Forum Post: So Now The Unions Have Joined Your Cause…
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 1:08 p.m. EST by MikeInOhio
(13)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We all know that unions came into being due to horrible working conditions during the Industrial Revolution, right? Well, not exactly, but we will assume for a moment that this is the case.
Over the years working conditions improved to such a point that you could show up at a UAW plant during the 1970’s and make about $70 per hour (inflation adjusted) to assemble automobiles. Everything worked great for a while and the public paid far higher prices for cars than they should have. Union workers had a great life- huge paychecks, medical & dental insurance, golden pensions. Many retired at age 50 without a care in the world.
Then a funny thing happened in the 1980’s. An Ohio company, Cincinnati Milacron, developed some of the world’s most inovative robotic assembly machines. When GM, Ford, and Chrysler attempted to purchase this equipment they were threatened by the unions with violent strikes. In fact, it took over 7 years for the first robot to be installed in a US auto plant thanks to union bullying and outright violence. The result- Honda and Toyota’s dominance of the auto industry.
There were other results too. General Motors was sucked dry by the unions, culminating in its’ eventually bankruptcy. This was not your typical bankruptcy, mind you, it was the first bankruptcy in US history (that I am aware of) where the rule of law was disregarded. Creditors who were owed money by GM in the form of bonds were told by President Obama that they were “rich investors”. These investors, who were mostly pension funds, were offered about 8 cents on the dollar (even though their claims were in front of union pension claims). The unions came out of the bargain being vested, and owning a large portion of GM stock. Some “bail-out”.
So how do unions retain this power to extort money from the taxpayers? Violence. Since 1991 there have been approximately 1,300 acts of violence by union members against workers, the public, and management. Here is a list of the most violent unions, in order of number of reports to law enforcement: Teamsters- 450 incidents Labor- 220 incidents Service Unions- 170 incidents UAW- 160 incidents UBEW (Electrical Workers)- 125 incidents
If you are doing the math, that is one violent incident every 6 days.
I really hope that something positive comes out of your movement, but an alliance with union thugs makes you lose all credibility.
Your claim of union violence is similar to the tactic of blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few. It is a smear by association tactic of propagandists.
So a CEO deserves $7,291/hr but the fella actually assembling the car can't make $70/hr? I don't condone thug tactics but lets have some damn balance
OK, how much can a CEO make? You tell me. Once you set your limit we can all look forward to the best of them leaving for Europe and Asia.
People who become CEOs attain their status by working hard, making decisions that produce results, and competing with others who want the job.
Union workers, on the other hand, face no competition for their job and are guaranteed a salary and benefits for showing up. The best workers don't get paid more for their efficiency, but the bad workers never leave the gravy train. In the private sector they lose their jobs.
Maybe it would be better if "the best of them" leave.
Union jobs are very competitive because they tend to have good pay and benefits. You imply with your statement the union workers do not work hard, don't help improve their workplaces, and do not lose jobs. These are all talking points provided by anti union propagandists. They are not true. Union members have a stake in making quality products in an efficient manner, and as a union member I participated on a lean six team to improve productivity, and as a non union member I was on a lean six team to improve non union workers compliance with a workplace rule that was being ignored. I saw union and non union employees fired, and I saw union and non union members who should have been fired protected instead. I saw the union move to defend workers and also not defend others depending upon the offense, not the persons affiliations with the boss. I worked sixty hour weeks and worked off shift. I was wedged in holes, hung upside, or balanced on a two inch beam for hours. I destroyed my knee and was exposed to hazardous chemicals. I now have no job, no insurance, no retirement, and the company has multimillion dollar contracts with the government. But according to your argument, I should never have been laid off, didn't contribute to my company, or work hard.
You are still using straw man arguments.
No, I did not say union workers don't work hard or work to improve their workplace. I said poor workers can't be flushed out of the system. Take a look at the teaching profession- good luck getting rid of a bad teacher! Most teachers are very good to excellent, but some are not.
I understand your plight and, in fact, have a similar story (no injury though). Did you file worker's comp? What was the outcome? I'm no lawyer, but if you hurt your knee at work I would think you have an excellent case.
I'm sorry, but I don't think we can afford a cradle-to-grave entitlement system. You seem like a very nice person who had some bad luck. You may think I'm being disingenuous, but I am not. I wish no ill will on any person who works for a living. I'm no "straw man" debater, just a guy in his basement in Ohio who worries about the direction of our country.
I said you implied it. You defend the exorbitant pay the upper echelon provide for themselves by saying they earned it. This implies that if you don't make that much it is because you must not earn it. A great deal of communication occurs through inference. If great ideas, strong leadership and hard work is rewarded through pay and bonuses, explain how the leadership of the banks that brought us to the brink of ruin earned their millions in pay and bonuses. They did not. They see it as their due: an entitlement just for being special maybe.
Come out of the basement and get to know those union workers: they are just hardworking people. They are your neighbors. Talk to them instead of judging them.
I did come out of the basement several months ago and visited the union demonstration at the Capital building in Columbus, OH. The teachers, firefighters, police, and Teamsters unions were there in force to protest our Governor's recent changes to collective-bargaining and pension contributions to public workers. I was actually naive enough to think these fine folks who engage in a civil debate. What I found was 10,000 of the most nasty, foul-mouthed, close-minded, self-centered people I have ever seen in my life. That "meeting" had a profound influence on my opinion of unions.
