|
On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote:
Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do
If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week for less than $1/hour, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man?
Without that company they're out of a job period. It might be horrible but if they are willing to work for that price then that's how it works as awful and crass as that sounds.
|
It isn't unions that make an economy uncompetitive, it is trade agreements such as NAFTA that allow companies to get lower production costs outsourcing jobs. It's seriously disturbing how in a time when income inequality is bigger than it has been in decades and there is unemployment of over 10% in the USA, someone would conclude the biggest problem is people organizing to get fair wages. There's such a big disparity in power, and growing, between the corporations and organized labor that really, more powerful unions are needed, not less.
|
In an ideal world, unions would not be necessary; however, capital exists, so unions are necessary as a counterbalance. Unions can also provide people with political power, since unions can be powerful enough that politicians care about their demands, since politicians today are not really in any way accountable to individual citizens, and are instead beholden primarily to the interests of business. In this way, unions are a counterbalance against business controlling the economy and the government in a dictatorial fashion.
|
On March 09 2011 08:04 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. The WI Governor is proposing that they ONLY be able to collectively bargain for their salary, and only up to the cost of living index. This has turned into an all-out flame war/pissing contest from both sides. And make no mistake, NEITHER side is willing to budge. Every single article on this has said that the Governor will budge on everything except collective bargaining rights. That's everything. He wants to make massive cuts that he can't make if he negotiates with unions. There is no way to compromise with that, because collective bargaining is essentially the power of the union. So saying "neither side is willing to budge" is a little silly, considering the republicans are holding the collective bargaining rights... which is the rights to compromise. Your post had a lot misdirection in it, so it's a little difficult to argue with you. I don't care if "teachers are underpaid" or whatever. That doesn't have to do with this. Show nested quote +It seems like we want to somehow link what we pay teachers, or what we spend on education, directly to how much achievement we get from students, while there are just too many other factors in play. Take a look at the census data from 2008 on how much we spend per pupil by state. ( http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf ) [page 14] I can assure you that while, DC tends to spend an enormous amount on their public education systems, it's continually labeled as one of the worst school systems in the country. Okay... this is done with capita per student, so being as DC is way smaller than everything else by far, this is not a fair comparison by any means. Show nested quote +Don't even get me started about the bullshit legislators that ran from the state to prevent the due course of lawmaking, how is that for some childish shit. In fact, they ALL deserve a giant FUCK YOU AND GROW UP from every last one of us.
Politics, you gotta laugh at it because it keeps you from crying. "Fuck you and grow up"? This is about people's livelihood, wages, and jobs. Leaving the state to prevent obliteration of unions is not really childish. It's just extreme. Saying "Fuck you and grow up" is childish.
Sorry but you need to read my post a little better, and while you may think that "collective bargaining" is everything, I assure you that you are wrong. Governor Walker also wants to take away the ability of the Wisconsin public teacher's union to take up dues directly, and halt the current process of the state withholding dues from the teacher's checks. I don't really fall on either side of this issue, other than knowing that public unions by their very nature are opposed to the public interest. I think ALL the politicians in WI right now need to be told FUCK YOU AND GROW THE FUCK UP, that includes Walker and the dumbasses who fled the state to prevent the state from doing business.
If you really read my post and still think I'm being childish, then that's your opinion. But you are coming off in your reply here to be rather uneducated about the issue and rather just parroting some cursory talking points from articles you've read (Prove me wrong, but that's the way it seems to me)
|
On March 09 2011 08:21 LuciD` wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote:
Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do
If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week for less than $1/hour, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man? Without that company they're out of a job period. It might be horrible but if they are willing to work for that price then that's how it works as awful and crass as that sounds.
No, you are advocating for a system where that is how it works. There are other systems where that isn't how it works. But you are against such systems: for what reason, no one knows.
|
On March 09 2011 08:21 LuciD` wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote:
Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do
If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week for less than $1/hour, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man? Without that company they're out of a job period. It might be horrible but if they are willing to work for that price then that's how it works as awful and crass as that sounds.
And this abuse by "companies" is why unions came to exist in the first place. People have to work to pay for food, shelter, etc.
|
On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote:
Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do
If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week in a factory for less than $1/hour with absolutely no benefits, no pension, no insurance, no nothing, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man?
