Obama '08?

Yup - and guys like Okie and George feel that workers shouldn't HAVE representation. That their interests are not important or material. That they should have no voice or say in how their industry is ran or how they are compensated for their work. Anyone who isn't a member of management, in their mind, is little better than a serf; one who can accept what management decides to hand out, or quit. That's the world they'd like to live in.

I couldn't disagree more with those opinions.

Cycloptichorn

You are indulging in your own fantasies about me and my supposed habits. They are occasionally amusing, but they reveal more about you than they do of me.

I have no idea what the exestintial point of the existence of labor unions mght be. However, their track record in the last several generations has been one of destroying one industry after another, presumabliy in the process of resisting being "fucked over by management" as you put it. The same sad story was repeated in the textile, steel, and manufacturing industries - insistent demands on current compensation; continuous resistence to competitively needed increases in productivity, whether through smarter processes or automation; constant agitation to destroy any unity of purpose or morale within the company they infected and establish largely silly productivity-destroying work rules. In this context it is worth recalling that the last strike of the UAW against GM was to prevent the modernization and automation of two majoir assembly plants in Flint Michigan to bring them up to prevailing industry standards. The UAW "won" than one, and a few years later the plants were closed forever.

By the way, there is no more wealthy management of the U.S. textile, steel, and manufacturing industries, because the industries themselves are gone, along with the jobs they once provided. The wealthy "management" class you so frequently deride increasingly consists of IT industry execs (who outsource all their manufacturing overseas), financial managers, tort lawyers and paid political consultants to government labor unions, not to mention the exceedingly well paid execs of the unions themselves.

Have you ever been a member of a labor union? Have you ever overseen any operation of any type that employs workers represented by a labor union? Have you ever overseen the accomplishment of anything?

All anyone here can know of you is what you write, and my descriptions are based on your own words. If you don't like the characterization, perhaps you should moderate the level of condescension and disdain in your posts.



That's quite evident from your posts! But, you can't even begin to understand why workers would want representation? You don't sympathize with their basic position?



Yes, I have, as I've told you before. It was an entirely good experience and I directly saw the way that our union both protected our rights in the workplace and helped individual members increase their skills.

The rest of your attempt at personal attack falls flat. I'm 31 years old, George. People at my stage of life or career typically do not 'oversee' operations, but rather work as part of them. I work as part of a team of management that works with an employees union but I'm not directly in charge of decisions that are made. I know the upside and the downsides of working with the union, who frequently make decisions or forward positions that I don't agree with. However, this doesn't make me question the wisdom of their existence at all.

As for the rest of your post, the conscious decision by Republican politicians - paid off by their allies in big business - to make EVERY incentive for corporations revolve around outsourcing their business to other countries, where labor is less respected, is as responsible for the fall of manufacturing in this country as anything else. You speak as if labor is responsible for all the problems that we've seen in American industry, but that's a foolish and historically inaccurate position to take.

Cycloptichorn

There is a theory which claims that management and unions are in cahoots to screw the consumer/taxpayer/punter. There is more status in managing highly paid workers than the other sort. And the dignity of management requires that compensation for managers, and their working environment, should always be a fairly large multiple of that of the workers they manage.

It goes wrong as soon as the consumers/ taxpayers/punters are forced by circumstances to realise that they are having the piss taken out of them. That's when the foot-stamping and recriminations begin which are as severe as the habits of the pretty conspiracy have become ingrained.

It goes without saying that the above theory, however speculative and fanciful it might be, renders the current theme of this thread utterly futile to those who think it has some validity.

When I mentioned habits becoming ingrained I was not just referring to the actual participants in the conspiracy. There are their wives to consider.

Perhaps then you should consider the possibility that future experiences may well teach you a few things that you don't yet know, understand or appreciate.

I do recall now your earlier mention of union membership. I don't dislike everything about unions, but I do object to the constant repetition of the same destructive behaviors on the part of American Labor unions, and note the great damage they have, in the process, done to the industries they pretended to support. I have learned that it isn't the magnitude of the mistakes they make that limits the achievements of organizations, nearly so much as it is the mistakes they repeat consistently and in defiance of repeated opportunities to learn and adapt.

