|
On March 09 2011 09:24 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:15 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:11 dANiELcanuck wrote:
Hell yes unions are necessary. If I wasn't in a union (and there were none for my trade) I'd be making 20$ an hour as a journeyman. Because I'm in a union I get paid over 50$ an hour, that includes benefits like health and welfare, pension, etc. Unions have their place. A small company trying to pay out union wages might not be able to afford it, but big corporations that won't notice wages for labour should be paying what the labour is worth. In my trade, as a scaffolder, people's lives depend on me being able to do my job safely, and doing it right the first time. We take pride in our work, and make sure people are educated. Non-union workers (in the past) have refused to work on non-union built scaffolds, because they didn't feel safe. What's that tell you? Exactly, cumbersome unions are necessary because they benefit you personally. What a convincing argument. And thank you for being in a construction union especially, skyrocketing the costs of home building and road repair. So, you're saying it's okay to abuse and take advantage of workers like him if it means getting cheaper houses and cheaper road maintenance? Let me tell you, the place i'm coming from, labor contractors hire Indonesian immigrants for general construction work for less than US$170 a MONTH. But the houses aint getting cheaper, cause all the money was meant to pay the pockets of their fat overpayed employers and certain government officials instead of being invested for better service. HAHA CAPITALISM IS AWESOME.
Because your own trade union you were revering previously isn't a feature of the modern social capitalism you are referring to...
|
Before I graduated and got my MD I was an analytical chemist for a local environmental lab. I was a Lab Tech 5 which basically meant I had a B.A. in chemistry and two years experience and my pay was half of the median pay. There was absolutely no representation for the employees there and anyone who spoke up got penalized in reduced hours or in some cases indefinitely laid off.
Had I not experienced this first hand I would think that unions are bad, however, there are scumbag companies like the one i used to work for who make unions necessary.
|
On March 09 2011 09:51 starcraft911 wrote:
Before I graduated and got my MD I was an analytical chemist for a local environmental lab. I was a Lab Tech 5 which basically meant I had a B.A. in chemistry and two years experience and my pay was half of the median pay. There was absolutely no representation for the employees there and anyone who spoke up got penalized in reduced hours or in some cases indefinitely laid off.
Had I not experienced this first hand I would think that unions are bad, however, there are scumbag companies like the one i used to work for who make unions necessary.
Your story seems unlikely seeing as Chemistry is a B.S. Also, the median pay for what? U.S. workers as a whole? South Korean workers a whole? Were there no other employment options? Where were the two years experience?
|
United States24701 Posts
On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:
Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here.
I did not see pfods make such an assertion.
An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. What about if you have been working for that employer for a long time? They should just set the wage arbitrarily to whatever they want? I don't think anyone is arguing that employers should have 0 control over the conditions, pay, benefits, etc of their workers.
And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work.
There is a difference between making some concessions and making whatever concessions some other people decide for you regardless of the long-term ramifications.
|
We have plenty of well documentted and infamous Labour Union episodes in the U.K. But the one I am going to talk about is with dock workers. + Show Spoiler +Brittain used to have thousands of dock workers that worked in every major port around the U.K and they ended up forming very strong unnions. I'm not sure about timimng but at some point in the 20th centuary the whole shipping industry was revolutionised by the developement of shipping contaniers that meant huge amounts of goods could be picked up quickly by one crane and loaded on to a ship with hardly any workers very quickly and cheaply. This revolutionzed the whole industry, at least in Amercia and most other coutnries where it caught on. But Brittish dock worker unions caused so much trouble that it took nearly 10-15 years longer for the U.K to modernize its docks and catch up with the rest of the world.
Off course the dock workers had a right to be angry they where litterally losing thier jobs and thier lives and even thier communities they lived in. But because of unions Brittain's docks took much longer to modernize than most of the rest of the world and ended up costy the country so much money unnecessarily. Our ports went from been the pride of the world to been outdated costly disgraces that international shipping firms delbrately avoided as much as possible. Maybe more help needs to be provided to help people that end up in this situation where modern technology means that a whole line of work just disappears. However I don't think workers jobs should be protected to the point where they have the right to keep thier job even though the job shouldn't really naturally exists anymore.
