55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
parados
 
  5  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 09:35 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
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.

Of course I have. I have also worked often with unions and had no problems in bending the rules. Union workers are people. You treat them well. They will treat you well. You treat them like **** and they will use whatever they can to treat you like ****. You just don't like rules that allow them to get back at you when you treat them like **** it seems.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 10:13 am
@parados,
From a section of the link I posted above.

Quote:
Unions and workplace protections

An extensive array of labor laws and regulations protects workers in the labor market and the workplace. From the National Labor Relations Act and Social Security Act of 1935 to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, labor unions have been instrumental in securing labor legislation and standards. However, beyond their role in initiating and advocating enactment of these laws and regulations, unions have also played an important role in enforcing workplace regulations. Unions have provided labor protections for their members in three important ways: 1) they have been a voice for workers in identifying where laws and regulations are needed, and have been influential in getting these laws enacted; 2) they have provided information to members about workers’ rights and available programs; and 3) they have encouraged their members to exercise workplace rights and participate in programs by reducing fear of employer retribution, helping members navigate the necessary procedures, and facilitating the handling of workers’ rights disputes (Weil 2003; Freeman and Medoff 1984; Freeman and Rogers 1999).

Unions have played a prominent role in the enactment of a broad range of labor laws and regulations covering areas as diverse as overtime pay, minimum wage, the treatment of immigrant workers, health and retirement coverage, civil rights, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation, and leave for care of newborns and sick family members. Common to all of these rules is a desire to provide protections for workers either by regulating the behavior of employers or by giving workers access to certain benefits in times of need (Weil 2003; Davis 1986; Amberg 1998). Over the years, these rules have become mainstays of the American workplace experience, constituting expressions of cherished public values (Gottesman 1991; Freeman and Medoff 1984).

Less well recognized perhaps, is the important role that unions play in ensuring that labor protections are not just “paper promises” at the workplace. Government agencies charged with the enforcement of regulations cannot monitor every workplace nor automate the issuance of insurance claims resulting from unemployment or injury. In practice, the effectiveness of the implementation of labor protections depends on the worker’s decision to act. This is done either by reporting an abuse or filing a claim. Unions have been crucial in this aspect by giving workers the relevant information about their rights and the necessary procedures, but also by facilitating action by limiting employer reprisals, correcting disinformation, aggregating multiple claims, providing resources to make a claim, and negotiating solutions to disputes on behalf of workers (Freeman and Rogers 1999; Weil 2003; Hirsch, et al. 1997).

Evidence of the vital role of unions in implementing labor protections can be found in the research on various programs and benefits. Union membership significantly increases the likelihood that a worker will file a claim or report an abuse. Examples of this research can be found in such areas as unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, pensions, and the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provision.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 10:28 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

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.


As I've spoken about before, this wasn't my experience with the unions I was a member of when I was younger - at all. And it's not my current experience either - I supervise several unionized employees, and have quite good relations with their leadership. I don't see the adversarial relationship you describe here. But that may be because I have no interest in anything but maintaining good relations with them, as my profit margins are not dependent on screwing them in any way (which certainly isn't the case for many unionized companies - see the recent Hostess example).

I do agree that unions should thrive due to their popularity, not coercion. Of course, the big problem with this, is that in a right-to-work state, the corporate management regularly and systematically encourages fear of unions by either threatening to or actually firing those who try and organize unions or advance their causes. The entire point of 'right-to-work' is to allow this to happen. It's hardly a level playing field...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 10:50 am
Additionally, I'd really like to see some response to the fact that the supposed economic benefits of 'right to work' are not as cut-and-dry as presented earlier.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 04:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I took a careful look at your arguments on the quantative benefits of Right to Work Laws and as well at the references you cited.

