Organized Labor

[John Galt?]

Do I really even need to comment on stocking cap dude?

I wish you would.

i can't. My eyes roll too hard to see the keyboard.

[Biggs3535]

Imagine the owner of the noodle shop being confronted by his employees that they were unionizing.

I'm guessing the owner would probably laugh even harder than I did after hearing that fool speak.

[John Galt?]

TONIGHT-On "Hell's Kitchen". The teams are down to 4 each and Chef Ramsey tells them they must design their own menus. But the Red Team decides that in the interest of "fairness and worker equality" to let the dishwashers and busboys design the menu. Hilarity and chaos ensue.

[spartan]

This dude gets it...

Did he really say it was unfair because the owner gets to tell the employees what to do?

[dalbuc]

The problem with government labor unions is that there is no check on their bargaining power. In theory, not at car companies obviously, a union can't rake more out of a company than it can afford to pay. The might chisel out more than management would want but ultimately there is a limiter on their greed. That isn't the case in government where the money supply appears to be endless - hell just raise taxes or borrow more- and almost no one in charge has any real interest in limiting their gains - obviously no democrat in the modern world is going to shoot down their main support group.

Couple in that while I'm on board with protesting what the Democrats who fled Wisconsin are trying to do is basically invalidation an elections by hundred of thousands of people and destroy the concept of majority rule by perverting the quorum rules (which are designed to stop lock outs not run aways) and basically forcing anything they disagree with not only to get a super majority but a super duper majority. imagine the howls if the R's took their ball and went home instead of voting up or down on Obamacare.

[nybuccguy]

The problem with government labor unions is that there is no check on their bargaining power. In theory, not at car companies obviously, a union can't rake more out of a company than it can afford to pay. The might chisel out more than management would want but ultimately there is a limiter on their greed. That isn't the case in government where the money supply appears to be endless - hell just raise taxes or borrow more- and almost no one in charge has any real interest in limiting their gains - obviously no democrat in the modern world is going to shoot down their main support group.

Couple in that while I'm on board with protesting what the Democrats who fled Wisconsin are trying to do is basically invalidation an elections by hundred of thousands of people and destroy the concept of majority rule by perverting the quorum rules (which are designed to stop lock outs not run aways) and basically forcing anything they disagree with not only to get a super majority but a super duper majority. imagine the howls if the R's took their ball and went home instead of voting up or down on Obamacare.

  No Democrat will challenge them?   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/nyregion/03nygovside.html

  Public labor unions have become too powerfull in specific scenarios, but that is no reason to eliminate them.  The public labor unions are not the problem, the politicians who bend to their every demand are to blame. Many Democrats are corrupted by such organizations in the same way most Republicans are corrupted by corporate lobbyists and interests. The governor of Wisconsin is a perfect example. He is union busting and using the budget as an excuse for his corruption. The unions were willing to concede to all of his financial requests and cuts, yet he would not accept.  His budget proposal cuts numerous social services while at the same time cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. If balancing the budget was his main concern he would not be reducing the states income. These tax cuts only benefit the ultra rich, and not the state as a whole. It is no suprise that the governor is backed financially by the billionaire Koch brothers who stand to get even richer off these tax cuts while middle class Americans are losing jobs and services.

I have some issues with the way labor unions function, but you cant throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Corporate interests already corrupt our politicians (on both sides) to the extreme, and with the supreme courts latest ruling it will only get worse. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html    Unions are necessary to defend the interests of the constantly shrinking middle class. Unions are not the evil demogogues that conservative media are currently depicting them as, they are a tool for equality.  If you dont like the behavior of some unions(as I do) blame the politicians who dont put them in check. The movement to bust the unions is unnecessary and is against the best interst of the majority of Americans.

While most of the folks in that video are whackos, the one great pointthey make is that it is unethical to fix a recession on the backs of the middle class and poor when the ultra rich who caused this situation continue to increase their profits. How can anyone say it is a good thing for Wisconsin to close schools and reduce the benefits of police and firemen, just so the Koch brothers can make a few billion dollars more?

[ufojoe]

Now for non-skilled workers to organize on a company by company basis, i have no problem if the sole purpose is to improve conditions and bargaining leverage.

Why just non-skilled workers? My job is considered a skilled one so I'm curious to hear your thinking.

[dalbuc]

  Public labor unions have become too powerfull in specific scenarios, but that is no reason to eliminate them.  The public labor unions are not the problem, the politicians who bend to their every demand are to blame. Many Democrats are corrupted by such organizations in the same way most Republicans are corrupted by corporate lobbyists and interests. The governor of Wisconsin is a perfect example. He is union busting and using the budget as an excuse for his corruption. The unions were willing to concede to all of his financial requests and cuts, yet he would not accept.  His budget proposal cuts numerous social services while at the same time cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. If balancing the budget was his main concern he would not be reducing the states income. These tax cuts only benefit the ultra rich, and not the state as a whole. It is no suprise that the governor is backed financially by the billionaire Koch brothers who stand to get even richer off these tax cuts while middle class Americans are losing jobs and services.