A similar thing happended with miners across the U.K, it became much cheaper to get coal and other minerals from other countries as they had much cheaper labour and our mines where begging to run dry. Not to the point where there was no coal left just to the point where it became more expensive to extract it. The Labour Unions caused so much trouble in the shutting of the mines that doing the right thing and shutting them (they where subsidised so heavily they where costy the nation way more moeny than they where making) felt like the wrong thing to do. Its horrible for the workers again but it needed to happen.
A fine balance needs to be trod by unnions so they protect against explotation but don't get sufficiently powerful that they completely disrupt the natural process of supply and demand or end up trying to protect jobs that are simply not needed any more.
I don't really know anything about the situation with London tube drivers. But they are always going on strike and thier unions demanding things which seems really unnecessary and greedy to me when you consider they still make on average $80,000 a very tidy salary in a time when most other profesions are taking large pay cuts and these tube strikes cause so much missery and delays and trouble for eveyone else. It just seems to me they are very well paid yet always complaing and making points at everyone elses expense.
Yes I have a very negative view of trade unions and maybe they are necessary (not convinced) but they definately cause trouble when they abuse thier power.
LMAO. I read this as "Are onions necessary in the modern world?"
I was like: "whats wrong with onions?
I just woke up
Lols
|
Things were fine until the guy had to go on and go after bargaining rights. Unions wouldn't be needed if employers were all upstanding awesome citizens but they are not.
|
On March 09 2011 09:57 Sephimos wrote:
Your story seems unlikely seeing as Chemistry is a B.S.
Chemistry is BA or BS. Simply googling bachelor of arts chemistry will display some universities where this degree is offered.
|
On March 09 2011 09:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:
Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. I did not see pfods make such an assertion. Show nested quote +An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. What about if you have been working for that employer for a long time? They should just set the wage arbitrarily to whatever they want? I don't think anyone is arguing that employers should have 0 control over the conditions, pay, benefits, etc of their workers. Show nested quote +And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. There is a difference between making some concessions and making whatever concessions some other people decide for you regardless of the long-term ramifications.
I made the point that if public sector work is terrible, they don't have to do it. If someone is going to argue with that statement, they would need to believe that someone not only has the right to do public work, but do it on their own terms. There's no alternative here, and such a belief is incredibly childish and presumptive.
So what if you worked there a long time? You probably get a special cup with your number of years on it. Again, it doesn't make you a special snowflake and it doesn't give you some kind of special rights or bargaining authority. There are market limits on what they can set the wage to anyway, if the government offers too little money for public workers, people will really stop doing it instead of just crying their eyes out and sleeping in the Wisconsin capitol building like the filthy hippies they are.
What people don't grasp here is the corrupt nature of public unions. In a private union, there are a number of limiting factors when it comes to negotiation time. The employer has incentive to bargain vigorously, so they keep their costs down. The union has incentive to bargain vigorously for its members, but also has to keep an eye on the company being competitive in the market. An example of a union not keeping an eye on this would be any American car company being bled dry by the UAW.
In a public union, all these restraints go out the window. Public employees are extremely active politically, so politicians, the stand-in for the larger people (the employers) have every incentive to give big giveaways in pay and benefits in exchange for union support (many union contracts even have clauses excusing members from work for political advocacy). In addition, the unions realize that the government generally cannot go broke, so the sky is the limit as far as their demands go. Public unions are corrupt inside and outside, they aren't redeemable. They have only even existed for 50 years as a political ploy by Democrats seeking money and power. It has worked quite well, and it's time for it to stop.
|
On March 09 2011 10:09 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:57 Sephimos wrote:
Your story seems unlikely seeing as Chemistry is a B.S.
Chemistry is BA or BS. Simply googling bachelor of arts chemistry will display some universities where this degree is offered.
No serious scientist would get a BA.
|
On March 09 2011 10:11 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:09 Signet wrote:On March 09 2011 09:57 Sephimos wrote:
Your story seems unlikely seeing as Chemistry is a B.S.
Chemistry is BA or BS. Simply googling bachelor of arts chemistry will display some universities where this degree is offered. No serious scientist would get a BA.
What's your point? If you want to insult him personally, take it to PM.
