34
   

Why the anti-union animosity?

 
 
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 08:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
I don't speak to you for a reason.

but before I quit, I've been meaning to say this...

zen does not mean what you think it does. it has nothing to do with fantasizing about little girls.

argue with yourself if you wish, hatemonger.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 08:57 pm
@Rockhead,
A simple "no" would have done the job, though it is interesting that to you arguing that the unions will not get away with blaming their being over compensated on the state, that they will be held to blame as well, is hate. I take it that your definition of "hate" is "anyone who disturbs my cherished beliefs"
Rockhead
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 08:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
you take it however you like it, and then shove it up your ass...

bye.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 10:44 pm
An excellent example of why the conservatives have decided that state worker unions have to go, as they have become a critically important proponent of big government
Quote:
Even with the cloud of uncertainty in Sacramento, Mr. Brown’s aides and Democratic leaders have quietly begun laying the groundwork for a campaign on behalf of the tax extensions that is expected to cost $40 million to $60 million, a huge amount of money reflecting the cost of statewide television advertising here. Much of that money would come from state labor unions. Labor groups are already running polls and conducting focus groups that have, officials said, found great but not insurmountable resistance to tax increases.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/us/25california.html?_r=1&hpw
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 11:29 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

More Americans are employees than employers. Presumably, then, most Americans would have sympathy for fellow employees rather than for employers. Yet that sympathy often doesn't extend to fellow employees who are union members. I can understand if you're a boss who doesn't like unions, but I'm at a loss to understand why a worker wouldn't like them. Can someone explain this to me?



Sure,

Fucked in the head.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 02:12 am
@dlowan,
Yup, that's the best answer.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 07:36 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

JPB wrote:

Here's another thing that irritates me about public employee unions. They wages earned are paid by taxpayers. Union dues are removed from wages so that non-public employees can represent their membership at the so-called bargaining table with the goal of getting the employer, which is US, to fork over more money. So, we the taxpayers are funding the unions, whose job it is to get more money out of us.


I just want to expand on this more. Because it's a very inaccurate way of looking at things.


What? How does anything you wrote below make what I said above inaccurate?

Quote:
Let's take WI for an example:

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument

Quote:
Economic nonsense is being reported as fact in most of the news reports on the Wisconsin dispute, the product of a breakdown of skepticism among journalists multiplied by their lack of understanding of basic economic principles.

Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans.

Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, created the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not.

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.


How can that be? Because the “contributions” consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply “contribute more” to Wisconsin’ s retirement system (or as the argument goes, “pay their fair share” of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin’ s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.

The labor agreements show that the pension plan money is part of the total negotiated compensation. The key phrase, in those agreements I read (emphasis added), is: “The Employer shall contribute on behalf of the employee.” This shows that this is just divvying up the total compensation package, so much for cash wages, so much for paid vacations, so much for retirement, etc.


The goal of the Union leadership is to stop the Union from getting fucked over by the State, who wants to renege on earlier agreements - agreements that they chose not to fund all on their own. Blaming the unions for the fact that the State has badly mismanaged their finances over the years is folly.

Cycloptichorn


Still having nothing to do with what I said being inaccurate, you call what WI is trying to do as reneging on earlier agreements and I won't quibble with you over the semantics. I agree with your last sentence. However, what I hear Walker saying is that whatever was agreed to in the past is no longer sustainable and must be changed... but that's a different thread.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:36 am
@JPB,
Courtesy of a poster on another thread >
http://able2know.org/topic/168051-2#post-4518746 I got this very useful link for fact-checking statements by various sources. Most sources are rated on a true/false/intermediate range, but Cyclo's sources mostly qualify for a rating called "Pants on Fire": http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ Smile
Cycloptichorn
 
  6  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 09:53 am
@High Seas,
Which sources, specifically? How did my name get wrapped up in this?

I didn't quote a single one of the sources you linked to, at all. So, you're somewhat off base with your slanderous comment.

Also, I addressed the fact that Politifact has been having credibility issues lately on the other other thread - the discussion thread on the WI situation, not the mouth-breather thread on it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  6  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 10:06 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Well joe, this is a country where 90%of the people think they are in the top 10% of income earners. Why should those of us in the top 90% care about the bottom 90%?

Best analysis so far.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 11:33 am
@joefromchicago,
Which also proves that conservatives have lost their mind. They still don't realize the destruction they are heaping on themselves.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 09:47 pm
Parasites make my skin crawl.
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 11:57 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
They have lotions for that.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 04:08 am
@joefromchicago,
If the dermatology jokes are quite over, check last month's Vallejo legal precedent - spells out the future of unions persisting in unrealistic demands:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-19/bankrupt-vallejo-in-california-files-plan-to-end-court-control-of-finances.html
Quote:
General unsecured creditors would collect 5 percent to 20 percent of their claims under the plan of adjustment filed late yesterday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Sacramento, the state capital.......
The onetime U.S. Navy town of about 120,000 on San Francisco Bay sought protection from creditors after the recession eroded tax revenue and unions rejected wage cuts.
“It’s unfortunate that we’re not able to do more for our creditors,” Marti Brown, a Vallejo council member, said...“But if you can’t pay, you can’t pay.”....
“Such objections will be both on the merits -- such as the objections to the health care-related claims of retirees --....
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 07:22 am
@High Seas,
Who defines 'unrealistic'?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 08:00 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
I can understand if you're a boss who doesn't like unions, but I'm at a loss to understand why a worker wouldn't like them. Can someone explain this to me?

