2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

agreed. I would hate to think we would be like Italy.

Italy has survived quite well with mob/anarchy government. when you buy them, you get your money's worth.

Dys
Why pick on Italy? Is that because the rest of the governments in Europe are simon pure. What for instance would you call the present investigation into the cooking of the EU books.

I have no experience with unions or management. I also have no experience with cancer or with Iraq, but have opinions on both. :wink: If my lack of experience devalues my opinion in your view, ignore it.

I am not a member of a union, nor have I ever been. I get paid a wage that I fought for when I was hired, and such raises, bonuses etc. as are deemed appropriate given my personal contribution to this company. My employer pays me what they do because they believe my merits for the company give them back at least that value. If they did not, they would pay me (or someone else) less than this for the work I do. (The reason they pay me what they do is that I would not accept less; I set the price for my labor, and I work hard to ensure that I can continue to do so.)

But were I only skilled in a market where the natural price of labor was lower than the artificial price being set by a union, I might be glad for unions, though only on a selfish level.

Define mob, tart. Is this where we sing "Arrivaderci Roma?" They make such good movies.

AU i was not picking on Italy, I was applauding them.

Scrat
You are right I will ignore it. Since you are completely clueless on the subject. The real world and what you perceive are miles apart. I for the most part of my working life was a member of management and have had my share of problems and fights with unions. However, despite that I understand the value of unions. And what the life and bargaining power of a worker would be without it or as I stated before the threat of unionization.

Nice that you chose to do so in such a civil manner.

<heavy sigh>

Scrat
You are right that was uncalled for. In fact I almost sounded like you. Sorreeeee!

LOL. I am happy to accept your apology, backhanded though it was. (Hey, I'm a pragmatist. I'll take what I can get.)

For the record, I do not claim to have all the answers on this issue (unions). I'm just sharing my opinion. That opinion may be flawed, wrong, etc.. You may well have a better perspective from which to form a meaningful opinion on the subject. As such, I'd be interested in seeing you make your case for why we still need unions. Specifically, is there something about certain labor markets (certain job types, skillsets) that might make unions necessary in those markets but not in others? I can assure you that what I wrote about my personal experience is accurate. What makes it impossible or difficult for any worker to compete as an individual for jobs in the labor market? Can you help me understand your point of view?

If you don't like the CBS poll, there are plenty of others that lead to the same conclusions. Several on the page I linked, as a matter of fact. While you, and those with whom you most closely associate, may feel differently, apparently, you and your close associates are a ways away from being among the majority. Passion does not equal plurality. Currently, I see about as much chance for the Dems to sell their agenda to the masses as for you to find a buyer for your bridge. Things could change, of course; there's a long time untill the election.

Timber -- I was laughing because of the recent discovery that CBS online kept changing its headline about Bush -- to better suit the White House. Just as they're saying this afternoon, "Bush has lost his Teflon!" -- I'm saying, CBS's credibility is in the tank!!

The third quote here seems to be from a conservative "family" paper, interestingly enough. Choose the numbers you want to believe. Seems to me all polls are about 2 to 6 weeks behind actual public opinion (just as a broker told me Money magazine is at least two months behind the actualities of the market...)



A new poll finds Americans about evenly divided when asked if the country was better off under President Clinton than it is under President Bush.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found 49-percent say Republican Bush and 46-percent say Democrat Clinton. The difference is within the poll's margin of error.

Two-thirds of those surveyed say they have a favorable view of Bush, reflecting continued positive feelings about him personally. Bush's job approval rating is 62-percent.

A poll by Quinnipiac University finds Americans evenly divided on Bush's handling of the economy, but the public approves of Bush's handling of terrorism by a 2-1 margin.
http://www.wtvynews4.com/home/headlines/377581.html



Back at home, the president's public approval rating remains strong at about 60 percent in most polls. But some new surveys indicate declining public confidence in how the administration is handling the aftermath of the Iraq war.
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=A4DCF360-B9FE-4DD4-BCE109EAD7624348



Bush Poll Numbers Dropping
By David Brody, Washington, D.C., correspondent
Analysts debate what the decline means.
According to The Pew Research Center, President Bush has slipped dramatically in the opinion polls. His job performance approval rating was at 74 percent during the war, but the latest peek at the tea leaves shows it's down to 60 percent and some numbers are even worse.
From Iraq to the economy, the numbers are not sympathetic to the White House. Let's compare: At the height of the war, 61 percent thought the war was going well. That number is now down to a jaw-dropping 23 percent. On the economy, just a month ago, 53 percent thought the president could be doing more, but now 62 percent say that
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0026832.html

DEWEY WINS!!!