Having an MD is pretty serious lol.
|
United States24701 Posts
On March 09 2011 10:10 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:58 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:
Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. I did not see pfods make such an assertion. An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. What about if you have been working for that employer for a long time? They should just set the wage arbitrarily to whatever they want? I don't think anyone is arguing that employers should have 0 control over the conditions, pay, benefits, etc of their workers. And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. There is a difference between making some concessions and making whatever concessions some other people decide for you regardless of the long-term ramifications. I made the point that if public sector work is terrible, they don't have to do it. If someone is going to argue with that statement, they would need to believe that someone not only has the right to do public work, but do it on their own terms. There's no alternative here, and such a belief is incredibly childish and presumptive. This statement I just quoted is not the opposite of what you were accusing pfods of... not that it really matters.
So what if you worked there a long time? You probably get a special cup with your number of years on it. Again, it doesn't make you a special snowflake and it doesn't give you some kind of special rights or bargaining authority. There are market limits on what they can set the wage to anyway, if the government offers too little money for public workers, people will really stop doing it instead of just crying their eyes out and sleeping in the Wisconsin capitol building like the filthy hippies they are. The thing I'm confused about is whether or not you think it's good for important public services to be provided poorly or not at all...
What people don't grasp here is the corrupt nature of public unions. In a private union, there are a number of limiting factors when it comes to negotiation time. The employer has incentive to bargain vigorously, so they keep their costs down. The union has incentive to bargain vigorously for its members, but also has to keep an eye on the company being competitive in the market. An example of a union not keeping an eye on this would be any American car company being bled dry by the UAW.
In a public union, all these restraints go out the window. Public employees are extremely active politically Is this inherent to public unions or just the way things are? If the latter, you shouldn't punish public unions for this... if the former, then explain why.
so politicians, the stand-in for the larger people (the employers) have every incentive to give big giveaways in pay and benefits in exchange for union support (many union contracts even have clauses excusing members from work for political advocacy). Just because public unions don't have the same natural limiters as private unions doesn't mean there aren't forces compelling unions to be reasonable and the employers to hold their ground. I see this on a daily basis in my public job.
In addition, the unions realize that the government generally cannot go broke, so the sky is the limit as far as their demands go. Public unions are corrupt inside and outside, they aren't redeemable. They have only even existed for 50 years as a political ploy by Democrats seeking money and power. It has worked quite well, and it's time for it to stop.
This sounds highly exaggerated...
|
Corporations have proved time and time again that they will cut corners on everything to increase profit margins, see BP oil last year, or the practice by Nike, the Gap and others who employ young children overseas.
Unions somewhat keep Corporations in check. Of course there are bad unions, bad union leadership, and good, decent corporations. But overall they protect the worker from exploitation that would certainly occur if they did not exist.
|
On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:40 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 09:35 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:33 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 09:19 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:07 Severedevil wrote:
If every worker had an agent, we wouldn't need unions. Unfortunately, a full-time worker cannot also be looking for better jobs and negotiating for better salary remotely as well as a trained professional. And corporations always have trained professionals trying to keep salaries low in innovative and obfuscative ways...
Unions are an ugly solution to an uglier problem. This argument might hold some weight in the private sector, it holds none in the public. The public worker's employers are the people, they have no right of negotiation or strike. so if you, "the people", are paying them below what they should be getting, or their working conditions are horrid, they just need to deal with it? They aren't your emlpoyees. You personally don't get to decide anything about them because this is america, and we're a republic, not a mobocracy. You vote for people to be their employers, and if the need arises, they have every right to ask for better treatment/pay/conditions. I've worked in CSEA jobs over the summer to pay for school, and seen first hand the bullshit that the city/state/university, what have you, puts the workers through. If they weren't in a union it would be 10 times worse. Idea: If working in the public sector is so crappy, they can find something else to do. Working in the public sector is not a God-given right. You sound awfully bitter. No one is saying it's a right to work in the public sector, but they do have the right to proper work environments and fair pay, which unions help negotiate. Plus, your idea of "they can go somewhere else" is really childish. In an economy with an unemployment rate of 9.5%, there aren't a whole lot of spare jobs sitting around. This is doubly true in more rural towns. I'm not bitter about anything, the alligator tears from union members just get to me. These people are pampered and from their rhetoric, you would think that they were getting blacklung in coal mines. Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here.
This is the second time you've put words in my mouth. I'm not saying anyone has a right to a specific job, I'm saying workers have a right to certain conditions in a job which unions help control.
