AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@georgeob1,

Quote:

So far the presence of right to work laws correlates very well with rapid recovery from the recent recession.

Really? And where is that stat from?

Some states like ND weren't hard hit by the recession which had nothing to do with being a right to work state.
Meanwhile California has one of be best employment recoveries from Oct 2011 to Oct 2012 but that can be attributed to California being one of the hardest hit.

1 Reply

@parados,

That's true; California was hit hard when the recession hit, and many high tech companies laid off people. Fortunately for us, many are in the process of building new campuses to hire more people - including some foreign countries. Apple is in the process of demolishing a huge HP campus near our home, and rebuilding a saucer shaped bulding that will house over 3,o00 workers. Unemployment here has greatly improved, and it looks like we're on the mends.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

OK Frank, let's suppose your thesis is true and that the need for human labor is decreasing. How would you go about apportioning the available labor (and the pay that goes with it) in smaller amounts ot the people, given that not everyone is equally talented and (more significant in my view) not everyone is equally motivaterd to enhance his/her skills and struggle to achieve success?

It appears to me that, without intervention, the reduced demand for labor will leave the least talented and energetic on the sidelines. Subsidizing them on a large scale will create resentment for them on the part of those who do work, and reduce the feedback that spurs them on, thereby possibly injuring the goose that lays the golden eggs. The Roman mob that demanded free bread and circuses was not the healtihiest element of that otherwise long-lived empire, and it provided the political base for their worst tyrants.

So how would you deal with this?

Frankly, I don't agree with your thesis at all, except possibly as a secondary phenomenon that attends normal secular change and evolution. What we call grunt labor today would hardly be called that just a century ago. Today's grunt labor is what the 'petit bourgeois' of the late 18th and early 19th century did.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Thank you for the response, George.

The most important part of what I said earlier was,

Quote:

As I said…figure out a way to educate EVERY human in America to do the most complex/technical jobs…and all you would end up with are highly complex jobs being done by highly qualified workers…at a pittance! Do not kid yourself on that.

The only reason highly qualified workers get decent wages is because they are in short supply. Actually, the jobs are in short supply also...if all workers were trained to do those kinds of jobs, there would be a surplus of workers...and the willingness to pay high wages would disappear.

So...the notion of re-training the work force is, as I suggested, wishful thinking...at best, little more than a Band-Aid remedy.

What would I do?

Well...I have written extensively on an alternative way to conceive of the problem. I will supply a link. I love to hear your thoughts about it, even though I doubt we will ever be of similar minds on the issue.

Link tomorrow. Patriots versus Texans taking my time up right now.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Gee, you guys are talking about very basic Econ 101; why skilled folks gets paid more than others.

A good case in point is in India - in the Bangalore area, where computer companies pay their employees more than most other skills in the country.

If anyone takes away "skills" from Apple, their company will become a has been.

Skilled athletes make more money, because ......

0 Replies

Very cogent editorial on "right to work", in today's NYT, and why it screws the middle class. Why is georgeob so insistent on indulging in class warfare?

Quote:

Editorial
Taking Aim at Michigan’s Middle Class
Published: December 10, 2012
The decline of the middle class in this country has paralleled that of the labor movement, which has been battered by the relentless efforts of business groups and Republicans to drive down wages, boost corporate profits and inflate executive salaries and bonuses. Now that campaign is on the verge of a devastating victory in Michigan, home of the modern labor movement, which could transform the state’s economy for the worse.

On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Legislature is expected to pass a law that would allow workers to avoid paying dues to a union that represents their shop. Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, has reversed an earlier position and said he would sign the law. Democratic officials, labor leaders and workers are urging him to reconsider, knowing that a business victory in Michigan, of all places, would encourage other states to make the same mistake.

These measures are misleadingly known as “right to work” laws, and their purpose is no less deceptive. Business leaders say workers should not be forced to join a union against their will, but, in fact, workers in Michigan can already opt out of a union. If they benefit from the better wages and benefits negotiated by a union, however, they are required to pay dues or fees, preventing the free riders that would inevitably leave unions without resources.

Concern for the rights of individual workers, of course, is not the real reason business is pushing so hard for these laws. Gutting unions is the fastest way to achieve lower wages and higher profits. Last year, in support of an Indiana antidues laws that later passed, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce said the law would draw businesses to the state for lower labor costs. A study by the University of Notre Dame in January found that the average wages and benefits for nonfarm workers in right-to-work states was $57,732, while in states without the law it was $65,567. States with antidues laws have higher rates of poverty and lower rates of health coverage.

Republican officials also know that depriving unions of dues will hurt Democratic candidates, who usually win the support of labor. As President Obama said at a diesel plant in Redford, Mich., on Monday, “These so-called ‘right-to-work’ laws, they don’t have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”

Mr. Snyder’s turnabout shocked workers in his state, and Democratic officials have spent the last few days urging him to reconsider and prevent a needless drive to the bottom. By withholding his signature, he can ensure that Michigan remains both the birthplace and the economic foundation of middle-class security.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on December 11, 2012, on page A30 of the New York edition with the headline: Taking Aim at Michigan’s Middle Class.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:
These measures are misleadingly known as “right to work” laws, and their purpose is no less deceptive. Business leaders say workers should not be forced to join a union against their will, but, in fact, workers in Michigan can already opt out of a union.

