IMHO, that's a fair scenario.
IMHO, that's a fair scenario.
unions dont have to demand higher wages, they can protect workers in other ways that regular labor laws dont.
of course you will earn more if you are in a union, and they can afford to pay you more, but they would rather have cheap disposable labor akin to a 3rd world country.
Are you talking about Denmark?
I wouldn't say they are completely socialist though... more like somewhere between the two.
Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism give the best life quality... rather the right mixture of the two. I think the Nordic countries have done a good job showing that.
^ Yeah because we all know that if someone caught this nonsense on video, then it means the unions should be crushed.
I for one, have never been able to understand the idea that firemen or police or teachers or any other public service non blue collar workers were ever allowed to collectively bargain. I agree, each one should have to individually negotiate their own salary and benefits. It is ridiculous that women workers should have to be paid equally as men as a general rule. Get rid of unions and let women get paid whatever they are willing to work for too.
When my mother was a nurse, there was no union and she didn't get any benefits or protection for working night after night and extra shifts. Or even a pension plan. Served her right for getting the sack for trying to get better pay and benefits for all the nurses in her hospital instead of just herself.
Unions have forgotten about their members needs and now use their members dues as a cash cow for liberal issues that have nothing to do with employment of their members.
After hearing about the forced re-employment of the Chrysler union members who drank booze and smoked pot in open view during their breaks, I'm even more convinced that unions have lost their way.
I'm still amazed that forced union membership has not be declared unconstitutional.
Morning Joe is killing it on the topic
Joe Scarborough is spot on
But the panel can't let themselves say the words
Uncomfortable that liberal minds cannot accept the idea that union dues membership political donations does not equate to people working
Unions much like Republicans are a dying breed as they have not refuse to
Adjust to modern day reality
Perhaps progressive minds can let that concept marinate
Having been a Michigan resident for most of my life and sitting on both sides of the table at bargaining sessions, what I find most distasteful about the actions that just took place in Lansing was the timing and way they occurred. If you look back at Governor Snyder's comments last year, he was emphatic that right-to-work was not on his agenda and went so far as to say he would veto legislation, should it make it through the legislature and to his desk. Why then, right after the election when Obama and the Dems blasted through Michigan and Wisconsin (the other team's "home") did the governor find right-to-work such a hot issue that it had to be rushed through and then have an appropriation attached to it so as to make it immune from being petitioned and voted on by the people (appropriations cannot be subject to voter initiatives under the Michigan Constitution)? Why was the legislation (which I have read), largely boilerplate language that has circulated from the Koch Brother's PAC?
I have read comments that unions protect slugs and others who should, from a management perspective, be tossed on their arse's. The bad thing about unions is that because they receive payment from EVERYONE in the union, they have an obligation to represent everyone who has contributed -- no matter that they might be in the wrong or stupid. As a manager, I would often be frustrated by this fact, but also know that both sides had a job to do and the union was doing its job. I also knew that if I made my case properly, the employee could still be discharged but I would have cause for the action which had been reviewed; I could not just come to work and toss someone out "be-cause." Under right to work, I need only have to fire someone -- I don't need a good reason. And if you have ever had to hire an attorney to defend yourself, imagine in the workforce if YOU have to hire one to defend you against any infraction? If you are in a union, the union pays for the attorney for you; the union has negotiated a process that assumes you are innocent until proven guilty; the union has likely created a process of progressive discipline and will ensure that all the "i's" have been dotted and "t's" crossed. As a manager, I had no problem with that process; hell, I even encouraged a group of employees to unionize. They were so individualistic and back-stabbing that I had to argue every time I met with them and as individuals they would send me notes or stop in my office to sell out another worker. When I said we negotiated as a department, they threatened a union and I never fought the application. The union rep later told me that I had "passed dirty" because they now had to educate and demonstrate that the employees "collectively" and not "individually" bargained! My life became soooo much easier.
The other problem with Michigan's law is that there is no penalty for not paying for the union. So I can freeload and take all of the benefits negotiated by the union without paying for one. I can criticize the union for supporting this or that cause -- but it is a union that governs by a will of the majority; not the minority. I too often see people more than willing to take the benefits and successes of the union all the while complaining they aren't "represented."
I also don't think unions have done a good enough job educating people about why they were and are necessary (do you enjoy set hours, overtime pay, equal treatment, grievance processes, arbitration rights, paid lunches, paid breaks, vacations, sick time, insurance, a middle class hourly wage, education benefits, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance, disability, not having your children working, health and safety at your employment -- just to name a few). From a management perspective, I never found them particularly difficult to engage. I find managers who bitch and complain the loudest usually abusive and unwilling to deal with even the most simple engagements. As a student of history, look back at the Carnegie's, Rockafellers and other giants that controlled the trusts in the early 1900's. They argued in the exact words I hear today by the Koch's and Republicans. As a former Republican, it pains me to see what the party has become...
But since this thread is about unions. No way should anyone be paid $100/hour plus a pension and benefits for life for aligning car doors or pushing a button for a robot to paint a car.
Unions have pushed manufacturing out of the USA by greed. A recent example is the small baker's union causing 18,000 people to lose their jobs making twinkies(r) and dingdongs(r). I doubt if there is one person in the US that begrudges anyone from making a fair wage - just not an excessive one for doing little.