On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that.
Do you really think the only thing unions negotiate is wages?
On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:
And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. Fuck no. Public union members want their cake, your cake, and to eat it to. They're parasites on the body politic and they make me sick.
Like in wisconsin where they offered to pay more of their benefits, take a second cut in wages, etc?
Please don't respond to me if you're just going to rage about unions and how mean and evil they are for a third time.
|
On March 09 2011 10:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:10 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:58 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:
Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. I did not see pfods make such an assertion. An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. What about if you have been working for that employer for a long time? They should just set the wage arbitrarily to whatever they want? I don't think anyone is arguing that employers should have 0 control over the conditions, pay, benefits, etc of their workers. And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. There is a difference between making some concessions and making whatever concessions some other people decide for you regardless of the long-term ramifications. I made the point that if public sector work is terrible, they don't have to do it. If someone is going to argue with that statement, they would need to believe that someone not only has the right to do public work, but do it on their own terms. There's no alternative here, and such a belief is incredibly childish and presumptive. This statement I just quoted is not the opposite of what you were accusing pfods of... not that it really matters. Show nested quote +So what if you worked there a long time? You probably get a special cup with your number of years on it. Again, it doesn't make you a special snowflake and it doesn't give you some kind of special rights or bargaining authority. There are market limits on what they can set the wage to anyway, if the government offers too little money for public workers, people will really stop doing it instead of just crying their eyes out and sleeping in the Wisconsin capitol building like the filthy hippies they are. The thing I'm confused about is whether or not you think it's good for important public services to be provided poorly or not at all... Show nested quote +What people don't grasp here is the corrupt nature of public unions. In a private union, there are a number of limiting factors when it comes to negotiation time. The employer has incentive to bargain vigorously, so they keep their costs down. The union has incentive to bargain vigorously for its members, but also has to keep an eye on the company being competitive in the market. An example of a union not keeping an eye on this would be any American car company being bled dry by the UAW.
In a public union, all these restraints go out the window. Public employees are extremely active politically Is this inherent to public unions or just the way things are? If the latter, you shouldn't punish public unions for this... if the former, then explain why. Show nested quote +so politicians, the stand-in for the larger people (the employers) have every incentive to give big giveaways in pay and benefits in exchange for union support (many union contracts even have clauses excusing members from work for political advocacy). Just because public unions don't have the same natural limiters as private unions doesn't mean there aren't forces compelling unions to be reasonable and the employers to hold their ground. I see this on a daily basis in my public job. Show nested quote +In addition, the unions realize that the government generally cannot go broke, so the sky is the limit as far as their demands go. Public unions are corrupt inside and outside, they aren't redeemable. They have only even existed for 50 years as a political ploy by Democrats seeking money and power. It has worked quite well, and it's time for it to stop.
This sounds highly exaggerated...
I don't know how I can put it any more simply. If the employee doesn't like the employers compensation package, they have the freedom to seek other work.
The thing I'm confused about is whether or not you think it's good for important public services to be provided poorly or not at all... Public services should be run effectively, nice framed question by the way. Government pay rates should be kept in line with market rates, considering skill, education, and difficulty.
Is this inherent to public unions or just the way things are? If the latter, you shouldn't punish public unions for this... if the former, then explain why. I said it's just the way they are. FDR himself was against public unions, as was the AFL-CIO as late as 1959. The incentives for both sides are corrupted when compared to a private union arrangement. There is too much temptation on both sides, politicians and labor.
What exactly are the restraints that still exist? Management has incentive to fold, union has incentive to ride the gravy train. And if you think it's exaggerated, why don't you look into it a little bit. Public unions started in the 1960's, they were all initiated while Democrats were in power, they continue to 69 with Democrats to this day. Do me a favor, find out who your union contributes money to. I guarantee you they spend on politics, and I guarantee you it all goes to Democrats//Liberal causes. Then come back and tell me how right I was.
|
On March 09 2011 10:32 Sephimos wrote:
What exactly are the restraints that still exist? Management has incentive to fold, union has incentive to ride the gravy train. And if you think it's exaggerated, why don't you look into it a little bit. Public unions started in the 1960's, they were all initiated while Democrats were in power, they continue to 69 with Democrats to this day. Do me a favor, find out who your union contributes money to. I guarantee you they spend on politics, and I guarantee you it all goes to Democrats//Liberal causes. Then come back and tell me how right I was.