I think it's a mixture of several things, such as---
  • jealousy: Most Americans are not in unions, and the union movement in America, unlike that in Germany, is fragmented. So Americans may not frame their thoughts about unions in terms of unions in general raising wages for workers in general. They may think of it in terms of other workers' unions raising other workers' wages---and feel jealous of that.

  • risk aversion: From the perspective of price theory, unions are cartels that raise wages above the level they would be at in a competitive job market. This causes wage gains for some workers at the cost of disemployment for others. (There is also a loss of profits for employers, but we don't care about that for now.) Assuming the surcharge is modest enough, unions deliver a net benefit for their workers, considered as a whole. But individual workers don't care about the union's workers as a whole. They care about their own benefits. So if they are risk-averse---if they fear losing their job more than they look forward to higher wages---they have a reason to turn out anti-union.

  • successful right-wing propaganda: Employers, who don't like unions, can influence public opinion by funding right-wing think tanks, buying TV stations, and starting up astroturf campaigns. They may find that cheaper than making a deal with unions. And if their propaganda is successful, they just might create a climate where unions are just not talked about approvingly---just as there once was a social climate in which you couldn't talk about sex approvingly. (That was in spite of everyone having it. All Victorians, without exception, owed not just their income but their lives to millions of generations of fuckers---literally. Yet the mores of their time inhibited them from mentioning it.) Apparently right-wing propagandists, powered by money from union-hating capitalists, are succeeding at establishing a similar taboo about unions.

All of which is just a fancy way of saying that I don't know, either.
hingehead
 
  4  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 08:39 am
@Thomas,
Let's not forget that when there's a strike in a sector that affects your day to day life, from childhood (pilots, teachers, refinery workers, public transport, food/fuel transport for example) you suffer because the 'union is on strike'. Rarely do the reasons for a strike (other than 'pay rise') rate a mention. And it's never reported that you can't fill up because the employer pays poor wages or provides bad conditions.

I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Australia 'industrial turmoil' is a rare thing these days - I can remember in the early 70s/early 80s that you knew a holiday period was approaching because pilots and refinery workers went on strike. Like clockwork it seemed.

And when the trains and buses were out you suffered even if you never took the train or bus because the traffic was even more **** than usual.

It's subtly ingrained in us from childhood that a strike is the action of a union - the subtleties and complexities that end in strike are well hidden from us (even if we were interested).
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 09:11 am
@hingehead,
I think this is a key point regarding public feelings toward unions. When I was in high school, there was a six week teachers' strike. It completely devastated the entire school year. Of course students had to go to school so I would have to hide my bike so that picketers wouldn't vandalize it. I learned this after the first few flat tires and bent fenders. It was hard from my point of view to blame the school board when the face of the strike looked like picketing teachers.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 10:40 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
It's subtly ingrained in us from childhood that a strike is the action of a union - the subtleties and complexities that end in strike are well hidden from us (even if we were interested).


This point is well-taken. When i was young, and based on what i've read about the history of organized labor in the United States, people once understood that unions went on strike for better wages and for decent pay--and that whether or not they got that depended upon the employer, who was just as responsible for the strike action as was the union. People once both understood why the unions took strike action (and often approved of it), and understood that their own pay and working conditions were favorably affected by union action. When i was a boy, many (most?) working men and women lived through the era of the really nasty labor actions in the 1930s--they knew first hand how union action had affected their lives for the better. When many of them entered the work force, there was no fair labor standards act, there was no unemployment compensation, there was no workman's compensation, there were no disability programs (Jack London observed--a close paraphrase here--that injury is the rock upon which the barqure of the working man is wrecked), there were no workplace health and safety laws. People knew how profound the influence of labor had been on their lives.

Most people alive today do not necessarily know these things. Beginning with the unsavory reputation of the Teamsters, paired in the public mind with organized crime, and running through the very public union busting of the Reagan administration, unions have been successfully demonized of those whose interests are served by that image. In Arthur Conan Doyle's The Valley of Fear, the hero is an undercover plant from Pinkerton's, and the villians (real thugs--you wonder when they had time to dig coal) are the conspirators of organized labor. England had laws prohibiting "combinations," essentially outlawing trades unions. No one prosecuted capital under the combinations act when they dined together, met at concerts or at the theater, and fixed prices and wages, and blacklisted workers known or simply thought to be labor organizers. In 1819, at St. Peters Fields near Manchester, labor organizers convened a "monster meeting" to discuss parliamentary reform (understanding what it would take to better their conditions), which did not violate the combinations act, as long as they didn't discuss labor conditions and organizing. The city fathers of Manchester panicked nonetheless, the crowd (men, women and children--it had been a family day, a monster picnic as much as a monster meeting) numbering in the thousands. Dragoons charged the crowd and ten to 20 were killed and hundreds wounded--it became known as the "Peterloo" massacre, in a sneer at the arch-Tory, the Duke of Wellington.

From the earliest days, organized labor fought an uphill battle, and fought a hostile public as well as hostile capital. It seems that there was a brief period of halcyon days when organized labor was understood and appreciated--before capital resumed its campaign of slander and attack.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 10:43 am
If unions restricted themselves to working issues like pay, benefits and working conditions for their members, rather than funding the political viewpoints of the far left, they'd probably see less resentment and pushback from this right of center country.

I see value to the unions in the strength and leverage they afford to workers. However when they restrict an individual's liberties by policies like requiring membership for employment and then use collected dues for positions without regard for and for purposes often antithetical to the political and personal beliefs of large portions of their membership, then I think they do more harm than good.
 

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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 04:06:17