Getting bashed for being in a union despite saving lives and educating children will do that to you. Public servants used to get respect. I think they still should. See, the way people see it is that you are being disrespectful to who they are by not allowing them to earn a living doing what they love. And they serve you! Thats the crazy part about it. They dont want to have a debate, they want to have some rights.
Oh yes. The poor teacher who works her fingers to the bone educating "our" children. Have you noticed that our public education system is the worst in the developed world? Cleveland Public graduates 45% of their kids. Yet, the average salary is $85,000 per year (sorry, 7.6 months) for a teacher with 10 years experience (plus dental, plus health). Who the heck has dental insurance? I just paid $1,400 for two root canals. Yes, they do deserve our respect.
Saving lives? Where I live the brave firefighters have had to endure 1 fire in 7 years, while the real firefighters in the downtown area are constantly on runs. Yet our suburban firefighters earn MORE than the ones who actually work. Average salary here is $72,000 and you can buy a very nice 2,000 square foot house for $150,000. That's absolutely insane. And don't give me the argument that it's dangerous work. It isn't. Fishing is more dangerous.
Where do you live, Moldova?
You ever hear about 9-11?
Sorry, you didn't answer any of the questions.
Thats because your basis was disingenous.
Premise, not basis
That point was a little late for debate, don't you think? At that time it comes across as an extension of the original attack by the governor and state houses. That's kind of like being surprised that a dog bit you when it was in a the middle of being attacked by a pack of wolves, and then holding a grudge for it! And if you gave them the same arguments you've given here, I can see that they would have had some problem in being receptive.
Try approaching with a cookie, instead. Common ground does exist.
I would say this is very right. I think you went there, just like here, to heckle those people. Maybe I am wrong but from what I have seen, I think not.
Well, I see now why you support these people. Apparently there are certain circumstances (decided by you) where it is OK to become violent. I deserved to get my ass kicked, what can one expect from these union people, they're just itching for a fight. OK, 10,000 idiots down at the Statehouse.
So being asked to pay 15% of your health insurance costs gives you the right to kick somebody's ass. Well, I pay 100% of my health insurance, maybe I should go out and kick the asses of people who don't agree with me.
Your argument is pathetic. Go find someone else to bother.
Where's the beef? No more comments on this thread?
...and running the business into the ground so badly that they need a taxpayer bailout? You obviously have little knowledge of union contracts. Workers often "bid" for jobs. or make piece work pay.... which rewards hard, efficient work. Again, I don't condone violence or corruption but what we are talking about here is the connection between legislation and the influence of wealth. Legislating the rules to benefit the legislator
Who exactly are they "bidding" against? Contracts are bid using prevailing-wage specifications on all projects that use public money. That is not bidding.
no, individual workers bid within the mnfg process...nevermind. But what is wrong with a worker making a reasonably good living? If a company does well, what/who is more likely the reason, 1 guy at the top or the thousands who actually do the work? And the guy making $70/hr spends his money at the bottom, buying goods and services in hard times and good times, whereas a millionaire can afford to hold spending until the economical climate is suited to favor him. BUT I very much agree that thug tactics are bad, and unions often protect lazy, inefficient workers. Inefficiency is not a union problem solely though... there is our political system for instance.
even though there are unions, businesses are allowed to pay a worker $8/hr... Try to live on $8/hr. Try to put yourself through school on $8/hr. Try to build your american dream on $8/hr... you'll wish somebody was looking after you.
Of course you can't, that's why you stay in school and get an education, or attend a trade school. If you want to set a high minimum wage of, say, $25 per hour why would most people bother with an education. This is the other affect the unions have had- large numbers of workers decided to forgo their college educations because the unions were offering wages that turned out to be unsustainable.
Of course I wish everyone made $70 per hour. The problem is 99% of businesses can't afford to pay that much because their products would be too expensive for consumers to purchase. GM couldn't afford what the unions forced on them and they went bankrupt. End of story.
There are plenty of union jobs that demand an education. Such as becoming a teacher or a nurse and many of these jobs require the worker to continualy improve on there education so that they stay relevant in there prefession
Mike, alot of people in this protest have grad degrees. Many are unemployed or underemployed. I am curious what is your solution to all of this? Allow any business to do as they please, even if that means sweatshop conditions? And as I have already told you in another post, that was NOT the end of the story for GM. The end of the story was getting too heavily involved in finance, rather than concentrating on selling cars.
GM defaulted because of finance? Did your Princeton professors tell you that? No, GM defaulted because of a trillion dollar liability for union pensions, You can sugarcoat it any way you like, but that was the cause.
I've made my position clear in many, many posts. I'm not here to make friends, and I'm not here to demean people. I'm here to discuss this huge problem we have with our economy.
The solution to the problem is pulling together to solve the problem, not finding scapegoats on Wall St. and corporate America. And the wealth-bashing arguments are pathetic.
My solutions are relatively simple: Lower the corporate income tax rate to 10% to bring business back to America. Many American multinational companies don't pay any taxes here because they have moved offshore to lower-tax countries (e.g. Ireland & Spain).
Secondly, we need to simplify the tax code- maybe 3 flat rates.
Third, we need to do away with the interest deduction on homeownership. When I was in grad school 20 years ago virtually every business student thought it was a bad idea, and it is a worse idea today. There shouldn't be a tax incentive to own large homes.
Fourth, we need to increase the taxes on high-income earners by a reasonable amount, at least until we get the budget under control.