The first reference from Prefessor Stevens of Hoffstra University was the most interesting. He performed a multivariate statistical analysis, based on variables he selected, (I would choose them differently) to assess the estimated differences between wage and benefit and employment rates in Right to Work States and others, finding that, in view of the clearly more favorable business climates (his statement) in RTW states the measured benefits of these laws, where they occurred, are not due to the RTW laws themselves, but rather to the business climate prevailing in these states. I found that very remarkable in that it was a sweeping indictment of the results of his own analysis which did indeed, as you noted, find some benefits associated with RTW laws. He also used other factors outside the domain of his analysis, including the net greater population movements into RTW states and relative education levels to further discount the measured benefits. Remarkable contradictions both in that he fails to address just what might be behind the net immigration and how average educational levels might affest competition for jobs might affest his calculated results. This in an academic paper promising rigorous accuracy, but these folks are like that and they often have an agenda too.

The other two papers, one from the Economic Policy Institute, a totally union funded lobbying organization (look at their web site and their published liost of board members). and the other the NEA, a close ally of Randy Weingarten and the National teachers Union, are both union shills - I gave them as much attention as I think you would to some propaganda fron the National Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of Manufacturerds were I to have provided them.

We apparently both agree that unemployment has dropped much faster in RTW states following the recession; that job and GDP growth is higher than in other states; and, as your professor noted, immigration also much higher in RTW states than others. (That means, by the way, that adjusted for this immigration difference, unemployment in non RTW states would be higher than reported (one of several relevant variables Prof. Stevens didn't include in his "analysis").

I do fully agree with this statement of yours;
Quote:
From a businessman's point of view, I can see the attraction of RTW. But from an employee's point of view, it's hardly a good thing.
However, with one caveat. Only actively incumbent union employees in non RTW states get any benefit. Unemployed workers find their job opportunities lowered by the protective walls unions erect around current members (who are very hard to fire even for good cause), and by the observable lower rate of hourly job creation in those states, which I assume to be related to union demands.

You should ask yourself why the people of Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and now Michigan have even seriously considered RTW laws ( passed them in Indiana, Ohio & Michigan and passed something similar in Wisconsin - the Ohio action was overturned by a narrow margin in a referendum hotly supported by unions). These states have long been at the very heart of the union movement in this country for over three generations. Only New York and New Jersey are more unionized, but there Mafia involvement and corruption are substantial.

I belive that this is a very clear indicator of changed public perceptions of the self-serving character of labor unions and their willingness to impose serious burdens of public prosperity and public finances in pursuit of preserving their own political power and political leverage over state government. The evident fact is that new investment in manufacturing is, and has long been, very focused on RTW states, and that those states have benefitted economically as a result. Unionized states are far less competitive than they once were, and inexorably that will drive new investment and job creation to other areas. Better to keep Boeing Manufacturing in South Carolina than see it go overseas. In this the competitive factor that press on corporations tend to equalize wealth and investment in the country, moving economic activity to less weealthy and costly areas, and as conditions improve, paying the higher wage requirements that result from improved average economic conditions.hat's wrong with that? it sounds a lot like Obama's spreading the wealth around theme to me.

Boeing faces very serious competiution with subsdidized operations in Europe from Airbus and increasingly from smaller companies in Canada (Bombardier) and Brazil (Embraer). They will either compete effectively or die. The consequences of such a failure would extend far beyond the narrow interests of the Seattle-based engineers and mechanics unions. Unfortunately the unions take no responsibility for that.

The world is a competitive place and nothing you or the so called 'progressive' movement in politics can change that. The Soviets tried hard .... and failed utterly.

Interestingly Germany has found a way to sustain unions and, at the same time encourage productivity improvements (more efficient use of labor), investment and competitive labor rates. That (and lower levels of public debt) indeed are the chief difference between the German economy, and those of its , now troubled neighbors. The Germans instituted these reforms a decade ago when their economy was floundering, and has benefitted greatly from them. Frankly I don't know how they do it. Perhaps it's because they are Germans !

I enjoyed very cordial relations with the Local Presidents of the unions that infected two large companies for which I was the CEO. They were usually nice and polite with me, but there was never any confusion on their part or mine over the evident fact that their goals were different from those of the company. They had no interest in productivity improvements and accepted no responsibility for the consequences. Their interest was only the preservation and increase of the pay and benefits of existing employees and in resisting any introduction of new blood that migh inn any way threated the job security of their members - no matter how much change was required of the company overasll to sustain its economic position. I never had the luxury of separating these things. In the end these unions collapsed losing all their jobs.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 04:51 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

We apparently both agree that unemployment has dropped much faster in RTW states following the recession; that job and GDP growth is higher than in other states; and, as your professor noted, immigration also much higher in RTW states than others. (That means, by the way, that adjusted for this immigration difference, unemployment in non RTW states would be higher than reported (one of several relevant variables Prof. Stevens didn't include in his "analysis").


