Where is the US economy headed?

@Cycloptichorn,

Maybe a contradiction in terms.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Labor Department’s monthly jobs report states that the unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent in December, a 0.4 percentage point drop. The U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs, slightly less than the 145,000 jobs that some economists predicted. The employment data for October and November was revised upwards to reflect 80,000 more jobs gained.

Not bad but not good enough. Needs to rise at double this rate or more.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, The uptick in December hires was based on the improved retail sales, and it's only temporary. What will be more telling is how companies begin to hire from this month on into the full year.

Seasonal cycles - especially for December - are tough to gauge.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Simple. You vote them out of practice just the way they were voted in. IBM is a perfect example of employment practices designed to keep unions away. The threat of unionization is always there and it's always enough to keep upper management from overly taking advantage of their workers.

2 Replies

@JPB,

There are also competition issues for IT professionals, and companies like IBM can't ignore what other companies are paying plus benefits - like stock options.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Simple. You vote them out of practice just the way they were voted in. IBM is a perfect example of employment practices designed to keep unions away. The threat of unionization is always there and it's always enough to keep upper management from overly taking advantage of their workers.

Wow, I totally disagree with this. The threat of unionization, in most industries, clearly isn't or wasn't enough to keep upper management from taking advantage of their workers. I'm sure you know I could post a hundred examples to support this.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Which is precisely why I say they had a purpose in the past.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Which is precisely why I say they had a purpose in the past.

And they still do today. What, you think that management all of a sudden isn't going to do everything they can take advantage of workers? That businesses are ran any more fairly then they absolutely have to be, by law and by what unions hold them to?

C'mon. There's little evidence of this.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Having worked for an organization that unionized and then de-unionized (is that a word?), I can tell you from experience that management went out of their way to let the employees know that they'd gotten the message. Having worked for another one that was threatening to unionize, I can tell you from experience that the threat of unionization was all that was necessary to have significant changes occur in working conditions in order to improve morale.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Having worked for an organization that unionized and then de-unionized (is that a word?), I can tell you from experience that management went out of their way to let the employees know that they'd gotten the message. Having worked for another one that was threatening to unionize, I can tell you from experience that the threat of unionization was all that was necessary to have significant changes occur in working conditions in order to improve morale.

I'm sure you realize that your experiences aren't necessarily representative of those of others. And that there are plenty of stories of bad management out there, who aren't swayed by threats of unionization. Who resort to threats of their own, or in cases of especially odious groups like Wal-Mart, will close an entire store down rather than allow a vote for unionization to even occur. Because the idea of worker representation threatens their entire business model.

You can't 'eliminate' unions and retain the ability to unionize. It's a contradiction.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm sure you realize that your experiences aren't necessarily representative of those of others. And that there are plenty of stories of bad management out there, who aren't swayed by threats of unionization. Who resort to threats of their own, or in cases of especially odious groups like Wal-Mart, will close an entire store down rather than allow a vote for unionization to even occur. Because the idea of worker representation threatens their entire business model.

Well, there's something to be said for knowing the devil you're about to get into bed with. I can think of greater evils than closing down Wal-Mart stores.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm sure you realize that your experiences aren't necessarily representative of those of others. And that there are plenty of stories of bad management out there, who aren't swayed by threats of unionization. Who resort to threats of their own, or in cases of especially odious groups like Wal-Mart, will close an entire store down rather than allow a vote for unionization to even occur. Because the idea of worker representation threatens their entire business model.

Well, there's something to be said for knowing the devil you're about to get into bed with. I can think of greater evils than closing down Wal-Mart stores.

Well, me too, as I don't shop there. But certainly we can agree that there are plenty of corporations and various management groups out there who are venal and corrupt themselves, and who workers deserve protection against.

Unions are a show of strength on the part of those who oppose the idea that all value within a company resides in its' management; who reject the idea that individual workers are replaceable cogs, whose jobs and lives are subject to capricious whims of those who would style themselves their betters. There's no reason to get rid of that force at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yaknow, I always enjoyed my time working in the union back when I was a construction worker during summers in College. Never had anything but good experiences with our Local, had nice wages (the work certainly was hot and hard), and training programs to advance your knowledge were cheap and easily available. I knew a lot of guys who made a good living doing construction work, in large part assisted by our union.

I think you should admit that unions are just like Corporations, their management and everyone else in life - some are much better than others, some serve a purpose and others don't, some are venal cheats and liars and others work hard for their membership. I never see you present a balanced view of unions, ever; just a constant stream of derisive hate. That's not convincing.