Fifth, I would love to see a balanced-budget amendment AFTER we get our fiscal house in order. Since that probably isn't going to happen soon we need to curb spending as much as possible.
Sixth, stop spending money on Federal Stimulus. Pres. Obama wants to spend $500B for "infrastructure" improvements. Every single dollar of Federal money spent on infrastructure improvements goes to union/prevailing wage shops.
That's a start
Do you know what Ally bank used to be? GM finance. How come we heard nothing about the balance sheet from GM until after the housing crisis? Because GM was trying to cover losses on other items instead of fully funding the pensions. As for my "Princeton" professors, I dont understand the accusation. Is this a part of the whole right wing, people who go to the Ivy league are stupid but dont realize they are stuff? As for your solutions. They seem to center around giving still more money and power to the wealthiest people in the country in hopes that we can obtain a different result than we have had for the past 30 years doing exactly that. The companies move offshore because they are allowed to do so which is one of the reasons we need money out of politics. Tax policy is not Panacea, to include the interest deduction on homes. Additionally, it will do nothing to solve our "right now" problem of high unemployment and a stagnant housing market. I completely agree with some of the tax proposals, but I don't think they will have a huge impact on the main problem and they wont do anything today to solve the problems of everyday Americans. Like increasing taxes on the wealthy, sure we do, but that wont help a single mother of two in the interim. I think a balanced budget amendment pushes too many state governments into a bad position when they hit hard times. There are times when Keynes is correct and that is where I disagree on the last part. I find the president to be rather timid on this account and I also feel he does too many "sugar rush stimulus" things which cannot sustain long term growth. But large infrastructure spending over a period of years could indeed be very effective. But not at the low amounts he is trying now.
If you will look at the facts you will find that GMAC was a very small part of the problem. I guess GM shouldn't have been allowed to finance their own cars? Why not? Ford Credit seems to be fine.
Well, unfortunately people who hate corporations will never understand the concept of lower corporate taxes, so I'll take it slow. If GE, for example, finds that the corporate tax environment in the US is changing for the better, they will decided to bring much of their business back home. This, in turn, creates jobs on American soil which produces American payroll taxes, social security taxes, property taxes, etc. Not only that, but now GE is paying corporate taxes to the American treasury, not the Irish or Swiss treasury. All this additional tax revenue helps offset the budget deficit. We have more people working, we are collecting more taxes, then you liberals can fund all you grandiose social programs! It ain't rocket science.
They were financing homes because they were allowed to be a bank......but see all us liberals are not always liberal on every account. This movement is supposed to encompass all of the 99% but it cant because there are those who just will defend the 1% and the income inequality to the end.
What's the problem with them opening a bank? They have been in the financing business for years. Are they allowed to switch car models without the governments approval? Should they be allowed to build a factory, or are they getting into the construction business too? Maybe we should regulate that also. Oh, I forgot! We are now regulating that. Boeing isn't supposed to open a plant in SC because the unions don't like SC because they don't do well there.
Well, they can open a bank, but then they shouldnt blame all of their losses after a huge financial sector blowout on labor unions. Clearly, a big part of the balance sheet for them, as for many others at the time, was real estate speculation.
ford did just fine... the rest of the story
i dont think there should even be a minimum wage... the problem is that when you look solely at increasing profits, the cheaper the labor, the more profits. good for business.... bad for worker. there really needs to social accountability and value placed on the quality of life of your employee... not just raw data.
If you cant bargain, and you have no minimum, what prevents the sweatshop?
i'm with you, but i'm making the point that an $8 min wage is a "sweat shop". no one could live on it.... without cheap credit that is... which is gone
Cheap credit is part of the corporate scheme.
well those days are over and i think our "leaders" have not considered the effect of low wages without cheap credit.
No. They set up the system to pay low wages and cheap credit so that people could still feel like they were middle class when in fact it was slipping away from them.
no disagreement here
Where do those numbers come from? The NLRB database? Most people who cite these numbers are citing Unfair Labor Practices charges - not Unfair Labor Practice complaints. Of the total number of charges filed, possibly 5% will end up in a complaint. Anyone - right now - can go file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board (no matter who you are or if you've ever had actual contact with a Union.) It will show up in the database. Go through that database one by one and see how many were dismissed. In fact, find me ONE - just ONE that ended up in a complaint and settlement/conviction.
You obviously have no idea how America's labor relations system works. Figuring out what you are talking about and come back and make a more reasoned argument.
Here's a prime example courtesy of KGW.com in Portland:
According to the NLRB complaint, on July 11, the union tore down a gate, trespassed onto EGT property, pushed rail cars out of a shed and climbed on them. Workers at the site were physically and verbally attacked, the report said. On July 25, union protesters spit on vehicles of competing union workers and threatened them with death, according to the NLRB. They also placed plastic bags filled with feces on the administration building of the EGT facility, according to the complaint. That same day, protesters assaulted the shop steward from Operating Engineers International Union, Local 701, which is now handling the work at the terminal. "Part of what is alleged here is that the union has been engaged in a variety of misconduct," said Richard Ahearn, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board.
I have never heard of people working at a private company doing this sort of thing. Unions resort to violence when they don't get their way.
This is the crap that they spew., To convince NON-UNION people that unions are bad. And let me guess...WHO would benefit from the demise of unions and organized AMERICANS..... You got it... CORP. GREED . and the 1% don't believe their BS!
70 dollars an hour is an OUTRIGHT LIE!!!!