In fact I had pretty good personal relationships with the heads of the union locals who represented workers in my employ, and, in the cases of the Steelworkers and Building Trades Council, with the staffs of the national unions. However, I learned that the only thing they could imagine to get and retain the loyalty of their members was continued hostile posturing with respect to the employer. On several occasions I was warned of trouble to come by the local Presidents, but asked to understand that it was only necessary grandstanding to play to their members. If that was the limit of their imagination and willingness to do some real work and innovation (and repeated experiences taught me that sadly was the case) then I concluded there was little hope for them. I have seen nothing since to induce me to change that conclusion.

In Germany there is apparently a different tradition. German law gives labor unions a degree of influence and representation on the governing boards of companies they represent, however, limits their political activity. I am largely ignorant of the working details, but have observed that German labor unions actively support productivity improvements in their plants ; have shown discipline in wage demands, helping to preserve the competitiveness of the most successful (relatively) export economy in the modern world.

I'm sure there is fault here on both sides of the historical management labor divide. However, if one is to prevail, I'll take the company. With just a company you get jobs and productive economic activity: with just a union and no company you get nothing.

To what exactly are you referring when you assert that our government has created EVERY incentive for outsourcing labor costs? I'll readily agree there are many such incentives, ranging from over zealous environmental laws; to numerous permitting requirements for industrial investment; to high taxes on employment; etc. But what is it that you particularly have in mind? We do have to balance exonomic issues with others in these areas, and my observation is that too often the basic economic issues that support everything else end up taking the back seat. However, I doubt that is what you are referring to here.

It is entirely unfair for you to blame the animosity between labor and management all on labor, or to claim that labor does not support the health of the company.

But the animosity hawk, when the theory I presented above is operative, is akin to the animosity between WWW Smackdown employees.

Once large amounts of money have been invested in gigantic industrial units such as car assembly plants both the unions and the management have the investors by the short hairs. They pull on them harder when the investors are in another country.

Now there's an insightful and persuasive argument !

It should be remembered when debating about Mr Obama that once the post of President has been created, and all the other posts derived from it, that somebody has to fill them.

And that the skills required to shoehorn a person into the post might not only be of little use to the proper functioning of the post but be inimical to it.

I realise that this is an argument for monarchy but the advantage of a monarchy is that it only produces a complete idiot about a third of the time whereas the electoral system produces them all of the time.

The skills required to get elected are now so refined that to get good enough to be elected it is necessary to neglect all other skills. One wouldn't expect an expert footballer to sit down and play a Beethoven Piana Concerto just because he was an expert footballer. Or vice versa. They are both complete idiots at the other's expertise.

Putting your own spin on things again, eh, okie?

There is no difference between the WI demonstrators and the Egyptian demonstrators with the exceptions of their languages and locations.

okie thinks the Tea Totalitarians are a grassroots organization!

But you hate the lawfully elected representatives.

I do not hate any of them. In fact, I voted for some of them, some which happen to be conservative and are trying to clean up the messes made by irresponsible liberals in government.

Do you hate the governor of Wisconsin, pom? He is trying to fix a huge problem. If the union thugs will cooperate with him, he might have a chance. Are they part of the solution or are they part of the problem, that is the question they need to answer.

okie says:


Which "union thugs" are those, okie? Schoolteachers? Police? Clerks in the office of vital records? You have a really peculiar concept of "thug". I'd call them decent, hard-wroking American citizens, pretty much like the people you always claim you're one of.

Someone that sounds off as much as you do should want to protect the First Amendment rights the union members of WI are trying to preserve. Do you think a government run by Tea Totalitarians would tolerate your constant running off at the mouth?

I love the early days of the labor union movement when members met after work to read books together and discuss philosophy and the humanities. Something that is above the head of most of the wing nuts.

Scott Walker promised tax breaks and loopholes of close to 4 billion dollars to big business and, ahem, the Koch brothers, who have extensive business interest in Wisconsin, donated generously to his campaign, and paid for nearly four million dollars worth of attack ads against his opponent. Sound like familiar Republican payoffs?
Now Wisconsin, which had a surplus when Walker came in, is facing a cumulative 2 billion dollar plus deficit. Gee, wonder why?
So who gets scapegoated? Just who the Republicans always blame when their economic fantasies go awry: unionized working people.

No, we know why...same as all the rest of the states. The economy has not improved much and the stimulus charge on our kids credit card has run out.