You're being hypocritical. Weren't you just telling me how you have the freedom to not accept a job? You have the freedom to not join a union, or to work a job that doesn't require union membership. You also have the freedom to quit your job if you don't like what your organization is contributing money to.
You don't get to selectively argue the "freedom" angle. It applies universally or not a tall.
Plus, because of citizens united, unions are the only counter balance to corporate spending in politics, which are heavily republican. Given what positions you're taking on this issue though, I don't think you'd be opposed to the democratic party never being able to win an election de facto.
|
On March 09 2011 10:27 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:40 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 09:35 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:33 pfods wrote:On March 09 2011 09:19 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:07 Severedevil wrote:
If every worker had an agent, we wouldn't need unions. Unfortunately, a full-time worker cannot also be looking for better jobs and negotiating for better salary remotely as well as a trained professional. And corporations always have trained professionals trying to keep salaries low in innovative and obfuscative ways...
Unions are an ugly solution to an uglier problem. This argument might hold some weight in the private sector, it holds none in the public. The public worker's employers are the people, they have no right of negotiation or strike. so if you, "the people", are paying them below what they should be getting, or their working conditions are horrid, they just need to deal with it? They aren't your emlpoyees. You personally don't get to decide anything about them because this is america, and we're a republic, not a mobocracy. You vote for people to be their employers, and if the need arises, they have every right to ask for better treatment/pay/conditions. I've worked in CSEA jobs over the summer to pay for school, and seen first hand the bullshit that the city/state/university, what have you, puts the workers through. If they weren't in a union it would be 10 times worse. Idea: If working in the public sector is so crappy, they can find something else to do. Working in the public sector is not a God-given right. You sound awfully bitter. No one is saying it's a right to work in the public sector, but they do have the right to proper work environments and fair pay, which unions help negotiate. Plus, your idea of "they can go somewhere else" is really childish. In an economy with an unemployment rate of 9.5%, there aren't a whole lot of spare jobs sitting around. This is doubly true in more rural towns. I'm not bitter about anything, the alligator tears from union members just get to me. These people are pampered and from their rhetoric, you would think that they were getting blacklung in coal mines. Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. This is the second time you've put words in my mouth. I'm not saying anyone has a right to a specific job, I'm saying workers have a right to certain conditions in a job which unions help control. Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. Do you really think the only thing unions negotiate is wages? Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:
And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. Fuck no. Public union members want their cake, your cake, and to eat it to. They're parasites on the body politic and they make me sick.
Like in wisconsin where they offered to pay more of their benefits, take a second cut in wages, etc? Please don't respond to me if you're just going to rage about unions and how mean and evil they are for a third time.
Do you really think the only thing unions negotiate is wages? If that was all it was there probably wouldn't be such an issue. The problem is that Unions get all sorts of goodies, such as free gold-plated health care, contribution-less guaranteed pensions, and sick days//overtime. Public worker salary is usually not out of line, it's everything else that puts them out of whack with everyone else.
Like in wisconsin where they offered to pay more of their benefits, take a second cut in wages, etc? Firstly, the cuts they're taking come after a big increase in their compensation from the last governor, so these cuts would really just put them back where they should have been anyhow. And Walker is smart enough to realize that if collective bargaining stays, the union is just going to regain everything they lost when Dems get back into power. He's trying for a lasting solution.
I don't need to resort to any base insults with the unions, they're merely self-interested, and that self-interest comes at the expense of every single taxpayer. Unions don't mind if working families have to deal with a few extra property tax points or if groceries get more expensive, they just want theirs, and to hell with everything else.
|
On March 09 2011 10:38 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:32 Sephimos wrote:
What exactly are the restraints that still exist? Management has incentive to fold, union has incentive to ride the gravy train. And if you think it's exaggerated, why don't you look into it a little bit. Public unions started in the 1960's, they were all initiated while Democrats were in power, they continue to 69 with Democrats to this day. Do me a favor, find out who your union contributes money to. I guarantee you they spend on politics, and I guarantee you it all goes to Democrats//Liberal causes. Then come back and tell me how right I was. You're being hypocritical. Weren't you just telling me how you have the freedom to not accept a job? You have the freedom to not join a union, or to work a job that doesn't require union membership. You also have the freedom to quit your job if you don't like what your organization is contributing money to. You don't get to selectively argue the "freedom" angle. It applies universally or not a tall. Plus, because of citizens united, unions are the only counter balance to corporate spending in politics, which are heavily republican. Given what positions you're taking on this issue though, I don't think you'd be opposed to the democratic party never being able to win an election de facto.
