Log in

View Full Version : A Simple Question



Pages : 1 [2]

threlayer
11-06-2009, 05:03 PM
UNIONS

...
It is a serious question worthy of debate how beneficial unions are. They helped to wreck the auto industry with ridiculous work rules and by paying people NOT to build cars. That was after they helped to wreck the steel industry. In N.Y.C. the corruption in the ILA helped turn the nation's busiest port into a backwater. The ILGW and Amalgamated Clothing Workers ( both mobbed up ) wrecked 7th Avenue. The Carpenters ruined the Javits Center. Yes, organized crime found their way into unions. It also found its way into government, law enforcement, and corporations as well. So how is that different? Yes, some unions in some industries have developed enormous salaries compared to their productivity. Others are struggling. Much of the problem in the auto industry stems from corporate leaders not being smart and unresponsive to changing consumer trends. In a few industries unions make it difficult for corporations to change with the times. Union officials are not always the smartest leaders but they are the most influential, sort of like government elected officials.


Especially today, its obscene to see union officials making healthy six-figure salaries and holding conventions at the Fontainbleu when their membership is being laid off. It is folly to discuss what union officials make personally without comparing it to what obscene incomes huge financial corporation higher ups make (7, 8, 9 digits), even though they have run their corporations, as well as the country, into near bankruptcy; and their effect of peoples' lives and those effects passed onto the entire first world also must be compared. There would be no strong middle class to purchase corporate products without unions. Junkets to elaborate places have their places in most corporations and governments. Without the corporate businesses, well-heeled individuals would have no fancy places to drop their excess change into.


Unions today promote mediocrity. Show me the union shop where anyone has any incentive to work harder and longer. Unions also promote training and safety and to an extent promote fair treatment by unfair bosses. Unions often do affect flaxibility by outdated work rules.


Teacher's unions have wrecked public education. It's impossible to get rid of bad teachers and there are no incentives to try and be a good one. Not only the unions, but the NEA, Dept of Education, and our culture itself.

CORPORATIONS

Unlike most other industrialized countries we engage in double and even triple taxation. We tax corporations at the second highest rate in the world ( only Japan is higher ) and then we tax dividends and capital gains. Corporations do not pay taxes. They just collect them and then pass the cost along to consumers and workers. Double and triple taxation applies right down to the consumer. Well, part of this is just wrong. Our corporate taxes are high but the corporations have very great support by the government, for which they pay a lot. If corporations, per your hypothesis, only pass along taxes, then higher paid corporate employees also in turn pass along taxes by demanding higher salaries to compensate. As usual the consumer gets it in the END.

GOVERNMENT

I am pro middle-class. The biggest danger to its health and well being is GOVERNMENT. Government has screwed up the economy. Government has screwed up education. Government is taxing the middle class to death. Government is driving the middle class out of the cities and now its driving them out of entire states- California, N.Y. and N.J. just to name three. First, you may think you are espousing middle class values, but actually you are highly pro-corporate and anti-government with seemingly little regard for what makes middle class economics work. The biggest danger is elected government officials, with very lax ethics laws being bought and sold by huge corporations.

HISTORY

It's funny that you mention the 1890's. The ones who REALLY want to go back to those days are the sponsors of Cap & Tax. If passed and implemented it will mandate per capita carbon outputs BELOW 1890 levels. Off the point. How many other countries are already doing cap and trade? You are out of date.

GOVERNMENT AGAIN

More to the point, HOW were the major corporations able to be so exploitative during the Gilded Age and Gay 90's ? Government. Who sent in troops to break up strikes ? Who prosecuted union organizers ? Corporations pressured their cronies in the government to pony up forces to oppose unionization. Corruption was rampant. I know this to be the case for several industries; it is a well-documented fact.

threlayer
11-06-2009, 05:22 PM
You are pointing to external factors rather than your personal motivations, which was my main point.

MINIMUM WAGE

...my opposition to the US minimum wage ...is now at a level that is at least 3-4 times higher than some international competitors. The de-facto result..is to increase unemployment among young / unskilled Americans ... as a byproduct of employers easily being able to financially justify outsourcing, automation, consolidation etc.... People get SSI when they cannot work, typically. That is not part of the comparison. Many workers will not take a minimum wage job but will work under the table for the same wage. The reason is the minimum wage is not a sustainable wage. Yes, training is a key to better employment, but only if jobs are available in an industry and location that coordinates with that training. Typically manufacturers do not hire many minimum wage workers because they need trained and trainable personnel to do that work. For a great example take stripping.