Check your fact, please, before calling me a liar.
I am a UNION MEMBER! I am an AMERICAN! I believe in the AMERICAN right to peacefully organize and protest.... WHO and where do people get off calling this Socialist? LOOK at what they do! Do not believe the LIES of the FAR right wing and corp. America. They have controlled the masses for too long and ruined this country and the American dream. The unions are almost nonexistent now, less than 10% of the work force. and its not enough. History... This country was the MOST productive many will say in the 50's. This was when a large chunk of jobs were union, and the standard of living was good for the Average Joe ( six pack). The corp. greed drove down wages. Sold out Jobs. Turned Wall street into an almost gambling numbers game. The market goes up and down with almost no rhyme or reason. Then the GREED and CORP. controlled gov. GIVES THEM OUR MONEY!!!!! This needs to end... ITS NOT SOCIALIST!!!! ITS AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, genius, competition drove down wages, and the unions drove many companies into the ground by refusing to deal with competition.
It ain't rocket science.
funny, its always a great game to diabolize people that stand up to corporate power. the unions certainly have problems, but they are not the bad guy the corporations are. this is just finger pointing to distract from the true villain.
I see some finger pointing. If all these corporate criminals are defrauding everyone, why isn't Eric Holder prosecuting these rascals? Please tell me what exactly the corporations do that is so bad. Is it the corporation, or the people who run the business?
no, ultimately the people running the business are victims of a broken system and can't compete without being evil. Our laws allow evil Corporations to exist, and being evil in that ecology is then one main way to compete. so any corporation that fails to be evil in that ecology fails. CEOs and business leaders are victims of this, they can't get free of it without meaningful laws to control and regulate corporations. What do they do thats wrong? lie, murder, steal, cheat, ... really everything you can think of and some you probably wouldn't. Its quite a shocker to wake up and realize that corporations kill a hundred thousand people or so every day to bring you coffee and tea and rice and spice.
I am truly sorry you feel like that, ruth. I have a great deal of respect for our business community and it is obvious that you feel very pasionate about these issues. I know I can be a cynical jerk, but it really is sad so many people have a horrible opinion of corporations. I guess we are blessed in my city as our large corporations have an excellent track record of of local investment and charity. I don't know much about Santa Barbara (other than it sizzles) but the local Chamber of Commerce needs to get out and talk to folks.
I really appreciate your input
Something smells like cow manure.
My uncle worked in the auto industry for years, and he made $30 per hr. But if you can pay a guy millions for running the company into the ground, what the hell.
Stop attempting to deceive people. No one at any of the auto factories ever made $70 per hour. You can save that for a tea party site. I noticed that you didn’t mention how companies pay failed CEO’s millions to leave. Who the hell get paid for failing? That’s not capitalism, that’s welfare. There’s just to much to say, so I’ll just leave it here; GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS NOW!! http://sites.google.com/site/onecompanyatatime
Oh contraire, amigo. Many are still making $60 per hour today. Why don't you gather the facts, and do some reading, before you start running your mouth off. Most people are smart enough to figure out when they are being deceived; of course, there are always people like you who refuse to accept the truth.
I would be more than happy to explain how a CEO is paid millions to leave. He/she signed an employment contract that stipulated the payment. Nobody held a gun to the head of the shareholders and Board. Why don't you take your skill set and apply for a CEO's job? You have it all figured out, and I'm sure you would be happy to work for $20 per hour. Unfortunately, most companies aren't looking for ignorant people.
Who get's paid for failing. How about General Motors and the UAW? Shall I continue? How about the democrats who ran Fannie and Freddie into the ground.
You want money out of politics? Why don't you move to Moldova.
It’s been all over the news, GM is about to hire twelve thousand people at $13.00 per hr. And by the way, I make more than $20 per hr, SORRY. I KNOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE WE'RE ALL UNEMPLOYED, BUT NOT SO AMIGO.
Nope, didn't see that. Must have been an MSNBC special directed by Michael Moore.
$20 per hour? You need to pay more taxes, man. You make more than I do!
Actually, more than $20, and I happily pay taxes. I don’t mind paying taxes. What I hate is how both parties are stealing it. http://sites.google.com/site/onecompanyatatime
Good luck, Chris! I know you will be successful in life and I've enjoyed talking with you. Maybe I'll argue with you again.
You take care my friend. Enjoy your weekend.
No, why don't you gather the facts. It's well known that people that have been hired in the last 6 years are starting at $13.00 an hr. Also, you and I both know that the only reason CEO's get paid that kind of money is because they know people on the boards. When your an employee and the company fails, you go home, the end. Thanks for showing your hand. If you like your politicians being paid for their votes, then we know what you all about. That's why I put that out there, to see how you would respond. THANKS!
ok, you win.
You could be right about Dayton because the cost of living is higher there than where I live. $17.00 is not high. That's just enough to not live in the getto, where you may come home to drug dealers standing outside your home. Damn man, your hard. You think that's too much?
No, the new hires are at $17+ benes at the Dayton Plant. About where it should be. Good luck getting me on the facts.
So the CEOs conspire with the Boards to make lots of money? OK, that's absurd. That's not the way it works, other than in the union manuals.
A part of "going out of business" means that the owner can no longer afford to pay the employees. Yes you go home, where do you think you go? Then you collect years of unemployment insurance, right? What do you want, a back rub?
