Unions

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I must commend you on your distinctive "Quack! Quack!"

It is not surprising, given the manner in which you are trying to "Duck" from from your original printed words!

Fuck off. That was in reference to your goose/gander crap.

Obviously you don't have anything to say to refute me, so you have to rely on the "neener, neener" bullshit.

I originally said "Unions are a form of monopoly." Only a maroon would interpret that as there is only one union. I guess you qualify.

Piece of free advice. When you find you are at the bottom of a hole, quit digging.

[Smokin Joe]

How does one know when they have reached the bottom of the hole they are digging?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

How does one know when they have reached the bottom of the hole they are digging?

That's an easy one!
When they have nothing meaningful to say other than "Quack! Quack!" and "Fuck Off"!

[awl4knot]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You going to expound on how I'm wrong or is this just going to be one of those "Neener, neener" drive attacks?

Originally Posted by pjorourke

No you misunderstood what I was saying. Unions create a monopoly for labor within a company -- essentially they prevent others from accepting a wage offer from a company that the union doesn't approve -- less so in right to work states, although there is always intimidation.

P.J.,

This is what happens when you try to deal with complicated subjects by using labels and catch phrases.

You already made the qualification that in right-to-work states your definition of "monopoly" does not apply, but more importantly, the description of unions as monopolies misses the point on several levels. Businesses don't want to individually negotiate workers' contracts, but they do want to have a take it or leave it arrangement. So it was the judgment of Congress that workers have the right to collectively organize to balance this equation. Congress also gave workers the right to strike (withholding services) as a means of putting economic pressure on management. But despite the loss of the right to individually negotiate a contract, workers must still ratify contracts and in that sense they choose whether they want to accept the terms of employment.

But your syllogism also goes awry by suggesting that monopolies are considered bad in business. Your are right, to a point. It seems pretty basic that every self-respecting company wants the legally acceptable equivalent of monopoly: a dominant market share. Every business wants to have the overwhelming economic power to force its customers and suppliers to accept its terms as there are no other realistic options. So at some level, a monopolistic position is desirable, unless you are on the other side of the equation.

If you want to see a real quasi-monopoly, look at Wal-Mart. If you speak to anyone who deals with it, you will learn that it wields a very big economic stick when it negotiates with vendors. The threat that Wal-Mart won't deal with you is really intimidating to many businesses. The result is that Wal-Mart customers get better prices but the vendors have reduced earnings for their shareholders.

But if we agree that monopolies are bad, then don't we have to look sharply at those situations where businesses have a monopoly over the labor market in areas with high unemployment or in company towns? Take for example the mining industry in West Virginia. If the mining companies are the only "game in town" don't they have a monopolistic position in the labor market and isn't that a bad thing?

In April more than a score of miners were killed in an explosion at the Upper Big Bend Mine in West Virginia. The mine's owner, Massey Energy Co., has a long history of safety violations. Massey's monopolistic position as the biggest employer in the region seems to have allowed it to flaunt the law and the workers and their union didn't have the economic wherewithal to complain. As a result 25 husbands, fathers and sons died.

I could go on, but what's the point? I suspect you will still be reflexively anti-union no matter what I or anyone else says. Unions are imperfect institutions. Big Business and Wall Street are imperfect institutions. But those imperfections don't justify wholesale condemnations laced with hot button phrases borrowed from the "freedom of choice" or "free market" economy camps. But pundits like buzz words and abhor nuance.

I will repeat what I said earlier. I deal with unions on a regular basis. They are often an irritant, but on balance I think they serve useful purposes. Their survival will be based on how well they adapt, but we all know that.

Is this pointed enough for you?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

P.J.,


Is this pointed enough for you?

I hope you have better luck than I. All he has given thus far is an egotistical "Quack! Quack" followed by an obnoxious "Fuck Off!"

PJ does not seem to handle disagreement very well!

awl4knot---With that said, you make excellent points!

