Why the anti-union animosity?

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Why should capital be able to organize against unions, by buying political influence, but labor should not be afforded the same opportunity? Sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander.

Sounds like a point to me...that I've simply disputed.

Without going back to previous posts, or competing numbers of donations or any of that mess: is there a simple sentence you can put forth that answers Set's question in the post quoted above?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes, Labor unions are afforded the same opportunity as capital in buying political influence. And they avail themselves of that opportunity as much or more than the capital organizing against them. All my data from Open Secrets supports that position.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Yes, Labor unions are afforded the same opportunity as capital in buying political influence. And they avail themselves of that opportunity as much or more than the capital organizing against them. All my data from Open Secrets supports that position.

The question wasn't 'do they,' the question is 'why shouldn't they?' Try and answer the actual question asked.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Your "point," SS, that labor avails of itself of that opportunity more than does capital is your claim that i've been disputing. You haven't demonstrated that, and you fudge the numbers. You talk about the UAW, and then you list only Ford and GM, and you don't consider individual, private donations and political action committees. How many employees of Ford and GM contributed privately, in what amounts, and to which parties? How much of Ford and GM's money went to political action committees? You are selectively reading data to support a claim which is otherwise unsubstantiated.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

slkshock is fighting the wrong battle; corporations have more influence than any union. The majority of legislation passing through the capital of California are sponsored by corporations. PG&E spent millions trying to pass a ballot that tried to get a monopoly on utilities, and also tried to make it more difficult to pass laws against utilities by increasing the needed votes to pass laws. They play their tricks for their own advantage; don't kid yourself.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Why should I waste time answering "Why shouldn't they..." when it's firmly established that they do.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I beg to differ. I (and you) have no data to support that the UAW spends less than Ford, GM and other companies that the UAW works for. I'm willing to admit that I'm missing some donations from the executives of these other companies, but find it hard to believe it will make up a 2.5x difference.

I've looked for this missing data and can't find it. I've invited you to find it and you evidently can't find it. Therefore we have to base our conclusions on the available data, which is what I've done. For you to argue the opposite conclusion without regard for the available data is simply foolish.

You're like the conspiracy theorist who resolutely ignores the preponderance of facts and instead hitches their wagon to "the grassy knoll".

Look this was an eye-opener to me too, because I'd always been told that the Republican party was financed far better than the Dems. That no longer appears to be true.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Why should I waste time answering "Why shouldn't they..." when it's firmly established that they do.

I think that a large part of this thread - and this may be unrelated to the discussion you were having earlier in the thread - revolves around the question of whether or not they should have those rights.

And I really am interested in your opinion, besides the facts of the matter: should members of both public and private unions, in order to represent the interests of Labor, be able to spend money petitioning government in the same fashion that management and ownership does?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

As i've consistently said, you're playing fast and loose with the numbers. Using your link, i totaled corporate donations in their list (which was not exhaustive) for 2008. I only calculated to one hundred thousands of dollars, dropping amounts less than that. With a list headed by the chamber of commerce, that total came to in excess of $380,000,000. That beggars total union contributions.

I'm basing this on data from the source you provided. It's a bit thick to say that corporations which contributed in excess of $300 million dollars are simply exercising their political rights, but that unions are weilding undue influence.

0 Replies

A new poll is out, showing less support for cutting state worker pay and benefits then I would like to see..

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/28/us/28union-poll-results.html?ref=us

I am also highly disappointed that no question was asked that would give insight into how much people care that Govs of both parties are out to cut compensation.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawk, Most Americans do not want the government to take away worker's rights; that's the only bargaining power they have. Without it, all the labor laws we have today would never have been established. We don't know what the future holds for the American workforce, because of the Great Recession that has impacted all economies around the world. At least we're heading into the future with some sense of equality for employers and employees.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

This OCT 10 number looks much closer to what I would expect,,,52% say fed workers are overpaid and 9% under paid. the NYT/CBS poll saying 25% saying public workers are under paid smells wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/17/AR2010101703724.html

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Impressions are often misleading. Many still believe some falsehoods; a) many Americans believe Obama raised taxes, b) many seniors still believe ObamaCare has "death panels."

Many of the fault falls in Obama's corner, because he failed to communicate the Stim Bill or ObamaCare properly to the populace. It's also the fault of domestic media that failed to outline and repeat that the Stim Bill included tax cuts for the middle class when we learned Americans had the wrong info, and Obamacare doesn't have anything related to "death panels."

Even I had to look for FactCheck to refute these misinformation.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

should members of both public and private unions, in order to represent the interests of Labor, be able to spend money petitioning government in the same fashion that management and ownership does?

Certainly private unions should and do. Disputes between the private union and it's corporate bosses are battles with very negative implications if either side presses too far. Public unions are more difficult for me to justify in my mind...because neither the union members nor the management have any "skin in the game".

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
should members of both public and private unions, in order to represent the interests of Labor, be able to spend money petitioning government in the same fashion that management and ownership does?

Certainly private unions should and do. Disputes between the private union and it's corporate bosses are battles with very negative implications if either side presses too far. Public unions are more difficult for me to justify in my mind...because neither the union members nor the management have any "skin in the game".