We must really be posing a threat to Wall Street's control over the government. That's the only reason I can think of to cause them to begin waging a latin american style "black ops" campaign against us. Trying to sew division amongst those joining together for change . . .
Divide and conquer, divide and conquer.
Also, I think we should demand regime change in Washington. Specifically, every appointee to a federal agency who has, in the past ten years, worked for Wall Street, should be removed from office.
Everything must be kept in check, anything when it gains too much power hs undesired consequences. BUT, the rise and fall of the middle class in the US graphs directly on top of the rise and fall of union membership.
Yes, they have problems, but they have over the last 75 years been much of the solution.
That is an interesting fact, but I doubt it has much to do with union membership. I believe it has more to do with competition from overseas having an impact on average wages. We've also lost a huge portion of our industrial and manufacturing basis. Obviously many of those were union jobs, so you can look at it that way.
Unfortunately the only real way to combat this stuff is is to erect trade barriers or become more efficient workers. Americans are still the most efficient workers in the world, but it is hard to compete against China with it's wage scale and undervalued currency.
More cow manure. First, they started breaking unions, then, that gave them the political ability to pass bad trade deals. Bad for the American worker, that is.
You rely on half-truths and false conclusions in most of your arguments. Another propagandist tool.
You further state that unions are a clear minority of the working population, yet they are somehow to blame for the fiscal irresponsibility and poor planning by government and industry? Your anti union stance is a reflection of your affiliations. You are attempting to divide the movement by focusing on a side issue and moderating your tone to appear reasoned and intelligent. I sincerely hope the readers here see through your charade.
Well they are only a minority because they have been bashed for so long. People dont know how to see them because they are fed propaganda about them. Trust me that this comes from the political right and more importantly, the wealthy corporations. The people in a union can vote to disolve it if they want. Amazingly, they dont. Want to know why? Zero job security, lower wages and worse health benefits.
There are companies that deal fairly with employees, and both they and the employees know it. There are practices that help build that relationship, like profit sharing, rewards for ideas, help with continuing education... None of these are required, but ethical companies recognize the importance of employees in whom they have invested training. But there are still the issues of ethical treatment of the customer, the society, and the environment. Less enlightened companies need help with all these issues in the form of laws and regulations backed with the power of law because they simply choose not to do the right thing over and over.
What affiliations do you think I might have? Does coaching soccer count?
Would you prefer I use a nasty tone and call you names, like so many of your cohorts have done the past few days?
Again, you can go on and on about conspiracies, but it really doesn't add any substance to the debate.
Bait and switch propagandist tactic. I have not discussed conspiracy, only your own discussion. There is no name calling here, so that is apropos to nothing. Your mention of affiliation is being offered to gain you sympathy and build a sense of familiarity with other posters. I did not ask for your affiliations, and my focus is on not on you personally, but on the strategy of your debate.
Great! Thanks
An apology...I realized that I did mention affiliation, but misunderstood your statement because I was thinking ideological, rather than personal. I was not clear, then I was unfair to you...my bad...
Thanks
Gm was not sucked dry by the unions. This is propaganda coming from the 1% who control the media and those who put their trust in a handful of mouthpieces. American automakers found themselves facing competition from automakers who made a better product, and then they failed to improve the quality of their own vehicles. They made a contract with the employees through the unions, which used to mean something.
They also involved themselves in the housing market, which was the bigger problem with them. They also involved themselves in banking which is the other problem. Ford did not follow this model as much as GM did and so it got through with no bankruptcy.
You can catagorize me as a right-wing media mouthpiece if you like, but that still begs the question. Show me how I am wrong.
There have been plenty of comments to that effect, and you choose to ignore my own comment thus implying it is not valid or lacks merit. This is another propagandist tactic. you must be either a professional propagandist, or someone who gets all his arguments from them. Which is it?
This is the dumbest post I have read in a long time. General Motors was closing auto plants in this country long before they found themselves going bankrupt, remember Michael Moore’s ‘Roger and Me’? Of course it is impossible to compete with scabby right-to-work states, and Mexican auto plants. With NAFTA and other “free trade” agreements, it becomes even harder. Also, GM forgot how to make a good automobile. That is why Toyota and Honda took over. GM, (and other U.S. auto manufacturers), were too busy putting all of their new technology into gas-guzzling SUVs and pick-up trucks. And, the robot reference is nothing new, technology marches on, eliminating jobs as it goes. The question is, what will we do with all of the redundant laborers, kill them off? If the right-wing has its way, with all of the budget-cutting, that is what will happen, and you will see more people hitting the streets.
Exactly. Watch Roger & Me again. Flint was going down the tubes because the unions refused to give any concessions of wages or pensions. You have selective memory. Read the part about the robots again.
GM "forgot" how to make a good car? Really. I think it is more like they COULDN'T make a good car with the wage scales and benefits they were paying. We now see the end result.
Baloney, there was nothing stopping them from engineering a better product. Mass manufacturing proceeds the same way, whether it be a crappy car or good one. Maybe the Japanese management had a few better ideas, with the team concept, but the history of animosity between the UAW, and the companies who resisted the unions from their inception, does not go away overnight. It is always a constant struggle to demand respect. Without the unions we are much worse off. If you are trying to tell me it is better to be working for 40 cents an hour in a Mexican auto plant, you are off-base. Even the Japanese plants in the "right-to-work" states wouldn't be paying what they do if it wasn't for the upward pressure on wages from the union plants in the north. When the unions go away, we all lose. We become a nation of sycophants, without due process, afraid to raise our voices.