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

a) You already made the qualification that in right-to-work states your definition of "monopoly" does not apply

b) Businesses don't want to individually negotiate workers' contracts, but they do want to have a take it or leave it arrangement. So it was the judgment of Congress that workers have the right to collectively organize to balance this equation. Congress also gave workers the right to strike (withholding services) as a means of putting economic pressure on management. But despite the loss of the right to individually negotiate a contract, workers must still ratify contracts and in that sense they choose whether they want to accept the terms of employment.

c) If you want to see a real quasi-monopoly, look at Wal-Mart. If you speak to anyone who deals with it, you will learn that it wields a very big economic stick when it negotiates with vendors.

d) But if we agree that monopolies are bad, then don't we have to look sharply at those situations where businesses have a monopoly over the labor market in areas with high unemployment or in company towns? Take for example the mining industry in West Virginia. If the mining companies are the only "game in town" don't they have a monopolistic position in the labor market and isn't that a bad thing?

In April more than a score of miners were killed in an explosion at the Upper Big Bend Mine in West Virginia. The mine's owner, Massey Energy Co., has a long history of safety violations. Massey's monopolistic position as the biggest employer in the region seems to have allowed it to flaunt the law and the workers and their union didn't have the economic wherewithal to complain. As a result 25 husbands, fathers and sons died.

e) I could go on, but what's the point? I suspect you will still be reflexively anti-union no matter what I or anyone else says. Unions are imperfect institutions. Big Business and Wall Street are imperfect institutions. But those imperfections don't justify wholesale condemnations laced with hot button phrases borrowed from the "freedom of choice" or "free market" economy camps. But pundits like buzz words and abhor nuance.

a) I said it was less of an issue in a right to work state. There is still intimidation.

b) Just because Congress decided something, doesn't make it right. They have created a "equity right" for workers where none existed. Most workers, in my experience, don't want a real equity deal -- just a rigged one.

c) Smart companies stay the hell away from Wal-Mart. I've never heard of any one who made money working with them. Moved a lot of product, but didn't make squat. But that's their choice.

d) That's not an argument for labor law, its an argument for enforcement of workforce safety requirements -- if OSHA wasn't wasting their time putting sticks up their ass.

e) Well duh! Life is all nuance. Discussion boards are not.

[atlcomedy]

Wal*Mart is a great company with which to do business.

Have any of you haters actually done business with them?

They are demanding but most of the horror stories you hear from vendors have a similar root cause: the business is unable to meet the supply chain requirements of WMT or doing so is a cost to them.

WMT "gets" the principle that a deal needs to be "win/win" & profitable for them and the vendor.

Contrast that with say Home Depot when it was still run by Marcus & Blank. Their merchants truly didn't get the whole "win/win" thing. They are better now.

This whole WMT vendor thing is a big urban legend, usually spread by would-be vendors that were beat by competitors but want to save face and tell a good story over cocktail hour at the trade show. It is kind of like the jilted suitor calling the prom queen a "slut" after he is rejected.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

One of the few groups that can muster enough treasure to present meaningful opposition to the candidates and agenda of Big Business is labor. Labor has the funds and expertise to do it. Unless organized labor provides funding for viewpoints that differ from those of Big Business, BB will dominate the political process, which is driven by the search of campaign dollars.

You're on drugs if you think that the unions can even come close to spending as much as the business community. The business community is outspending the unions by a huge amount in this cycle and nobody has even had much time to organize since this case came down. The numbers will be even more lopsided in 2012.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...093,full.story

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'll just toss this in here. Employees cannot just jump to another job if they don't like the wages or conditions at their current employment. I understand that within the last several years 401k's and the like are transferable however the older a worker gets it may cost them dearly to go somewhere else. In a perfect world that would be the best solution however technology is on the employer's side not the employee's.

A global economy cannot be stopped. Just like the industrial revolution couldn't. Millions of people will be effected for the rest of their lives. The middle class is on life support and cannot be saved. The rich will indeed get richer and everyone else has to decide what they can or cannot live with.

[Guest052115-1]

Originally Posted by Ansley

I was around ALPA (a pilot's union) for a few years. If a pilot was senior enough he could go for weeks without flying, yet get a pretty good paycheck. Needless to say the old boyfriend was really good at golf. lol


I would love to know what opinion y'all have of unions.

Depends on your point of view. Ask those senior pilots what they think about the ALPA and they will all stand up about how great it is. Ask them what they think of the UAW, AFSCME, SEIU or other unions and they will cuss them and call them criminals or thugs.