And they can opt out in any other state as well. That's why arguments that "right to work freeload" laws are all about the right to association are, in the words of georgeob1, "bullshit." But I suppose that's another thing, in addition to the free-rider problem, that georgeob1 just doesn't understand.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

You are making a very fine distinction between membership and having union dues predecucted from your pay, and justifying it by your freeloader argument. Unfortunately in terms of human choice and freedon, there's not much of a distinction to be made between being required to associate yourself with an organization and being made to buy its "services".

It is interesting to note the behavior of union workers in Wisconsin now that they get to make their own choices about paying dues.

Finally you blithely ignore the social pressures in the work environment that arise when a worker balks at union activities in any way. Where seniority issues are involved in the CBA, (and that is the norn) non members are out in the cold. Given that, and the requirement to pay dues anyway, what does the "freedom of association" here mean ? I have observed these things myself. Have you ?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You are making a very fine distinction between membership and having union dues predecucted from your pay, and justifying it by your freeloader argument. Unfortunately in terms of human choice and freedon, there's not much of a distinction to be made between being required to associate yourself with an organization and being made to buy its "services".

It may be a fine distinction, but it's a legal distinction. Employees who work in a unionized workplace but who do not belong to the union are required to help fund the union's collective bargaining activities because they benefit from those activities -- and the union, by law, cannot exclude non-members from the collective bargaining unit. If that employee wishes to remain untainted by any formal association with the union, that option remains available. Meanwhile, it's hardly unfair to expect someone to pay for benefits that he or she receives by being a member of the unit.

georgeob1 wrote:

It is interesting to note the behavior of union workers in Wisconsin now that they get to make their own choices about paying dues.

That's hardly interesting. Indeed, it is to be expected. That's what the free rider problem is all about.

georgeob1 wrote:

Finally you blithely ignore the social pressures in the work environment that arise when a worker balks at union activities in any way. Where seniority issues are involved in the CBA, (and that is the norn) non members are out in the cold. Given that, and the requirement to pay dues anyway, what does the "freedom of association" here mean ? I have observed these things myself. Have you ?

Usually, when I'm accused of blithely ignoring something, I can recognize it by the level of blithe that I'm feeling at the time. Here, I'm feeling none. A union cannot discriminate against non-union members in a collective bargaining unit on the basis of their non-membership. If a non-union member is being passed over for seniority-based positions, then that employee should file a grievance. I'm sure you, like me, have little sympathy for those who refuse to avail themselves of clearly defined methods of redressing grievances in the workplace and prefer instead to moan impotently about how their rights are being violated. Have I observed that in practice? No. But I'm sure if I did, I'd react the same way that you would -- I'd tell the complaining employee to file a grievance or else shut the **** up and get back to work.

1 Reply

OK maybe you disagree but would you care to explain why?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Have you ever directly observed the behavior of union shop stewards or local officials towards non-members? Or for that matter, how grievances are handled between union and management? I have.

I just noticed the news report of the passage of a Right to Work Law in Michigan - the home of the UAW ! The Michigan electorate is well aware of the actions and effects of union infestation, and this, coming on the defeat of a referendum seeking to enshrine uniuonism in the state constitution, is surely a significant event.

Illinois is increasingly surrounded by right to work states - the exodus of manufacturing and other unionized operations will be interesting to watch.

Most affected though are state employees, as they and Federal government employees now constitute the majority of union membership. The revenue losses for these parasitic organizations will be getting very large.

My father was in politics in Michigan - a conservative Democrat representrastive in the Congress. I well remember the UAW thugs who massed at political meetings and sometimes at the polling places. They were more or less like the Teamsters' thugs. I'll bet they are aroused now.

It is interesting to see the fate of these government unions. All Federal workers and some state unions are forbidden by law to negotiate over pay and working conditions as these are considered as intrinsic functions of government. One can but wonder just what they do for their money.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Have you ever directly observed the behavior of union shop stewards or local officials towards non-members? Or for that matter, how grievances are handled between union and management? I have.

On the off-chance that it might stop you from asking me over and over again if I have personally witnessed union misconduct, let me stipulate that I have never belonged to a union or worked in a unionized workplace. I have, however, worked for enough jerk employers to know that misconduct isn't limited to the labor side of the equation.

1 Reply

“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.”

-Martin Luther King, 1961

http://www.epi.org/publication/martin_luther_king_on_right_to_work/

1 Reply

@snood,

Rev, King should have stuck to his real cause. His quoted remarks, though partly accurate with respect to a then already distant past, have proven to be dead wrong sincew. Unions don't support civil or individusal rights at all. They are government sanctioned monopolies which tend more to kill jobs than to make them available to others. They are, at best, and employment proitection system for workers on the inside, but they kill the opportunities for those on the outside.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Rev, King should have stuck to his real cause.

What exactly do you call King's "real" cause?