Well, Bob, then I think we need to close the borders and engage in trade wars with every country in the world. That will show those pesky Japanese and Germans!
No Bob, Honda has several non-union plants here in Ohio and they seem to be doing fine without the unions. In fact, they are located within 40 miles of some of the old GM plants and they have consistently voted against unionization. Are you telling me that Honda pays more for labor than it should because of union pressure? Sorry, that may be how it works in Staten Island, but not here in Ohio.
Unions are not just about wages and benefits. They are about seniority, protection against arbitrary firing, due process itself. They are about having rights. They allow for advancement through job posting, instead of backroom favoritism. Of course, the real world doesn't always operate like this, but that is the ideal. Why someone would rather vote the union down, and live in fear, is beyond me. It probably has more to do with being shown threatening films by management about what will happen if the union comes in, like plant closure. Walmart does this all of the time. As far as your Staten Island/Ohio analogy, forget it. Unions get voted down here also. In fact, in Staten Island, the only people getting hired work for cash, if you know what I mean. So this is not about the greener pasture scenario. What is happening is happening worldwide, at this point. Even many of the "right-to-work" factories in North Carolina and elsewhere are shutting down due to foreign competition.
I agree Bob, unions are about seniority & arbitrary firing, etc.. I don't think seniority is necessarily the best factor to use when considering promotion, but it should be in the equation. Regarding arbitrary firings, I don't think I know a single person who has arbitrarily fired. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just have no experience with this. The people I know who have been fired from jobs, namely my sister, deserved it. If I felt I was fired unjustly I would take my employer to Court and allow the legal system to make a determination. I would say the same thing if I felt my rights were violated in a seniority situation.
I guess I don't understand the part about rights, and I'm sure this has something to do with my growing up in a traditionally nonunion area. Maybe my protestant upbringing has something to do with it- I don't know. I guess the only right I require (expect), is the right of a fair chance. I frankly don't think society, or a corporation, owes me anything more. Thanks for the message, Mike
You will find, and I know, my wife went through it, that you have very little in the name of rights in a court of law. Or to put it better, the laws protecting you on the job in the legal system are virtually non-existent, except for the standard discrimination statutes. And, what the hell does being a protestant have to do with it? I was brought up Methodist myself. Are you trying to give me that work ethic bullshit? By rights, (within the union system), I mean, the right to to a grievance procedure where if your employer does not agree with you the procedure can go to an outside arbitrator for settlement, (due process). It means you don't have to face the situation where it is the boss's way or the highway. And, always expecting a fair chance is not going to cut it either. Why do you think unions came about in the first place? Do you know anything about labor history?
Yes, actually it is the work ethic thing. Some people are raised in an environment where personal responsibility is valued. Others are raised to scam the system. Don't you read the paper?
Well, I'm sorry you had a bad experience with the legal system, but many people do, in fact, find redress through the Courts. One of my best friends works for the Attorney General's office and works on Workers' Comp claims. I know quite a bit about it.
Yes, I do know a little about labor history, in case you aren't paying attention. You seem to be implying that if you don't have union representation, that you are basically thrown to the wolves. I'm sorry, that is simply untrue. You can spin the story any way you like but you've lost my interest.
"Yes, actually it is the work ethic thing. Some people are raised in an environment where personal responsibility is valued. Others are raised to scam the system. Don't you read the paper?" .........others ARE raised to scam the system.... some for a welfare check and some for billions. im more worried about the billions, sir
I am worried too. The same people who are scamming the billions are people who couldn't give a damn about anyone else. It's the personal responsibility thing again. Welfare fraud is a drop in the bucket compared to this. Please don't get the impression that I am defending corporate fraud, but I am defending the integrity of MOST corporations. Thanks
Without a contract, an employer in most parts of the country can fire you at any time, for any reason. That is the way the law is.
If I run a business, shouldn't I be able to chose my employees? Am I bound forever to an employee that I hire. I don't think so.
We always have the court system to resolve problems.
Not if there are no laws keeping employers from exploiting employees. In that case we will never see a courtroom
Unions are not scams, number one. I never knew too many union workers who were not personally responsible. I don't know where you get your information from. Yes, you can exist without them, I have been forced to do so quite a few times, as union manufacturing jobs disappeared long before the non-union factory jobs did. Now they are mostly all gone. I am saying, and it is obvious that you have stopped paying attention, that , to me, it is better to have one, judging from my own personal experience. There is less ass-kissing, or maybe you prefer to work that way.
Oh, you are denying that the workers are not given this line: Well you could unionize but then we would have to lay people off because we would have to pay more money. People need jobs and that is how the employers keep unions from happening. Do you think the WalMart vote downs were really about the employees doing what THEY wanted?
I would hope so. Are they too foolish to decide what is best for them, or are they intimidated by the Walmart videos about unions. I'm sorry, but I have more faith in people than you do. I simply don't see the conspiracies that inhabit your mind. Most people are perfectly capable of handling their own affairs and don't need unions, or the Federal Government, to make the decisions for them.
But unions are voting institutions. Democratic. People vote....nevertheless, when it comes to people, they have to eat and if they think they will not be able to do so, how do you think they will vote?
Quite frankly, I've never heard of a union member starving.
Democratic? Are you talking about the secret ballot, or the open ballot system where union management gets to see how you voted? I don't suppose there is any retribution for those who voted against the party line.