You generally don't have the freedom to not join a union. There are only 22 right to work states, in the 28 others you have to join the resident union, or at least pay full membership dues. Unions are generally against freedom, the ones in Wisconsin hate the idea of their membership voting on the Unions existence. I mean, can you imagine, people having a choice on whether or not they want their union? Ghastly. It really kind of sucks for someone who really wants to work at a certain organization, then is forced to support a union with which they may or may not agree politically.
|
On March 09 2011 10:23 Ome wrote:
Corporations have proved time and time again that they will cut corners on everything to increase profit margins, see BP oil last year, or the practice by Nike, the Gap and others who employ young children overseas.
Unions somewhat keep Corporations in check. Of course there are bad unions, bad union leadership, and good, decent corporations. But overall they protect the worker from exploitation that would certainly occur if they did not exist.
This is not a union's job. It's your job, as a consumer, to choose products that are created in ways you deem to be ethical. Until society is ready to do that, no one in it deserves to think they're doing their part to stand up for their position on the environment, how overseas workers are treated, etc.
|
On March 09 2011 10:38 Sephimos wrote:
If that was all it was there probably wouldn't be such an issue. The problem is that Unions get all sorts of goodies, such as free gold-plated health care, contribution-less guaranteed pensions, and sick days//overtime. Public worker salary is usually not out of line, it's everything else that puts them out of whack with everyone else.
Which they negotiated for, and their employers agreed to pay. Why are you upset by this? If you want those benefits, join a union job.
Plus, not every job in a union, especially public unions, is guaranteed pension benefits with nothing withheld from pay.
On March 09 2011 10:38 Sephimos wrote: Firstly, the cuts they're taking come after a big increase in their compensation from the last governor, so these cuts would really just put them back where they should have been anyhow. And Walker is smart enough to realize that if collective bargaining stays, the union is just going to regain everything they lost when Dems get back into power. He's trying for a lasting solution.
No. Actually what he's doing is trying to break the unions so he can privatize their jobs, much like he did in his last job positions, where he invented a fake fiscal crisis in order to fire all the public-union security and hire private contractors. These same contractors were previously fired from their last shtick in afghanistan for hazing new members, using tax payer money to buy prostitutes, etc. He's attempting the same thing now, only with different jobs. Plus, he's going after unions that didn't support him. Not to mention that bill has provisions to basically sell public utilities to the koch brothers, and busting those pesky unions is the start of that. Corruption through and through.
On March 09 2011 10:38 Sephimos wrote:
I don't need to resort to any base insults with the unions, they're merely self-interested, and that self-interest comes at the expense of every single taxpayer. Unions don't mind if working families have to deal with a few extra property tax points or if groceries get more expensive, they just want theirs, and to hell with everything else.
Germany. Recently labeled the china of europe, has very strong unions.
You have no leg to stand on by saying that unions break the economy.
|
United States24701 Posts
On March 09 2011 10:32 Sephimos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:21 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2011 10:10 Sephimos wrote:On March 09 2011 09:58 micronesia wrote:On March 09 2011 09:48 Sephimos wrote:
Your assertion that someone has a right to do whatever job they want, demand a wage, and expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter is the childish idea here. I did not see pfods make such an assertion. An employer offers a wage, people can take it or leave it. That's the end of the story, sorry you can't understand that. What about if you have been working for that employer for a long time? They should just set the wage arbitrarily to whatever they want? I don't think anyone is arguing that employers should have 0 control over the conditions, pay, benefits, etc of their workers. And even expanding, if unemployment is double the average, you would think public union members could make concessions and just be grateful to have secure work. There is a difference between making some concessions and making whatever concessions some other people decide for you regardless of the long-term ramifications. I made the point that if public sector work is terrible, they don't have to do it. If someone is going to argue with that statement, they would need to believe that someone not only has the right to do public work, but do it on their own terms. There's no alternative here, and such a belief is incredibly childish and presumptive. This statement I just quoted is not the opposite of what you were accusing pfods of... not that it really matters. So what if you worked there a long time? You probably get a special cup with your number of years on it. Again, it doesn't make you a special snowflake and it doesn't give you some kind of special rights or bargaining authority. There are market limits on what they can set the wage to anyway, if the government offers too little money for public workers, people will really stop doing it instead of just crying their eyes out and sleeping in the Wisconsin capitol building like the filthy hippies they are. The thing I'm confused about is whether or not you think it's good for important public services to be provided poorly or not at all... What people don't grasp here is the corrupt nature of public unions. In a private union, there are a number of limiting factors when it comes to negotiation time. The employer has incentive to bargain vigorously, so they keep their costs down. The union has incentive to bargain vigorously for its members, but also has to keep an eye on the company being competitive in the market. An example of a union not keeping an eye on this would be any American car company being bled dry by the UAW.