Wait a tick, I don't agree with those statements at all! Average unemployment in RTW states is only half a point lower than other states; there's no evidence that GDP growth in real dollar terms is higher (only that it's higher as a percentage, as the REAL GDP of RTW states is lower than other states, and it's easier to have higher percentage growth when starting from a lower position). Immigration is higher in RTW states thanks solely to Texas and Florida.

I take issue with the idea that passage of RTW laws has led to any tangible improvement for the people of the states involved whatsoever. It has, however, led to greatly increased profits for the owners of the companies who locate in those states. I guess I can see how you would get the two confused.

Quote:
You should ask yourself why the people of Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and now Michigan have even seriously considered RTW laws ( passed them in Indiana, Ohio & Michigan and passed something similar in Wisconsin - the Ohio action was overturned by a narrow margin in a referendum hotly supported by unions).


"The People" did no such thing in any of those states. Instead, right-wing Republicans captured the legislatures of those states and then implemented those laws. Thanks to the timing of the takeover in 2010, Gerrymandering was performed to an incredible degree and many of these politicians will be almost impossible to unseat - despite the fact that they represent a very small percentage of the population of their states.

And in OH, the people overturned the law by 61-38% in 2011. That's not 'narrow' by any measure.

Regarding the aims and goals of Union leadership, I must say: I find them to be no different, in type or scope, than those of modern Corporate management, especially when third-party funding is involved. Why should the common worker trust management at all, when stories like the following -

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/twinkie-ceo-admits-company-took-employees-pensions-and-put-it?page=0%2C1&paging=off

Are legion? The clear answer is that they should not.

Do you disagree with my statement, that one of the primary tactics used by corporate management is to fire employees who try to organize unions? To intimidate employees into not supporting unions? If you don't disagree with this, how can you accuse Unions of being thugs - but not their employers?

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 04:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You appear to be backtracking, and only very selectively addressing the points I raised. You can stay in your universe, I will stay in the real one.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:00 pm
@georgeob1,
That's a retreat from the field if I ever saw one - you make categorically untrue statements (such as claiming there are significant differences in unemployment rates in RTW vs. non-RTW states, when there is none) and attempting to attack the messenger regarding studies who provide answers you don't like, rather than address their substance. I don't believe that level of argumentation is convincing to anyone reading this thread, and I don't think you do, either.

You'll note that in my original post I stated that you could undoubtedly provide studies that used different methodologies and provided different answers than the ones I provided. That's common in cases such as this. However, the fact is that the supposed statistics you recite regarding the economic benefits of RTW are hardly obvious and may not in fact be true at all, and seem rather carefully picked to ignore certain realities of life, in order to push a political viewpoint.

I'll repeat my question to you:

Do you disagree with my statement, that one of the primary tactics used by corporate management is to fire employees who try to organize unions? To intimidate employees into not supporting unions? If you don't disagree with this, how can you accuse Unions of being thugs - but not their employers?

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What we are headed for under GOP governance are the destruction of unions, the very organization that helps the middle class. I'm sure there are no conservatives working in unions, because they want to destroy it.

With the slow recovery from the Great Recession, and the attempts by the GOP to destroy unions and fair wages and benefits, it's a wonder that conservatives continue to vote for their own destruction. I know for a FACT that the majority of conservatives are not in the top 2% of income earners, and they're losing their own advocacy for better pay and benefits.

I guess it's more important and to follow the party goals and self-destruction over the idea of the liberals that tries to protect their financial self-sufficiency and good health.

They don't need MediCare, ObamaCare, or social security.

How do they manage that kind of idiocy? I'm really interested to know.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You are being positively deceptive here. I said that unemployment in RTW stares has fallen faster since the recent recession than in other states. There is a difference here. You are wrong and I am right.