What does that mean? Why should workers in a private setting have the right to organize, but not those in public settings? The management is structured similarly and they do similar work.

I don't understand what the distinction is, just looking for some clarity.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo,

The greed of the private union is constrained by the potential to drive their corporation into bankruptcy. The greed of private management is constrained by the need to maintain a strong, satisfied work force which in turn enables corporate profit.

There are no such self-policing mechanisms in a public union scenario. In fact, the only sand in the gears of never-ending union demands and management concessions is when the tax-payer cries "Enough!" as we see happening in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

Quote:

The greed of the private union is constrained by the potential to drive their corporation into bankruptcy. The greed of private management is constrained by the need to maintain a strong, satisfied work force which in turn enables corporate profit.

There are no such self-policing mechanisms in a public union scenario.

I agree with this up to a point. When i was a member of AFSCME, we had, really, only an actual walk-out, a strike as our weapon, because we didn't have the power of larger unions, and we didn't have the deep pockets that give a union a healthy strike fund and the assets to hire lots of high-power attorneys to negotiate and take the employer to court. If we could work up enough public sympathy, and enough of the membership were willing to walk out, then we could be pretty sure the Teamsters would not cross our picket lines, which gave us some more leverage. It is nonsense that public unions can just make demand after demand until they bankrupt the state. Walker is crying insolvency, but still finds about $150,o00,000 for economic stimulus. I suspect that a lot of union members or former union membes see that as crocodile tears.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo,

The greed of the private union is constrained by the potential to drive their corporation into bankruptcy. The greed of private management is constrained by the need to maintain a strong, satisfied work force which in turn enables corporate profit.

There are no such self-policing mechanisms in a public union scenario. In fact, the only sand in the gears of never-ending union demands and management concessions is when the tax-payer cries "Enough!" as we see happening in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

But wait! What about the greed on the part of management and ownership in a public-union situation?

That's exactly what we are seeing on display in WI; a new group of management has come in and is looking to screw over the union workers in WI by voiding legal agreements, ones in which they DEFERRED COMPENSATION into their pension funds - which WI never properly funded. That's not the Union's fault.

Why shouldn't those workers deserve representation to protect their interests, the same way that workers in any other situation do? To put it shortly, your explanation is not convincing and doesn't address the heart of the matter - that the situation public employees face is exactly the same as that of private employees.

Set is correct, that your 'never-ending demand' line is ridiculous and unsupportable. The unions are asking for nothing crazy here and haven't at any point. The fact that they have fought to retain rights that non-unionized citizens don't have any longer doesn't mean they are greedy; it means that they weren't LAZY, when the rest of the workers of America were, and they didn't get screwed by industry the way that non-represented folks did in that time period.

I think that we are looking at greed and jealousy here - but not on the part of unions. Rather, on the part of those who took no steps to protect their own interests, and now don't have the same quality of living that they used to. Instead of tearing the unions down, perhaps you should be asking why you didn't fight to protect your own rights in the fashion they did.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

But wait! What about the greed on the part of management and ownership in a public-union situation?

Then tax-payers vote the greedy management and ownership out at the next election. The only tool available to the people who pay the paychecks for these union members is their vote. In 2010 they voted in a Republican Governor and Republican majorities in their legislature to voice their displeasure of the preceding Democrat Administration. In 2012 they'll have opportunity to voice their displeasure at this "greedy" Republican Administration.

Cyclo wrote:

The fact that they have fought to retain rights that non-unionized citizens don't have any longer doesn't mean they are greedy; it means that they weren't LAZY, when the rest of the workers of America were, and they didn't get screwed by industry the way that non-represented folks did in that time period.

Not to change the subject, but this is pretty much the exact same argument I'd make to protect my $250K annual salary from increased taxes to fund Obamacare.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

Quote:

Then tax-payers vote the greedy management and ownership out at the next election. The only tool available to the people who pay the paychecks for these union members is their vote. In 2010 they voted in a Republican Governor and Republican majorities in their legislature to voice their displeasure of the preceding Democrat Administration. In 2012 they'll have opportunity to voice their displeasure at this "greedy" Republican Administration.

You're confusing the 'tax-payers' with the employees of the public unions. We aren't talking about the taxpayer here, we're talking about the employees' right to stand up to management decisions that harm them. It's not an electoral issue.

slkshock7 wrote:

Not to change the subject, but this is pretty much the exact same argument I'd make to protect my $250K annual salary from increased taxes to fund Obamacare.

... with the meaningful difference being the fact that you are currently paying the lowest taxes you've ever paid on that salary, not to mention other forms of compensation. It can easily be said that you are defending what already amounts to a very sweet deal - and doing so in the face of gigantic financial problems for our society due to a lack of taxation on your high income.

Even then, though, I don't understand how you would use my argument to defend your salary. Are you implying that others are somehow lazy, and you've worked hard to get that money - therefore you deserve to keep it? Laughing

I know a lot of people, who make a lot less than that, who work just as hard as you do. Probably harder, as I doubt you're doing back-breaking labor for a living. Why should they be forced to pay for things that you are exempt from?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Why the anti-union animosity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know