I generally support unions. Yes, there are some abuses that take place - BUT, the employers will also abuse the employees at times.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

I'll just toss this in here. Employees cannot just jump to another job if they don't like the wages or conditions at their current employment. I understand that within the last several years 401k's and the like are transferable however the older a worker gets it may cost them dearly to go somewhere else. In a perfect world that would be the best solution however technology is on the employer's side not the employee's.

Well I realize that as a pilot you have that whole seniority list issue, but candidly, that is a mess of your own making (i.e., you=ALPA).

But ignoring pilots, If someone can't go somewhere else and make more money (older or otherwise), it means that the market is telling them that they are fairly (or highly) compensated where they are. So is there now a right to be overpaid along with that health care thingy?

And I disagree with you regarding technology. Technology is opening more opportunities for the skilled employee and making it easier for the employer to find them.

A global economy belongs to the skilled. If you aren't skilled its your own damn fault.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

. I understand that within the last several years 401k's and the like are transferable .

They've been transferrable for awhile & for most of us those and similar programs will fund the bulk of retirements. (Unless you work for the government) the days of defined benefit retirement programs are dead. I think there is gonna be a real mess a few years down the road when many well paid people that didn't save realize they can't afford to retire and are working ("Welcome to WalMart") in some form or fashion into their 70's.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well I realize that as a pilot you have that whole seniority list issue, but candidly, that is a mess of your own making (i.e., you=ALPA).

But ignoring pilots, If someone can't go somewhere else and make more money (older or otherwise), it means that the market is telling them that they are fairly (or highly) compensated where they are. So is there now a right to be overpaid along with that health care thingy?

And I disagree with you regarding technology. Technology is opening more opportunities for the skilled employee and making it easier for the employer to find them.

A global economy belongs to the skilled. If you aren't skilled its your own damn fault.

I have some sympathy for older workers. Somebody changed the rules on them. It used to be: find a good job with a good company, work hard and don't do anything to fuck up the good thing you got going. But the world has changed and we aren't going back.

I think going forward, as companies want more flexibility more and more of us will get 1099s instead of W-2s. Networking, being able to "sell yourself" and make a good deal for yourself will become part of any successful professional's skill set. Technical ability will only be part of the game.

Originally Posted by Stick1969

Depends on your point of view. Ask those senior pilots what they think about the ALPA and they will all stand up about how great it is. Ask them what they think of the UAW, AFSCME, SEIU or other unions and they will cuss them and call them criminals or thugs.

I generally support unions. Yes, there are some abuses that take place - BUT, the employers will also abuse the employees at times.

Reminds me of an athlete. You ask him about a controversial teammate & he'll say, "Yeah, Joe is an SOB but I'm glad he's our SOB."

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I have some sympathy for older workers. Somebody changed the rules on them. It used to be: find a good job with a good company, work hard and don't do anything to fuck up the good thing you got going. But the world has changed and we aren't going back.

I agree to some extent, but things changed about 20 years ago. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been paying attention.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I agree to some extent, but things changed about 20 years ago. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been paying attention.

I said I was sympathetic & I am. I've seen good families suffer because "Dad" wasn't too swift on the uptake & never thought "his" company would screw "him." Just because I'm sympathetic doesn't mean I'm excusing someone not taking personal responsibility for owning their own career. I agree this is not new but in fairness it wasn't like 20 years ago someone in a position of authority decreed from on high that the employer/employee relationship has changed (Contrast with say Obamacare, where unless you were living under a rock, you know Congress passed a bill & you are starting to think about what that means for your family). It was very much a gradual change. Human nature is to only look at our own situations or those around us. Heck, even in the last few years I've worked with at least 2 large corps that went thru reorganizations where I truly believe a good part of the employee base by & large really didn't see the handwriting on the wall or was living in some delusional world where it would never happen in their department or division.....

[WTF]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

. I agree this is not new but in fairness it wasn't like 20 years ago someone in a position of authority decreed from on high that the employer/employee relationship has changed.....

Labor would disagree. They might point to NAFTA or even earlier, Reagan's handling of the Air Traffic Controllers. The government referee had said the tie now goes to Business instead of Labor. Free trade has given capital access to cheap labor from anywhere. Capital in this country has always searched for cheap labor from the blacks to the Irish to the Italians and now the Mexicians.