No.....thats the point. A union member did not starve.....correct.
That's for sure. They'll burn the factory down long before that happens.
Not all unions are violent or belligerent. And when a union is on strike, there is a severe amount of anger already... so it is already dangerous to disregard their concerns. But here is a problem you may be facing...
What do you do when more and more people are feeling the same way... we may get a repeat of the LA riots and the like.
Granted, not all unions are violent.
But you seem to argue that when they go on strike their demands should be met, or else violence will erupt. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with that. Should the biggest bully get to keep all the lunch money?
You are implying unions are bullies...
Usually there are legitimate concerns as to why they are striking/protesting anything.
But sometimes unions lose, for example the union strike a few years ago in California... a lot of them had homes, cars, and other property repoed and they never quite recovered after nearly a year of striking. But they managed to come back in without any real gains.
No, I not not implying it, I am stating it as a fact. Most unions are bullies.
Yes, very true, but the exact same things has happened to many of us too.
But if nothing else, if unions have certain greivances, it is their duty to feel as if they are on a fair playground. And is a 10:1 income gap really "abusive"?
And the only reason I've ever lost a home was because I had to move to someplace cheaper.
Unions, lobbys and politicians doing for themselves instead of their constituents are the problem!
This is fascinating! It ties in the machinations of the IMF et. al. with recent protests in Europe, and now the Occupy movement here. And he adds: "We are watching the beginnings of the defiant self-assertion of a new generation of Americans, a generation who are looking forward to finishing their education with no jobs, no future, but still saddled with enormous and unforgivable debt...Is it really surprising they would like to have a word with the financial magnates who stole their future? " http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/occupy-wall-street?page=3
Workers throughout American history have organized to achieve better working conditions and better pay. If corporations did not need them, they would never have conceded those benefits. The reality is that companies need workers, and workers need to make a living. If organizing were a bad thing or ineffective, it would not be the preferred method of response to economic pressures. Violence occurs when pressure levels rise to a point where it seems the only recourse. It is how we gained our independence as a nation. People will always express themselves in whatever way works best. It is in the best interests of those in power to listen. Violence can be prevented if the pressure isn't allowed to build beyond manageable levels. The only way to do that is to listen to the people. If they don't, history does tend to repeat itself.
I agree that unions were needed during the robber-baron days when exploitation was virtually cradle to grave. However, I think most people would agree that working conditions are quite good today. In 1880 you couldn't find an alternative employer because often times there were no alternatives. You bought your food from the company store and you bought your house, or leased your apartment, from the company. In other words, no competition and no alternatives.
I didn't say that organizing is ineffective, because I think it is quite effective. But so is the mafia when it gives you an ultimatum- pay is $300 per month or we'll burn your shop down.
Sure, I accept that violence is permissible against an armed oppressor. I just don't think you can equate a US corporation to the British. If you don't like what a company is offering, find a different employer.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Unions are workers and should have a voice but they should never be allowed to take any of this "over" or take control. this is a protest by the people for the people and we are all equal and have something to say. Freedom of speech... but to give unions the podium i want to know how to get up on the podiums and speak to the masses! If they are allowed then ANYONE person should be allowed!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/would-like-to-provide-porta-potties/
respond here please need attn from a leader/mod
admittedly baiting:
Mike, Tell me about any menial job you've ever had.
Shine, Here's what I can remember: newspaper boy, landscaper, restaurant worker, restaurant manager, lawn mowing, and copying policies at an insurance company. I also worked at Long John Silvers for a summer.
cool.
so, what you're telling me is that you have had years of undocumented income?
No, it was all documented. I kept very good records with my lawn mowing business because I wanted to deduct the depreciation on my mower. Everything else was W-2 income. The restaurant jobs were all fast food and pizza, so there really weren't any tips involved. I also have done quite a bit of carpentry work which was all 1099 income. What's your point here?
Depreciation on your mower? Good god! You deducted that?!!?
Congratulations! You are one of the few Americans who could come from blue collar and work your way up to internet forums!
My point: you never worked in an industry that had a union. I worked in one that should have, but it didn't because it was in a right to work state.
Guess what? Those jobs still got sent overseas!
Major point: Corporations aren't people. They didn't care about us. That's part of what this is about. If you don't get it, move along.
Please stop trolling.
Yeah. I mean, at least unions kept jobs from leaving workers high and dry more often than not.
Whatever you say, chief! You obviously know more than I do.
99% includes a variety of groups who have different agendas...but the one agenda that is common to the 99% is the protest against the greed of corporations. This is the time to look at our similarities not our differences.
Here's an informative balanced view of the labor movement.
Can you dispute any of it? I'm sorry, but sometimes the truth isn't pretty.
Update!!!
The unions are increasing their participation at an ever-growing rate
Has anyone seen Richard Trumka yet?
I'm not concerned with unions in the private sector. It's public sector unions that are breaking me. 80% of my property taxes support people who are making far more money than I am. I support Wall Street through inflation of the currency and bailouts. I support the local bloodsuckers DIRECTLY. Neither is acceptable.
I agree. Keep doing research.
Unions are a special interest that will destroy our message! Don't sell out the ultra-rich unions!
Why not hold Obama accountable for his mistakes... if he did his job remotely well, this would not even be an issue. He is learning on the job (having not run any political or private entity), and not fast enough. He has no new ideas, and is channeling your anger to redistribute wealth from those who worked hard to earn it. Is this the America we want? Punish the successful when the economy he can't jumpstart stalls? If you take entrepreneurial risk and succeed honorably, will you want to be a villan?