UNIONS

As to unions, similar situation. The de-facto cost to the employer of US union labor with typical US union benefits is also 3-4 times higher than some international competitors. This creates a strong incentive for employers to financially justify outsourcing, automation, consolidation etc in order to eliminate 'expensive' union jobs. The exception of course are unionized gov't employees, who have a virtual stranglehold on many policitians who control their pay rates and job security. Unions reduce flexibility, some are excessively strong, but produce wages that allow corporaton to better exist because of the workers' spendable income. However, without unionization, much worker abuse would be taking place. See my response to Eric's post.


Ultimately it comes down to productivity levels versus all-in labor costs. By that measure both US minimum wage workers and skilled US union workers only 'produce' 1/3 to 1/4th as much as the workers of some international competitors. If gov't follows a policy that these pay versus productivity levels must be maintained, it basically has two possible results. Result 1 is the US employer going bankrupt. Result 2 is gov't subsidies ... paid for by other skilled US workers whose productivity to pay ratio is much closer to skilled workers at international competitors. By some measures the US production worker is the most productive in the world. Of course that is a combination of the worker and the manufacturing facilities. However, that ignores the unionized, non-production worker (mainly office workers, technicians, etc). What govt policy is concerned with "pay versus productivity levels must be maintained"? That is a corporate responsibility. Yes, I agree that many production wage scales are unsustainably high, but many are not too. Those corporations able to maintain reasonable influence with their unions are the ones most likely to succeed.

Still my points remain untouched.

Earl_the_Pearl
11-06-2009, 07:17 PM
In 2008, union members accounted for 12.4 percent of employed wage and salary workers. One would think that the other 87.6 percent could keep US competitive.

Melonie
11-07-2009, 01:07 AM
arguably, 50%+ of total US union members are now 'government' workers ... where 'productivity' isn't a consideration. And that's not counting in the status of GM / Chrysler workers, whose union paychecks are now being partially funded by US taxpayers. That also doesn't count the status of Firestone / US Steel workers, whose union paychecks are now being stealth funded by tariffs.

threlayer
11-07-2009, 11:55 AM
Government unions are not exactly full unions in terms of capability, for example striking.

The real problem with government workers is two-fold: 1. Civil Service rules which are actually double-edged swords, deleteriousy affecting work efficiency and limiting opportunities for worker advancement. 2. The work environment is a fully-implemented "cover your ass" philosophy -- from top to bottom. There is very little of the cooperative, "we're in this together, so let's all help our productivity and work quality" atmosphere that is the mark of an efficient and effective workforce. Instead it's a "hide the error or blame somebody else, so I don't get demoted or fired" philosophy. That is instead of a "help each other be productive and fix all errors so we as a department can produce quality work and support our boss" atmosphere. This is at the heart of most all bureaucracies in government and corporate work environments.

Eric Stoner
11-09-2009, 09:05 AM
UNIONS
Yes, organized crime found their way into unions. It also found its way into government, law enforcement, and corporations as well. So how is that different? Yes, some unions in some industries have developed enormous salaries compared to their productivity. Others are struggling. Much of the problem in the auto industry stems from corporate leaders not being smart and unresponsive to changing consumer trends. In a few industries unions make it difficult for corporations to change with the times. Union officials are not always the smartest leaders but they are the most influential, sort of like government elected officials.

It is folly to discuss what union officials make personally without comparing it to what obscene incomes huge financial corporation higher ups make (7, 8, 9 digits), even though they have run their corporations, as well as the country, into near bankruptcy; and their effect of peoples' lives and those effects passed onto the entire first world also must be compared. There would be no strong middle class to purchase corporate products without unions. Junkets to elaborate places have their places in most corporations and governments. Without the corporate businesses, well-heeled individuals would have no fancy places to drop their excess change into.

Unions also promote training and safety and to an extent promote fair treatment by unfair bosses. Unions often do affect flaxibility by outdated work rules.

Not only the unions, but the NEA, Dept of Education, and our culture itself.

CORPORATIONS
Double and triple taxation applies right down to the consumer. Well, part of this is just wrong. Our corporate taxes are high but the corporations have very great support by the government, for which they pay a lot. If corporations, per your hypothesis, only pass along taxes, then higher paid corporate employees also in turn pass along taxes by demanding higher salaries to compensate. As usual the consumer gets it in the END.