- - - Updated - - -
Does anyone remember when Captain "Sullly" set his 737 down in the Hudson River? There were no fatalities.
1. He and his assistants were union.
2. Flight attendants were union.
3. First responders were union.
All reasonably skilled positions. :=D:
And the top notch attorney wasn't so top notch at teaching manners it appears
Unions need to live in the present and not rely on politicians to protect status that is not supported by economics or the public
Is what it is
Not everybody should be expected to possess bargaining skills and leverage strength in order to be paid fairly.
No, it's not faulty logic; it's economic reality and common sense. Just ask the many business owners who have chosen to stay away from Michigan because of this situation. Wake up and smell the coffee.
These are merly two or the many articles I found,
How about we have a Blame The Immigrants Appreciation Day every month? Let's say every first Tuesday of the month, we blame immigrants in every post we write for everything the topic is about :) It would be way awesome.
Yes, the wealthy unions have lost their way -- but lumping all unions together is invalid.
Identifying starting conditions is essential.
The second article is a bit better but is short on specifics.
Right to Work states might have more jobs but what kind? Something tells me it's of the minimum wage kind
When "Democrats" start to make some money, then they start to vote and think like Republicans; and suddenly they want to protect their own marginal incomes at any cost.
When in reality they aren't really making anything compared to the huge profits that the Corporations that they're working for get from tax subsidies, "corporate welfare," and "tax loopholes."
Wait for it:
That's the mantra from the right now isn't it?Quote:
Unions have pushed manufacturing out of the USA by greed.
So who's going to eventually look out for the workers in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and China?
You know, those "statistics" that we here about on the News here in America who are dieing in fires because they have no safety measures to protect their employees?
Who are being paid NOW by American Corporations to manufacture underwear with American Labels, but who refuse to spend just ten cents more per garment to ensure the safety of someone who might be taking home $30 a month.
Yes, INDEED, it's the UNION's Fault.
Yes, and both of the posts that I just quoted exemplify the thinking that has brought down Modern Democracies in the past 100 years.Quote:
A recent example is the small baker's union causing 18,000 people to lose their jobs making twinkies(r) and dingdongs(r). I doubt if there is one person in the US that begrudges anyone from making a fair wage - just not an excessive one for doing little.
Martin Niemoller exemplified it best:
So will you be standing in line at your local Walmart this Christmas, or going through the "self check out?"Quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Which in itself cost several non union hourly waged jobs, and saved Walmart tens of thousands of dollars in wages in benefits to close down 4 to 8 more registers.
Show me where, compared to Unions, that American Corporations have actually contributed to the Quality of Life of most of your fellow Americans.
Any link, any example beyond the superficial would be appreciated. :)
Let me ask you this. Why is Walmart fighting tooth and nail to Prevent it's workers from unionizing? Is it because they are so fairly paying their workers? Or is it because they would have to face a much more formative opponent when they treat workers unfairly.
I have been a huge opponent of Unions when they do things that make you scratch your head like the behavior of the above Chrysler article.
How much the federal minimum wage would be if it had kept up with inflation over the past 40 years. Instead, it’s $7.25. Learn More
The annual income for a full-time employee working the entire year at the federal minimum wage.
The number of states where a minimum wage worker can afford a two-bedroom apartment working a 40-hour week. Learn More
The number of times Congress passed legislation to increase the minimum wage in the last 30 years.
The number of states (including the District of Columbia) which have raised their minimum wage above the federal level of $7.25.
The number of states that annually increase their state minimum to keep up with the rising cost of living.
The percentage of Americans that support gradually raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to at least $10.00 an hour, according to an October 2010 poll.
64 in 100 vs. 4 in 100
What are the chances an adult minimum wage worker is a woman vs. the chances a Fortune 500 CEO is a woman? Learn More
The percentage of Missouri voters that voted to increase and index the Misourri minimum wage in the 2006 ballot initiative.
The federal minimum wage for tipped employees, such as waiters and waitresses, nail salon workers, or parking attendants.
^ I worked in management for Walmart for nearly five years.
Walmart "Corporate" will be the first ones to tell you that they're not opposed to "Unions."
(Because many of the Unions are responsible for their "state of the art logistics systems," but only as contractors.)
Just like the same people who are living and dieing in the sweat shops that they contract to manufacture goods with American names use "subcontractors" keep you Saving More, and Living Better.
They just have all of their "hourly" staff convinced that Walmart's "Open Door Policy" regarding Walmart is so much more superior to having "Union Reps."
Meaning that from Walmart's perspective they can demote you, humiliate you, cut your hours, and then benefits, that as an "hourly associate" you'd be stupid to complain.
Oh, and Walmart has other measures to deal with employees who want to organize.
They're big enough to shut down an entire store.
Each time you drive past a Walmart Super Center, know that it employs (on average) 300 people.
The city that the Walmart Super Center is located in gave tens of thousands of dollars in "tax subsidies" fpr Walmart to build there; infrastructure, tax abatements, you name it. Usually for a 10 years or more "contract" with that municipality.
Walmart deciding to close, or relocate could bankrupt a local town just in legal fees alone in breaking that contract.
So most folks who think that they're getting the raw end of the deal in how they're treated as American Workers for Walmart, have other external pressures to avoid Unions.
And let's not forget the topic of this discussion; "right-to-work" laws make it possible for Corporations to continue to operate that way.