2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

oh jesus friggin' christ, scrat, stop weasling out of your comments with the elliptical movements of a snake.

you made no point, and by your own admission you described nothing that was. but you did infer clearly that you believed the time for unions has past because, as you state "they are no longer needed by most people."

you failed to describe what things unions have been successful in promoting, but made clear that whatever they were, unions "are no longer needed to do those things."

your remark, as stated in your post was:

"I don't argue that unions grew out of a historical need, but rather stems from my belief that they are no longer needed to do those things."

meant what? what "historical needs" were you infering? what were, in your words "those things" than the few effective successes of organized labor?

to what then were you refering other than the successful advocation of the 40 hour work week, child and safety laws and unemployment insurance that labor unions championed.

piss breaks on the line? a dental plan? time and a half overtime? collective bargaining itself?

what other things were you referencing then that labor had a "historical need" for that was the impetus of organized labor, but as you state "are no longer needed to do those things."

the major successes of organized labor are: the 40 hour work week, child and safety laws and unemployment insurance. other than the right by law to engage in collective bargaining itself with management, there was nothing else a knowledgable student of the labor movement in the US could refer to by your comments that labor had a "historical need" for.

you have missed or knowingly ignored the issue of the fundamental structural tensions in capitalism beween labor and management in your comments to put down unionized labor as being an artifact of an earlier age.

by doing so, you promoted, and perhaps even unwittingly on your part, to look at the struggle of the labor movement in static and not dynamic terms. this is the fundamental difference between looking at the labor movement as a series of "events' rather than as "process."

There is no doubt that union leadership has gotten lazy, fat and rich. That's why I have always looked to the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor to monitor the actions or inactions of those who would stand up for the laboring man and woman. Fat chance of getting any help from the present administration, being represented by people who have never punched a clock in their lives.

There are vigorous efforts in some unions (here in NYC especially) to find new leadership who do more than promise increased wages and benefits. The focus today is on the disparity between the salaries of management and the wages of the workers.

On a related note, have y'all noticed that the House passed a measure which will guarantee overtime for the lowest paid federal workers (about 1 mil), while reclassifying from 400,000 to 500,000 other workers as management, thereby excluding them from overtime pay or compensation?

Joe Nation, there have been "Vigorous Efforts" to clean up unions (Especially in NYC ) since Taft was President.

There is that old power corrupts thing . . .

None of which lessens the impact that organized labor has had on the country. If labor unions are in the doldrums, and have much less influence than previously, a good deal of it can be ascribed to union-busting policies at Federal and State levels since the Reagan days, as much as to high level corruption or venality. I worked for the civil service system in Illinois, and, shortly after Reagan fired all of the air traffic controllers, without a peep from congress, King James I of Illinois split the entire civil service system up by departments. I became an employee of the State Universities Civil Service System. It proved a very useful tool for fragmenting and neutralizing the power of ogranized labor.

Set, the provision does alter the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which essentially has remained unchanged for over 50 years. Opponents claim several hundred thousand presently qualified workers will lose overtime compensation ... but to be exempt from overtime, a worker must, among other requirements:

Have a base salary greater than the equivalent of $425.00 per 40hr week, exclusive of bonuses, incentives, and/or benefits or other perqs. That is just about double the current $225.00/wk level (last increased in '78, I believe).

Devote the preponderance of their work time to the discharge of managerial duties, as opposed to carrying out functions identical or essentially similar to those carried out by non-exempt employees.

Have independent authority to schedule, hire, promote, demote and fire staff.

Have independent authority to make and implement decisions relating to the day-to-day operation and functioning of the enterprise being managed.

Under the new rules, folks such as the manager of the local fast-food franchise restaurant, or the average retail chain store in a mall, previously classified as "Management" and thus overtime-exempt, now is classed as eligible for overtime for hours worked beyond 40 per week, in that the individual in question does not have the independent authority over staff or operations the new rules require (staffing matters are generally handled by a district office, and such things as sales promotions, advertising, hours of operation, choice of product line and quantity carried in inventory, office proceedure, worksite layout and fittings, and the like are mandated by Higher Headquarters and carried out strictly By-The-Book, with little or no room for individual initiative) and further is expected to serve the public in the same manner as other employees. All in all, its a big win for those in the service industries. The new system addresses issues that were at the core of wage/hour class-action suits such as those recently settled in favor of the plaintiff/workers (and several still ongoing, at both state and national level) involving firms such as RadioShack and WalMart.