GOVERNMENT
First, you may think you are espousing middle class values, but actually you are highly pro-corporate and anti-government with seemingly little regard for what makes middle class economics work. The biggest danger is elected government officials, with very lax ethics laws being bought and sold by huge corporations.

HISTORY
Off the point. How many other countries are already doing cap and trade? You are out of date.

GOVERNMENT AGAIN
Corporations pressured their cronies in the government to pony up forces to oppose unionization. Corruption was rampant. I know this to be the case for several industries; it is a well-documented fact.

How and why was organized crime able to profit from unions ? Who protected the unions and their wiseguy overseers ? Government.

GM and Chrysler reached their current depths when mgt. joined hands with the unions and just tried to pass along the costs of insane work rules and an unaffordable health plan to consumers. Funny thing, consumers voted with their dollars and bought better cars made in non-union shops down South.

It is a myth that unions promote training, safety, fight against unfair bosses and oppose outmoded work rules. Unions always promoted this myth that they were modern equivalents to the old guild system. Except for plumbers and electricians, that is horse hockey.

The NEA IS a union and the Dept. of Ed. is controlled by the NEA.

You just proved my point that corporations just collect taxes and pass along the costs.

As Melonie has pointed out, most union members today work for GOVERNMENT !

I am pro-individual. Why should I have to join a union just to get a job ? Why shouldn't I negotiate the best deal I can for myself ? Why shouldn't I be able to work harder, longer and better than anyone else ?

I am pro-consumer which means I am pro- all 300 plus million Americans. Why shouldn't consumers get to choose the best products at the best prices ?

I am pro-investor. 50% of all American taxpayers are invested in those dirty, evil, rotten, stinking corporations ? It's up to 2/3 if we include their pension plans.

threlayer
11-10-2009, 10:31 AM
It is a myth that unions promote training, safety, fight against unfair bosses and oppose outmoded work rules. Unions always promoted this myth that they were modern equivalents to the old guild system. Except for plumbers and electricians, that is horse hockey. I'vew never been in a union and I know they are not always very smart in their decisions, as I've recently posted here (Magna). But I do know many individuals in several unions, and the only one I know that does not follow my description is the musicians' union, but in some places even they do act beneficently. It is not so much the unions generally, it is the local unions vs specific corporations, where protection and other benefits are important. In some businesses most all employees would be part-time and not subject to benefits if there were not a union there. Some union locals are not run wel at all and they can be destructive. On the other hand some businesses are responsible to their employees and employees are happy without a union. Of course that's by far the best case. In general I think you are being way too general.

Eric Stoner
11-10-2009, 12:34 PM
I'vew never been in a union and I know they are not always very smart in their decisions, as I've recently posted here (Magna). But I do know many individuals in several unions, and the only one I know that does not follow my description is the musicians' union, but in some places even they do act beneficently. It is not so much the unions generally, it is the local unions vs specific corporations, where protection and other benefits are important. In some businesses most all employees would be part-time and not subject to benefits if there were not a union there. Some union locals are not run wel at all and they can be destructive. On the other hand some businesses are responsible to their employees and employees are happy without a union. Of course that's by far the best case. In general I think you are being way too general.

Well I have been in a union. Two in fact. Both were run by and for the Mob. And I've dealt with unions as part of mgt. including when I ran strip clubs. None of them were concerned with the public, NONE ! So anytime you see one of the Health Care Workers or SEIU commercials saying how much they care about the public, get a hand on your wallet ASAP ! The most entertaining are the ones from the NEA trying to tell everyone how much they care about students.

Generally speaking , there was a time when unions served their purpose and improved the lot of workers. Today we have labor laws, OSHA and all sorts of state laws designed to protect workers. If employers want to attracf workers they have to pay the going wage. I think we'd all be better off if they didn't provide benefits. WHAT ? How can I say that ? I think people should take of these things themselves. Split the difference with the workers and let them buy their own health coverage and fund their own pension.

There are plentry of ways to deal with scumbag and exploitative companies. One thing I'd do is permit workers to sue their own employers for employer negligence. Let's do away with these archaic Worker's Comp. systems that screw the worker. The Comp. benefits suck and it takes too long to get them.Together with OSHA regs. that would give employers incentives to provide safe workplaces.