In the later 1960s, the targets of King's activism were less often the legal and political obstacles to the exercise of civil rights by blacks, and more often the underlying poverty, unemployment, lack of education, and blocked avenues of economic opportunity confronting black Americans.

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/memphis-v-mlk/

King's last speech was in support of the sanitation workers in Memphis. Then, as now, unions sometimes provide the only leverage average workers have addressing job-related issues of fairness, wages, work conditions and safety.

Quote:

His quoted remarks, though partly accurate with respect to a then already distant past, have proven to be dead wrong sincew.

What was "already distant past" about worker's rights?

Quote:

Unions don't support civil or individusal rights at all. They are government sanctioned monopolies which tend more to kill jobs than to make them available to others. They are, at best, and employment proitection system for workers on the inside, but they kill the opportunities for those on the outside.

Well, I think everything you say about unions is wrong, but that's status quo - there probably isn't anything related to politics or civil rights I'd agree with you on.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

What was "already distant past" about worker's rights?

Nothing. I didn't connect the two at all. I referred to the laws regarding work weeks safe conditions in the work place and overtime pay, all of which were early union objectives, and which by 1967 were codified in the law.

What "workers rights" do you seek? Do you believe a worker should be compelled to join a union as a precondition of employment and have a part of his/her wages predecucted without his consent to pay union dues? It seems to me that workers should enjoy the individual freedom of association as do others, and should not be compelled to pay for anyone's services without their consent. These to me are also important worker's rights.

I believe King's central cause was to end the remaining legal and extra legal systems of discrimination against American Blacks. That cause truly did support the individual rights of all Americans and was undeniably long overdue. The rest was a matter of politics.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

That is the primary reason for unions; that workers have the right to bargain for better pay, benefits, and worker conditions.

Both employers and workers end up in adversarial situations that shouldn't be necessary but results from negotiations that both sides agree on.

That's much better than workers not have any way to demand what's due them.

Unions also help non-union workers with better pay and benefits. The opposite never or rarely happens; employers don't get together for the interest of their workers. If they do, I'd like to see evidence of it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

. Both employers and workers end up in adversarial situations that shouldn't be necessary but results from negotiations that both sides agree on.

That is a vanishingly small fraction f the real relations between companies and their unions.

Unions go out of their way to create an adversarial relationship with the employers. That's how they try to convince their members that they alone are saving them from the evil management.

I don't believe corporate management is necessarily composed of more altruistic people than labor union bosses. The main difference is we have fairly draconian laws preventing corporate monopolies, but labor unions demand and often get government-enforced monopolies on labor - except in the 23 (now with Michigan) right to work states. Take away the union monopolies and I am all for them. If a union can attract employee members and act truly in the interest of both workers and the source of their employment, then they should thrive. Those that don't will fail, just as do companies that produce products no one wants.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Tell us, georgeob, who will be there for the worker without unions?

Here's a study on how unions help "all" workers.
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

@ Georgeob1 (regarding the info I promised)

George, I’m sorry, but apparently I never posted the series I wrote on this issue in A2K. I have posted it in other forums and have given it other publicity (Milton Friedman was kind enough to read it and comment to me on it.). It is a long, five part series…and I think it might be better if I simply mention a couple of the salient points—to see if you have any interest (Some of this is extracted from the series.)

First point (I expect you will not have trouble agreeing with this): I acknowledge I personally am not intelligent nor clever enough to “solve” a problem like the one being discussed…and I am not disposed to pretend that I can. I limit myself to presenting alternative perspectives of some components of the overall problem in hopes of sparking an insight in someone more intelligent and clever than I…one that might ultimately lead to a solution.

An example of such an “alternative perspective” (one which may seem trivial at first, but which I suggest is not) is to reflect on why we consider “the unemployment problem”…to actually be a problem.

“Unemployment” is NOT a problem…or at least, for most people it is not a problem. “Unemployment” is the reason we all look forward to weekends, holidays, and vacations so much. “Unemployment” means not going to work. “Unemployment” affords us all time to play more golf or tennis; to read, write, wash the car, tend to the house and garden, spend more time with the family, or lie around in a hammock doing nothing more productive than training a couple of trees to bend in toward each other. Not only is unemployment not a problem, it is the stuff of dreams…an object of pursuit. Some people actually stand in long lines at lottery counters in order to try to create some unemployment for themselves.

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy things” IS a problem; an onerous one, and more than likely the problem we are actually considering when apparently discussing unemployment! They go hand-in-hand, do unemployment and not having enough money to get by—so much so that we tend to confuse one with the other—or worse, to consider them to be one. BUT THEY ARE NOT! They are two separate problems, or more exactly they are two separate conditions. One, not having enough money, a very serious problem indeed—the other, unemployment, a much sought after blessing.

George, I suspect that we can use the fact that those two conditions are not both problems to make a pathway to a solution.

Obviously, there is much, much more…and without the rest, this may appear to be of no value. But whether you see it to be of value or not…I stand by my initial comment that we will never train our way out of the problem at hand…and that “earning a living” is probably a thing of the past—even though we do not acknowledge that yet.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know