Dewey was an Admiral
At Manila Bay
Dewey was a candidate
Just the other day
Do we love each other . . .

Scrat: I have been on both sides of the management/union conflict. Let me tell you it is always better to be on the management side.

What makes you think that George _____, an excellent welder, top class or Richard ______, a near genius cameraman and lighting expert, or Janice __________, a great writer, an incisive reporter for a pretty good newspaper, or Karen _________, a superior salesperson, intuitive, personable, informed and detail oriented have the same skills you have when it comes to negotiating with their employers??

The company that George worked for made it a termination offense to discuss with any other employee the wages per hour made by any employee. How's that for democracy? Freedom of speech? Not if you want to know what the other welders are making. Information that every person in management had was forbidden to their workers.

It's been so many years I guess it can't hurt to say the KTUL TULSA is the TV station that Richard worked for $2.50 a hour when the local McDonald's was paying $2.10 for shift workers. He loved the work, but he couldn't raise a family on $2.50. He was 27 years old in 1981, he was an artist and management took advantage of him at every meeting.

Janice and Karen are still friends of mine and are two of the brightest people I have ever known, but they had no concept of negotiation. I had to give a book to read to get them ready for their annual sit-down with this puke from personnel who was one of the more surprised people on the planet when they knew what to ask for. (I was part of the management team by that time, I felt like I was an undercover agent. And yes, I could have been fired for HELPING them prepare for salary discussions. )

Lookit, I don't think unions are perfect, but I see a sea of low wage workers, high school educated or less, who through their LABOR make it possible for the companies to make a substantial profit, companies who over pay their executives who risk less then the workers they are screwing over at every opportunity. Those workers are not being paid what they are worth merely because salary negotiation is not one of their skills, welding is, or patternmaking, or steel rolling or lighting or writing, or cutting, grinding and fitting, or high temperature molding.

You want to know what makes it difficult for a worker to compete as an individual in today's market? The same as when I was doing the talking, we let that worker know that we could find a replacement for him easily, even when we knew it would be difficult or impossible. Rule two was that no matter what the worker asked for, we would offer less than half. Strictly by the negotiation book, and because we held all the cards, we called the play. (Truth be known, Scrat, if you have been doing your own negotiations without training, you probably could have been making 20% more. Ask the next time you're up ask what the company is expected to earn in the next year. Good luck.)

What I'm saying is that your life is not the life of these people, nor of the life of millions of workers others in the USA and of millions more overseas. If they are not represented by unions now, as they should be, it is more evidence of the power of corporate management to squelch any effort by workers to organize for the workers benefit rather than the lack of necessity for unions.

Joe

Until quite recently in history, it was illegal . . . illegal . . . for workers to associate. There have never been any restrictions on employer associations, with the exception of those for price fixing collusion, and the record of regulatory agencies ain't too damned good on enforcing that. In 1819, English dragoons fired upon workers who had met at St. Peters Fields near Manchester for an organizing metting--it was known as the Peterloo massacre. The Ohio militia fired upon such a meeting in 1878, killing dozens of workers and their wives and children, and wounding many dozens more. If unions are no longer needed, then one would have to say that trade and manufacturers associations are no longer necessary. This has been a damnably one-sided discussion.

Unions in concept serve a purpose. As with anything else which evolves into a bureaucracy, the original purpose becomes subordinate to the expansion of the bureaucracy. Unions as extant in today's USA serve their own hierarchies more diligently than they serve their members. Of course, much the same can be said of political parties, or regulatory agencies.

No bout adoubt it, Boss . . .