They should hire her. The more important question is, why do you wan't her to starve to death?
|
Well Union is just a cartel vs the corporate world.
yeah they're pretty good
|
On March 09 2011 07:58 staxringold wrote:
Yes. Obviously 100% union-centralized power yields bad resulted but so does pure unmitigated capitalism. The motivations of capitalist entities doesn't shift simply because the centuries do. The point of economic regulation is to keep at bay the bubbles we've seen and hold off another Depression at all costs. If individual and more replaceable laborers have no negotiating power then the system is effectively treating them as valueless cogs.
I'm so confused. You realize the Depression was caused by banks loaning out much more money than they had due to government policies allowing and supporting this? This is such a classic example of how capitalism takes the heat for government tinkering in the economy... we don't live in a capitalist country, people.
And yeah... a union of GOVERNMENT WORKERS. When the government hardly has to answer for the checks it writes the only loser in this situation is as always the taxpayer. Oh yeah and the quality of american education.
|
People arguing the about the individual facts regarding the WI teachers' contracts are all spouting propaganda in here. You need to assess the WHOLE compensation package to determine if it is fair. On paper 30k in benefits seems absurd but that would be a HUGE portion of their total salary.
Basically the question is, is approx 80k a year too much for a teacher? Try to think objectively.
IMO that seems like a steal for a good, college educated professional with experience. We all have different standards though so we will see.
If there is ANYTHING I think we should be complaining about its accountability not compensation.
|
On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote:
Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do
If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week in a factory for less than $1/hour with absolutely no benefits, no pension, no insurance, no thing, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man?
That is totally taken out of context and you know it... union's nowadays do not protect those kinds of things because labor laws exist. Its a concept of supply and demand.
|
On March 09 2011 08:16 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 07:48 etherwar wrote:On March 09 2011 05:43 DoubleReed wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the Wisconsin issue is about public office unions. Firefighters, teachers, police officers, etc. etc. All this talk about better economics and private businesses doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in this context. Unions aren't that common in private enterprise, and where they are, they are often challenged (look at Directors Guild of America for instance).
This is about public unions specifically.
The Unions actually involved have said they will take massive pay cuts instead of giving up their union rights. This Republican Senators and Governor seem to be the only ones around who seems to think this is a good idea. The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. Ugh. Did you think about this for a minute? 30 seconds? They pay for it by going to work everyday. It is part of their compensation. You do not, "pay towards your compensation" that is ridiculous. That is like giving your employer money on top of working. And their salaries ARE REGULATED by the QEO law.
So you look at my post and then you extract and misinterpret the first sentence, then ask me if I thought about this for a minute? or 30 seconds? cute...
Yeah, excuse me, they don't pay a PORTION OF THEIR SALARIES towards their benefits/pension... like I dunno, pretty much everyone else? The QEO law is an option for school boards to impose, not a mandate (as long as they stay within budget)... why not increase benefits and salaries for teachers and just cut programs then ask for more money from the public???
|
Unions are just corporations for laborers.
|
On March 09 2011 08:32 etherwar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:16 Romantic wrote:On March 09 2011 07:48 etherwar wrote:On March 09 2011 05:43 DoubleReed wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the Wisconsin issue is about public office unions. Firefighters, teachers, police officers, etc. etc. All this talk about better economics and private businesses doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in this context. Unions aren't that common in private enterprise, and where they are, they are often challenged (look at Directors Guild of America for instance).
This is about public unions specifically.
The Unions actually involved have said they will take massive pay cuts instead of giving up their union rights. This Republican Senators and Governor seem to be the only ones around who seems to think this is a good idea. The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. Ugh. Did you think about this for a minute? 30 seconds? They pay for it by going to work everyday. It is part of their compensation. You do not, "pay towards your compensation" that is ridiculous. That is like giving your employer money on top of working. And their salaries ARE REGULATED by the QEO law. So you look at my post and then you extract and misinterpret the first sentence, then ask me if I thought about this for a minute? or 30 seconds? cute... Yeah, excuse me, they don't pay a PORTION OF THEIR SALARIES towards their benefits/pension... like I dunno, pretty much everyone else? The QEO law is an option for school boards to impose, not a mandate
Employer provided pensions are payed for by the employee. Pitching in %0 or %100 percent is equivalent. It's subtracted from your wages. The employer only cares about the total cost of hiring someone.