As for the rest you are merely throwing "gorilla dust" in the air in a feeble attempt to distract the dialogue from points that;
1 You raised earlier, and to which I have responded, but
2. now find uncomfortable and disadvantageous.
In short you have left the field of our earlier dialogue entirely, and are now sniping at the few issues where you believe you can make any points, however misleading and weak they may be.

Where is your defense of the "objective" sources you cited?

I'm sure companies opposed to unionization do what they legally can to discourage unionization - which in non RTW staes basically means giving a hostile third party monopolistic management rights over their labor. Under the law for employment at will contracts, such dismissals are legal. It is hardly worse than forcing unwilling workers to pay union dues.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:11 pm
@georgeob1,
You keep mentioning "involuntary union dues," but that's a very small price to pay for the overall benefits they get from their union.

As a non-union worker, he has no power for most things out of the purview of labor laws - especially on wages and benefits.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:15 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I don't think that freedom from coercion is a small price. You may be more of a sheep than I, but that is your problem.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:16 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

You are being positively deceptive here. I said that unemployment in RTW stares has fallen faster since the recent recession than in other states. There is a difference here. You are wrong and I am right.


Can you provide a statistic or source showing that this is true? I sure didn't see one when I was researching it.

Quote:
I'm sure companies opposed to unionization do what they legally can to discourage unionization - which in non RTW staes basically means giving a hostile third party monopolistic management rights over their labor. Under the law for employment at will contracts, such dismissals are legal. It is hardly worse than forcing unwilling workers to pay union dues.


Well, in my opinion, threatening the jobs of employees who decide to unionize is indeed worse than requiring union dues from workers who directly profit from the work done by the union on their behalf. One leads to higher wages and better working conditions for employees, the other leads to being out on one's ass. Not a difficult choice to make.

I do appreciate that you agree with me that the entire point of RTW laws is to make employer intimidation of their workforce legal. However, from an independent standpoint, that makes the employers no better than the thugs you decry on a regular basis. Indeed, it arguably makes them worse.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:17 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think that freedom from coercion is a small price. You may be more of a sheep than I, but that is your problem.


You say 'freedom of coercion' as if coercion isn't exactly what you support. You just disagree as to who should have the right to do the coercing. You want to have the right to be the one DOING the coercing and to have the law bar others from doing so.

Cycloptichorn
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:19 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You may be more of a sheep than I, but that is your problem.


How do you define a sheep? Is it someone who is less empathic than you or is it someone who is more intellectual than you?
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


I do appreciate that you agree with me that the entire point of RTW laws is to make employer intimidation of their workforce legal. However, from an independent standpoint, that makes the employers no better than the thugs you decry on a regular basis. Indeed, it arguably makes them worse.

Cycloptichorn


You are once again attempting to retroactively alter the terms of our discourse. The "entire point of RTW laws" is NOT, either in my view or the views of their advocates, an attempt to enable employer intimidation. Instead it is to deny unions the rights to monopolies that are also denied to employers, and to reduce the observable adverse side effects that result from entrenched unionism. That is what the political dialogues in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan were all about. You can't alter that now.

You appear to be stooping to lower and lower levels in an attempt to retain some small measure of the integrity (such as it was) you displayed in your opening post.

You are demeaning yourself.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:23 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
You may be more of a sheep than I, but that is your problem.


How do you define a sheep? Is it someone who is less empathic than you or is it someone who is more intellectual than you?


Neither. However, I haven't observed either of the alternatives you cited.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:26 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You are demeaning yourself.


Bold words from someone either unable or unwilling to support their argument with evidence, instead relying entirely upon polemic instead of debate, selective editing, factual errors and assertion to drive one's point.

I'll rest by saying that I don't believe your argument is at this time convincing anyone of the validity of your opinion.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Well they surely haven't convinced you. However you aren't everyone. What about the folks in Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan (please keep in mind the recent results of the referendum in Michigan),?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:28 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Neither. However, I haven't observed either of the alternatives you cited.


Could it because you have the Right stuff along with a few other stuff?

http://www.ocdonline.com/articlephillipson6.php
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 10/10/2024 at 09:31:26