As long as there are no laws requiring corporations to give a crap about the unions or offer them any special treatment, you're right.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As long as there are no laws requiring corporations to give a crap about the unions or offer them any special treatment, you're right.

As long as there are no laws requiring people to give a crap about corporations or offer them any special treatment, everything is then on equal footing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

As long as there are no laws requiring people to give a crap about corporations or offer them any special treatment, everything is then on equal footing.

Wait, isn't that already the case? I don't believe I've ever been legally forced to care about any corporation.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wait, isn't that already the case? I don't believe I've ever been legally forced to care about any corporation.

Corporate welfare. Your tax dollars at work?

[ebuddy]

... and now back to your regularly scheduled rewards for mediocrity.

[hyteckit]

We are always force to care about corporations. How can we help corporations today?

Isn't the government trying to protect corporations by caping frivolous lawsuits?

Sounds good.

How about caping CEO salary as well. I think some CEO's salaries are quite frivolous.

[hyteckit]

Why is it illegal for me convert my DVD to mp4?

Why am I force to care about what the movie industry want? What the music industry want? What the RIAA wants?

I bought the damn song or movie. I should be able to convert it to any format I want.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Corporate welfare. Your tax dollars at work?

You're going to have to clarify, because I don't recall any laws requiring me to change my behavior in any way to support the welfare of corporations as a class.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

We are always force to care about corporations. How can we help corporations today?

Isn't the government trying to protect corporations by caping frivolous lawsuits?

Stopping frivolous lawsuits helps everybody, as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

How about caping CEO salary as well. I think some CEO's salaries are quite frivolous.

What does this have to do with requiring ordinary citizens to give corporations special treatment?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why is it illegal for me convert my DVD to mp4?

That's illegal whether the copyright holder is a corporation or an individual. Copyright law does not make any distinction between the two in this case.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You're going to have to clarify, because I don't recall any laws requiring me to change my behavior in any way to support the welfare of corporations as a class.

Stopping frivolous lawsuits helps everybody, as far as I can tell.

Well, not everyone. I know two groups of people it wouldn't help. Lawyers and people who file lawsuits.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What does this have to do with requiring ordinary citizens to give corporations special treatment?

Caping frivolous lawsuits will help everybody, but caping frivolous salaries won't help anyone?

I don't know.

I'm just pointing out that mentality of what's best for corporations is best of everyone, is giving corporations special treatment.

No unions! No minimum salary! No 8 hour workday.

Seems like a lot of everything good for corporations is good for everyone mentality.

Unions were formed because it wasn't good for everyone.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's illegal whether the copyright holder is a corporation or an individual. Copyright law does not make any distinction between the two in this case.

It's illegal due to the DMCA. The original copyright law allows fair-use. Converting a DVD to mp4 is considered fair-use. The problem is that I'm breaking copy-protection CSS with is in violation of the DMCA.

DMCA was passed because large corporations pushed for it. It basically design to protect the profits of corporations in the music, movie, and software industry.

How many individuals who are copyright owners even care about or want the DMCA? Very few. It favors corporations.


Look at the RIAA lawsuits. Who do you think they are favoring? Corporations? Or pubic citizens?


Get rid of the DMCA and bring back some common-sense copyright laws.




I say anything that give corporations too much power and control over public citizens, workers, and individuals is favoring corporations.