In a public union, all these restraints go out the window. Public employees are extremely active politically Is this inherent to public unions or just the way things are? If the latter, you shouldn't punish public unions for this... if the former, then explain why. so politicians, the stand-in for the larger people (the employers) have every incentive to give big giveaways in pay and benefits in exchange for union support (many union contracts even have clauses excusing members from work for political advocacy). Just because public unions don't have the same natural limiters as private unions doesn't mean there aren't forces compelling unions to be reasonable and the employers to hold their ground. I see this on a daily basis in my public job. In addition, the unions realize that the government generally cannot go broke, so the sky is the limit as far as their demands go. Public unions are corrupt inside and outside, they aren't redeemable. They have only even existed for 50 years as a political ploy by Democrats seeking money and power. It has worked quite well, and it's time for it to stop.
This sounds highly exaggerated... I don't know how I can put it any more simply. If the employee doesn't like the employers compensation package, they have the freedom to seek other work. Show nested quote +The thing I'm confused about is whether or not you think it's good for important public services to be provided poorly or not at all... Public services should be run effectively, nice framed question by the way. Government pay rates should be kept in line with market rates, considering skill, education, and difficulty. Show nested quote +Is this inherent to public unions or just the way things are? If the latter, you shouldn't punish public unions for this... if the former, then explain why. I said it's just the way they are. FDR himself was against public unions, as was the AFL-CIO as late as 1959. The incentives for both sides are corrupted when compared to a private union arrangement. There is too much temptation on both sides, politicians and labor. What exactly are the restraints that still exist? Management has incentive to fold, union has incentive to ride the gravy train. And if you think it's exaggerated, why don't you look into it a little bit. Public unions started in the 1960's, they were all initiated while Democrats were in power, they continue to 69 with Democrats to this day. Do me a favor, find out who your union contributes money to. I guarantee you they spend on politics, and I guarantee you it all goes to Democrats//Liberal causes. Then come back and tell me how right I was.
My union is constantly under attack by certain politicians so I don't think they should be blamed for defending themselves. If you want to claim that the other politicians would leave them alone if they didn't get involved in politics then I'll tell you: I wish. That would be nice. Just so you know in the most recent election my union released a list of which politicians they 'endorse' and it was like 75%/25% split democrat/republican. Surprisingly far from 100/0. It's still not surprising that the democrats get more support since the republicans want to gut the amount of public money that goes towards the public service... which will mean a severe decrease in the quality of the service provided by the union workers (less workers and less pay will ultimately mean less quality). You said so yourself workers can leave if they don't like that (assuming they weren't already excessed) but this means lower quality of public service. This is a more complex issue than public unions=evil.
From what you said I see you do in fact not want public service to crumble... it was actually not clear from what you were saying until now. Asking someone who's been with an employer for many years to leave if (s)he doesn't like the new conditions sounds reasonable... and it IS reasonable when the reasons for why the new conditions are 'so bad' are in fact reasonable. This is not always the case. No public unions means the reasons for the degradation in conditions become less reasonable. This is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from how you would claim the demands of publicly unionized workers are unreasonable. Basically neither of us has a leg to stand on on this issue since we are are two sides of the same coin.
The people who negotiate with my union leaders every few years will be up shit's creek if they don't do a good job... I can't speak directly for other unions but they fight every bit as aggressively as employers of privately unionized workers in the area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