|
Capitalism is dumb to start with. Unions and other systems of control just change a flawed system. They have their problems, but in the current situation they give better conditions for workers usually, so I guess they are a good thing.
|
On March 09 2011 08:24 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 08:21 LuciD` wrote:On March 09 2011 08:19 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 04:08 Milkis wrote:On March 09 2011 04:02 Hawk wrote:On March 09 2011 03:31 xjoehammerx wrote:
Do you think that large businesses care about their employees enough so that unions aren't necessary? Do you really think that without unions typical human greed won't take over and lead to the freezing of worker wages despite increase in company profits (to an even greater extent than is happening already)? Exactly. It's like a necessary evil. They contribute very much to the problem, but flat outlawing unions would just lead to corporations fleecing workers left and right. You can't simply create legislatures to replace the positive things that unions do
If someone else is willing to do your job for cheaper and better, why shouldn't the firm hire that guy instead of keeping around someone who has proven to be ineffective?Unions give bargaining power to these replaceable people. Why should large businesses care about you if you are so easily replaceable? IMO, the only bargaining power you should have is from your own merits, not by this artificial union that effectively operates like a mob. Let me rephrase this paragraph for you: If a 13 year old girl in a remote Chinese province is willing to drop school and toil away for +60 hours a week for less than $1/hour, then why shouldn't morally bankrupt firms hire her instead of keeping around an honest working man? Without that company they're out of a job period. It might be horrible but if they are willing to work for that price then that's how it works as awful and crass as that sounds. No, you are advocating for a system where that is how it works. There are other systems where that isn't how it works. But you are against such systems: for what reason, no one knows.
I am advocating nothing of the sort nor do I morally agree with what companies like this do. It's simply the way shit works in countries without child labor laws and it's a tragedy. It won't stop, however, until their own country takes control of it. Their family depends on this money otherwise a 13 year old wouldn't be working for $1/hour in horseshit conditions.
Don't put words in my mouth and take off the rose-colored glasses. There is ugly shit in this world whether you like it or not.
|
On March 09 2011 08:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 07:59 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 03:43 Tien wrote:
You guys don't get it.
The more you unionize, the less competitive your economy becomes, and the more corporations will outsource. And you don't get it. The reason those companies outsource in the first place is to get cheaper labor by abusing the naivete of the working class in third world countries. Unlike in most developed western countries, the working class in most asian countries work like dogs 7 days a week with very minimal pay. Why? Most of them don't have unions. In fact, most of them have this mentality that they should be thankful of their employers just for giving them a job and accept their suck ass low paying long hour jobs with gratitude and no complaints. Yea, it's better than subsistence agriculture. The fact that they wan't the job means its better than the alternative. But really, a mutually agreed upon deal between free individuals is quite frankly none of your damn business. It's when people like you, saying they know whats best for the naive people, that tyrannies arise. If you impose a global minimum wage or something of this sort, then those people simply won't get the jobs, and they will not be grateful of your well intentions. They'll hate you for it.
So technically, if a 13 year old starving girl is willing to work as a prostitute for me for breadcrumbs, then it's totally okay for me to hire her?
I don't no which county you're from, but i actually live in one of these countries. I tell you, you get better wages working at McDonalds in America than most working class and professional jobs in my country.
|
On March 09 2011 08:39 Piy wrote:
Capitalism is dumb to start with. Unions and other systems of control just change a flawed system. They have their problems, but in the current situation they give better conditions for workers usually, so I guess they are a good thing.
People trading with one another is dumb?
|
Unions being politically active is a good thing.
Corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying governments to weaken labor laws, weaken safety rules, weaken enforcement agencies, and allow them to exploit workers because those policies would be good for business.
Unions may not represent everyone, but their lobbying is an important counterbalance to corporations.
|
capitalism is NOT people trading with one onother..capitalism is some guy gives you $5 hour to work..
but it turns out he sells what u produce in one hour at 7$ so theres a guy that makes $2 per hour,per worker.. AND DOESNT WORK,DOESNT DO SHIT FOR THE ECONOMY , thats capitalism
edit...btw , this is the definition.. NO IDEOLOGY INCLUDED
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