I love it. The question posed to Scrat couldn't be clearer, or more specific.
I'm all aquiver in anticipating whether there will be a specific, clear reply...

Scrat.
Do you continue to have questions regarding unions? Do you still believe they are antiques from a bygone era and no longer needed?

we dont need no stinkin' unions, with our current increasing unemployment there won't be enough jobs to need any unions.

Well, Timber, i was asking if anyone had heard of the new provisions, about which i had only heard remarks in passing on the talk radio program to which i listen. However, you statement quoted above is misleading in the extreme, and immediately caught my eye, as i was once a steward in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and my "specialty" was greivance and disciplinary procedures.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was amended twice in 1939, in 1940, in 1941, 1946, 1947, twice in 1949, 1950, 1955, 1956, 1957, twice in 1958, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1967, 1972, 1974, 1977, 1979, 1985, 1986, 1989, twice in 1990, 1994, 1995, twice in 1996--as well as being referentially amended by section 8 of the Department of Transportation Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act is the most shop-worn political football on Capitol Hill, Timber--how very disingenuous of you to state that it "essentially has remained unchanged for over 50 years."

It's a tad unusual to find many folks of great wealth, particularly if born to it, who think unions a necessary social instrument. Several years past, a US Senator was talking with a reporter and made some comment which struck the reporter as not quite right, and he asked the Senator what he figured the average American made in a year. The Senator figured it to probably be about 250,000.

I belonged to one union for a couple of years coming out of high school, but I've been self-employed much of my adult life. My father was an organizer though, and I think the decline of union membership an unhappy trend - one of many unhappy trends which falls from the rather vulgar values which obtain whenever the business community is in political ascension.

The provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act are a minefield for the well-meaning union activist at the lower levels (as was i), who don't have access to the halls of power, and get brushed off by the overpaid attorney retained by every local to tell them what they shouldn't take to court. The provisions of the Act, with all of it's numerous amendments, as well as the other legislation which referentially amends the Act (far more than just secion 8 of the Department of Transporation Act), are must-read material for anyone involved in union activities. So i found this for anyone interested:

USDoL's Fair Labor Standards Act Links page[/color]

Set, I'll grant my observation may have been misleading, even that it was founded in less familiarity than that yuo have. My remark was predicated on readings from another webite (one oriented, if somewhat loosely, to matters in the workplace, wherein the subject has generated much discussion). Still, the current overhaul is a rather more vigorous shakeup of the statutes than has been customary, even if not the legislative earthquake disingenuously implied by my earlier statement. Thanks for the correction. In point of fact, for my working life, I was essentially uninvolved in such matters, as my compensation was primarily commission and bonus, and most frequently derived from employment as an "Independent Contractor". The only time I was dependent on "Salary" was my stint in the military, and my only "Hourly Worker" experience has been bartending, where the wage was insignificant compared to the tips. I gotta say, stock options and profit sharing were always good to me. And if you ask real nice, I'll even share my recipe for Bloody Mary mix with ya (be advised, its best suited for production in a high-volume environment)

Don't take spiritous liquors any longer, Boss . . . being a very large Irishman, they have lead me more often than not, into violent temptation. Nothing more lively, and dangerous, than a laughin' Irishman, both fists aflyin' . . .

Will readers of the Army Times vote for Bush in 2004?

http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1954515.php

tartarin
I can't help but wonder between the continued callups of reserve and national guard units and the constant of deployments of our forces how long it will be before the US will be unable to staff all volunteer services.
The question is will there be a fall off of enlistment's and reenlistments.

I can tell you from experience that was a very unusual editorial to be printed in the Army times.

au: my real question: will there be a reinstatement of the draft?

maybe that will get more 18-25 year-olds to the polls in 2004...

We could start an urban legend . . . disseminate through the acne zone chat rooms . . .