Cycloptichorn

I generally agree with that. Indeed unions ARE corporations, except (1)they are exempt from anti trust laws designed to prevent monopolies and (2) they are not required to disclose the details of their financial records as are public (and now many private) corporations and (3) the limits on the political activities of their managers and members are far less restrictive.

Moreover the Building Trades Union (and its component unions) operate far differently than do all other unions, both public and private sector. The building trades unions operate a hiring hall from which contractors staff up for projects. Unlike the industrial metal trades unions they don't apply exacting seniority rules, giving employers the ready ability to sack non productive workers (the fact that this is possible significantly reduces the need for it) and choose those best suited for the job at hand. The union operates the benefits system for its members and negotiates pay & benefit rates for its members with participating companies. In most cases companies are free to use the union on some projects and not use it on others (depending on the agreement it works out with the national building trades union). Finally, as you noted, the union provides required elements of industrial safety training and some key trade qualifications. In short the building trades unions provide some real added value for both their employers and their members. Unlike the Teamsters, and several other major unions their pension funds have been generally well administered and funded (although a former Building Trades President, Bob Georgine, was indicted and convicted of fraud in his subsequent management of the pension fund of AFL/CIO executives).

Most other unions claim and demand a monopoly on all hiring of represented trades or functions by employers with which they have contracts. Worse they insist on seniority and "bumping" rules for job assignments, giving the union a large say in how work is done and just who does it. In one company I ran the local Steelworkers union - 1,700 members in the company - insisted on these rules across all categories of work, meaning that if one worker left for any reason up to 50 or so would change jobs in succession by an idiotic seniority based "bumping" rule under which workers retained their hourly pay byt systematically gravitated to the easiest and least demanding jobs. This was a pervasive cancer on the operations of the company that affected everything we tried to achieve.

Your experience was with the best (or least bad) of unionism. Everything else is far worse.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I thought there would be more chatter here about U-3 dropping from 9.8% to 9.4%.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

I heard Hannity talking about it today, and his take is that more people have given up on employment, so that the U6 rate stays high, but U3 drops slightly. I need to look more at the actual numbers, but with unemployment benefits extended and all of that, it makes sense that more people have simply given up or dropped out of the labor market for a while.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

rjb, I also wonder how the government layoffs and cut in hours impact the labor stats? From where I sit, there's going to be a great deal more government employee layoffs at all levels of federal, state, and local jobs.

I'm just curious.

0 Replies

The right to unionize was removed by Regan and Bush by stacking the the dept meant to regulate union right to form a union. I know of many companies who threatian to shut down their companies if employies try to form a union. The right to form a union has already been removed for business by government.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Part of the problem with unions, as I see it, is that they like to use their power to bully nonunion workers.
Case in point... several years ago when I was still hauling produce, I had a load to deliver at a grocery warehouse in Grand Rapids Mi.
When I arrived there I found out that the employees were on strike for some reason.
Even though I was not union, the union thugs threatened damage to my truck if I attempted to cross their picket line.
When I asked them if they would pay my bills if I got fired for honoring their line, they said no.
I told them to move, because I was coming thru.
I put my truck in gear and crossed their line...they moved out of the way.

Tell me, why should unions have the power to threaten violence?

And what makes unions think they have the right to threaten public safety?
Several years ago when the greyhound drivers went on strike, some people died because the striking drivers interfered with the operation of the busses, causing some people to get run over.
Or the members of PATCO, that Reagan fired.
They went on strike, even though they had a no strike clause in their contract.
Their actions put millions of people at risk, yet the union whined and cried when Reagan fired all of them.

I'm sorry, but the time for unions has come and gone.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Since many companies are either privately owned, or have stockholders, there is no law that says they must stay open.
The companies can close, change the spelling of their name, and reopen.
That is perfectly legal and it would completely eliminate the union, because the union would have no authority in that new company.

Personally, I like what Caterpillar did a few years ago.
They simply outlasted the union and the union finally settled for less then what they were getting before they went on strike.

0 Replies

I am still wading through the BLS unemployment numbers. U-3, which most media focuses on, dropped from 9.8 to 9.4% which appears at 1st glance to be good news.
U-6, which measures people who are have jobs but who are not getting a full week, was unchanged, as was the average work week.
The number of people who are unemployed and have somehow been determined to be no longer looking for work skews both U-3 and U-6 to being more favorable.
The net number of new jobs is barely if at all sufficient to absorb new entrants to the job market.
You are correct, CI, that governments shed jobs lost month. 10K by an early report with more to follow. Cutting government spending is a worthy goal, of course, but it will have an impact on employment.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know