I'm with you, baby! It's nice to see there are a few other rational people on this site.
He's going to be held accountable shortly, we just need to convince more of these folks.
help spread the word on this site and others like it!
The problem with Unions is that they will do what Lenin was afraid would happen in Russia: Demand personal improvements such as higher wages and more time off, rather than an overhaul of the entire system.
The Occupy Wall Street Movement should look to adopt Democratic Capitalism as its primary focus: http://www.democratic-capitalism.com/ http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/708507790/protest-to-prosperity-occupy-wall-street-pamphlet
@Divinity - You are right, not all unions are thug-filled, hate-filled, violent institutions, but like it or not, those are the union organizations that are representing all unions because they are the loudest. They are the ones with the Hoffas and Trumpkas making noise on the national scene.
The unions represent less than 15% of all working Americans and yet, they claim to represent all workers. They don't represent me. I make a decent living in a right-to-work state and I would have it no other way. I am in control of MY paycheck and I don't have to collectively bargain for the wages of the least common denominator. Fearing their reprisal for nt getting their way is just as ludicrous as fearing the reprisal of a Muslim who is ticked off because she was asked to remove her head covering in a court of law in the U.S. It's dumb to kowtow to the minority out of fear for their retaliatory actions!
I agree with you Mike, can we agree though, that Union money and influence in the political process is just as poisonous as corporate money?
Absolutely. I want everything to be as above-board as you do. I just can't stand this wealth-bashing mentality.
And if you dont want wealth bashing....I guess I wonder why you are here.....you do know this is a movement against the hoarding of wealth by the richest people in the country, dont you?
This is not about wealth bashing but about justice and equality. Those are the overarching issues.
You just asked me why I was here if it wasn't for wealth-bashing. Do I really need to answer the question again?
Whoops, I'm sorry, you now say it isn't about wealth-bashing. Well then what is it about? Justice and equality. OK, those are nice words. I guess that translates into taking money away from people who are wealthy to fill your own pockets. That is not justice, and it certainly isn't equal protection. You, like this movement, need to make up your mind.
So it is clear: You say this is about wealth bashing and you say you dont like that. I do not believe it is about wealth bashing but I believe that your comments indicate that anyone who says that the present distribution of wealth is neither fair nor equitable is "wealth bashing". So you are here for some reason, but to you this whole movement is about wealth bashing. It makes me confused about why you are here.
I'm glad we are on the same page. The way I see the "wealth-bashing" is that wealth in and of itself is NOT a bad thing. Wealth gained by hard work, dedication, work-ethic, that is deserved. I think we need to draw a line between that sort of wealth and wealth perserved and gained through politics (I think it would be a good idea for the protestors to draw this line as well) whether that be a Solyndra like situation where a large PE investor was also a huge Obama supporter, or a Goldman Sachs situation which was spared billions of losses at the detriment of the taxpayer through the bailout of AIG.
I enjoyed the thoughtful discourse, Winnebago. I appreciate you taking the time to chat with me. You should become more involved in this movement, you have some excellent ideas.
-Mike
Unions had best not try and steer this ship.
They are the Muslim Brotherhood to our protests. They didn't start them, and now they are trying to come in and take credit for them, don't let them.
We cannot allow ourselves to become closely associated with Unions or it will hurt our accreditation, especially with moderates, libertarians, and independents.
Libertarians are little water carrier bitches for the 1%. They need to be educated not pandered to.
......right...I believe in taxing the top .3% at 65%, cutting taxes on the 50th-97th percentiles, and closing corporate loopholes and call myself a Libertarian. okay though I'll take your word for it. I'm carrying water for somebody.
I also believe in phasing out SS, repealing ObamaCare, food stamps are good, unemployment benefits, Welfare (with slight reforms), legalizing gay marriage, legalizing all drugs, legalizing prostitution, legalizing gambling, ending affirmative action, cutting prison sentences to pure probation (only murderers, rapists, and serious criminals deserve jail), change the laws to make police stop picking on black people the way that they currently do, punish police for brutality against all people but in particular against blacks, increase investment in college scholarships and give a little bit more money to lower schools (only enough to where the teachers can make a decent salary and to where the school district has enough money to hire the proper number of teachers, but no more, our educational system is great, the people make it look bad with their terrible grades), and abortion should be legal through the end of the 2nd trimester (except in emergencies).
Please tell me which of those you disagree with and you can probably pick a corresponding one that you agree with, like a matching game!
Let's look at one at a time. I agree that Obamacare is a disaster... What do you propose instead?
The closest thing I can come to a real proposal, is simply saying that industries can only make 110% of what actual healthcare costs they to pay out. e.g. 100% would be non-profit, they take in as much as they pay out, so 110% sets them at a 10% more than what they pay out. i.e. if nonprofit would cost you $150/month, the most they can charge you is $165/month.
Splitting them into 200 equally sized companies would also help, because they would drop their prices to attract costumers and grow. once they get too big again, split them again.
Also ending medical patents and changing the FDA laws surrounding who can make certain products would REALLY help. Generic Publix/Wal-Mart brands are like 5-10 times cheaper and they force the prices of all other things down. Half the cost of medical expense increases has been the boom in patents for useful products that were all created in the 80's and 90's 14 of the top 20 most used medicines have patents that expire by 2015