Yes, it is a reason to eliminate them. There's no reason for politicians to limit their growth and when you try you get what we've got now. The growth in government salaries and benfits has been astounding. Unlike most jobs, when a government worker makes a dollar he doesn't add value, they just re-arrange existing dollars. Second, it isn't like these cats don't have labor protection based on a slew of labour laws in this country. They're hardly being thrown into **CENSORED**ensian poverty. Why would the unions concede but want to keep CB? Hmm, maybe they're waiting for the winds of change to hit and then immediately recoup what they'd lost in the next bargaining session?

Again, when you raises taxes on the rich it doesn't help. This has been proven many times over. Projections of revenue assume these guys are dumb and do not adjust their actiivity to reflect changes in taxation.

[spartan]

  Public labor unions have become too powerfull in specific scenarios, but that is no reason to eliminate them.  The public labor unions are not the problem, the politicians who bend to their every demand are to blame. Many Democrats are corrupted by such organizations in the same way most Republicans are corrupted by corporate lobbyists and interests. The governor of Wisconsin is a perfect example. He is union busting and using the budget as an excuse for his corruption. The unions were willing to concede to all of his financial requests and cuts, yet he would not accept.  His budget proposal cuts numerous social services while at the same time cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. If balancing the budget was his main concern he would not be reducing the states income. These tax cuts only benefit the ultra rich, and not the state as a whole. It is no suprise that the governor is backed financially by the billionaire Koch brothers who stand to get even richer off these tax cuts while middle class Americans are losing jobs and services.

Yes, it is a reason to eliminate them. There's no reason for politicians to limit their growth and when you try you get what we've got now. The growth in government salaries and benfits has been astounding. Unlike most jobs, when a government worker makes a dollar he doesn't add value, they just re-arrange existing dollars. Second, it isn't like these cats don't have labor protection based on a slew of labour laws in this country. They're hardly being thrown into **CENSORED**ensian poverty. Why would the unions concede but want to keep CB? Hmm, maybe they're waiting for the winds of change to hit and then immediately recoup what they'd lost in the next bargaining session?

Again, when you raises taxes on the rich it doesn't help. This has been proven many times over. Projections of revenue assume these guys are dumb and do not adjust their actiivity to reflect changes in taxation.

Walker is not proposing eliminating them, he is proposing limiting them. Yes, the Unions have agreed to all (?) Walkers demands for cuts, but that was after fighting tooth and nail. Also, remember the big hullabaloo about GM workers losing out because the Unions were asked to make concessions during the bailout? Well, the Unions are already in negotiations to "reclaim what was lost.". Seeing as the Union member in chief is sat in the Whitehouse, receiving visits from the top Union dogs 3 times a week, and still owns a majority share in the company, how do you think that will work out? How can they do this? Collective Bargaining for anything and everything that relates to the work place combined with the political clout they bought with their campaign funds.

Public Unions use their dues to elect people who's job is to negotiate their working conditions and pay. Therefore they earn more, work less and retire earlier. What galls me the most is that when times get tough, while paying lip service to "fairness" and "shared sacrifice"  they expect those who already have less than they do to cough up more so they don't have to cough up much if anything at all. So yea, the Public Unions are the problem. Do they have a role? Certainly, but not how they currently operate.

[Biggs3535]

Yes, the Unions have agreed to all (?) Walkers demands for cuts, but that was after fighting tooth and nail.

Right, and for how long?  This is a point the liberals like to leave out.

[John Galt?]

Now for non-skilled workers to organize on a company by company basis, i have no problem if the sole purpose is to improve conditions and bargaining leverage.

Why just non-skilled workers? My job is considered a skilled one so I'm curious to hear your thinking.

Because your skill level gives you bargaining power that a union can't give you. Why should a highly skilled cameraman with awards and a great resume` make the same as a first year cameraman with little experience or skill? Shouldn't higher skill level and experience give you greater pay?

Non-skilled labor has a clear disadvantage in free market bargaining, because any individual can easily be replaced with someone else, possibly cheaper, with little difference in output. Assembly line work in particular is disadvantaged, because the individual cannot produce more than the line will allow him so a "good" worker has no bargaining power if he is competing with a "mediocre" replacement worker. The assembly line only moves as fast as the slowest worker, so the fastest worker has no leverage or bargaining advantage.

A skilled worker has his own skill level to use in wage bargaining. If you are very good/highly skilled, then employers are competing for you. There is no need for a union because free market forces will give the very good/highly skilled MORE than a collective bargaining arrangement where the best and worst are lumped together to get an average deal.

I will say, your occupation is an exception. Your unions are more akin to Guilds. The purpose isn't to negotiate with one particular employer for wages and working conditions as much as negotiating industry contract standards for things like royalties and ownership of intellectual properties.

[Skull and Bones]

[spartan]

If anybody still doesn't think Unions are part of this problem, watch this:

[shawn731]

If anybody still doesn't think Unions are part of this problem, watch this:

Kinda one-sided dont you think?  Im sure for every post that supports your position one can be found for the alternate.

Im really not trying to choose sides, but cmon produce something that shows neutrality. 

[spartan]

Kinda one-sided dont you think?  Im sure for every post that supports your position one can be found for the alternate.

Im really not trying to choose sides, but cmon produce something that shows neutrality.

Why? It supports my point that Unions are at the very least part of the problem.