Unions and “unions”
However, business, especially big business, uses such activity whenever it perceives a pending problem. They are certainly not called unions, they are called groups, associations, affiliates, councils, etc., but they are absolutely unions with the express purpose of strengthening the power of the members to raise prices or lobby government or whatever their current cause might be. A perfect example of this is the threat perceived as bias by the energy companies in Colorado. The moment these companies didn’t get exactly what they wanted they want to form a “union” so that they can have a larger voice in what happens to them.
Isn’t this exactly what labor unions are trying to do? Their express purpose is to improve the lives of their members. Someone would have to come up with some strong new reasons why unions are bad for America and for our economy than the flimsy ones we have heard in the past to convince me—and many others that union activity is unacceptable.
I can’t believe there is a conspiracy among conservatives to hold working people down, but it surely seems that way when issues like labor unions or worker rights come up. Yet these same people feel that for business to use such devices is perfectly proper and ethical. Could this be hypocrisy in action?
This letter has not been edited.
The Neocon horror of Unions comes from their "Think Tank" misreadings of Ayn Rand, that girlish romantic, whose novels see Unions as the first step to Socialism.
Shortcutting past reality, they jump to the conclusion that anything containing the words "workers," "rights," "people," or "big business" are Communism in disguise.
They think it makes them look smart to perpetrate this Anti-American blather, and Lord knows, they need something to give them a veneer of intelligence - but it's not working....
Posted by Serge on August 21, 2007 02:50 PMAs someone that has a Masters in Human Resources and a BA in History, and is currently a corporate recruiter, I will try to explain, with as little bias as possible, why unions are not as needed as they once were.
For the most part, unions are now just as much of a corporation as the "company" they negotiate with. It is the collection of dues, and the political clout that unions currently posses that has corrupted the once very noble course of "protecting and establishing the rights of the worker."
Unions are now more of a throw back to socialism, then they are a proponent of safe, stable working environments. They protect the lowest common denominator at the detriment of the most productive. The idea that longevity breads success, is absurd. Innovation is the life-blood of business, and just because "it has always been done this way for the 30 years I have been here" doesn't mean that it can't be done better, or more productively.
Unions offer no "real" protections. For evidence, review the 1970's steel workers in Pennsylvania, and the breweries of Wisconsin, or the UAW workers that have been laid off in Detroit, or Motorola's house cleaning in the late 1990's. No pensions, no commitments, no jobs, over-inflated compensation, and no transferable skills.
Union collective bargaining agreements have a tendency to inflate actual wages. The "market" may determine that an uneducated, semi-skilled laborer working a general assembly line should be paid $12.50/hr ($26,000/yr), while in a union environment, that job is now $18.75/hr ($39,000). While it may appear on the surface that the union is getting the worker "more money" it is in fact hindering the expansion of the position to allow for additional employees, as the real value for a semi-skilled, uneducated laborer is now inflated beyond market value, and as such may influence where the company locates, especially in a manufacturing environment, not to mention actual wages paid, minus union dues, is not substantially higher than market value to the employee.
Unions are notorious for promoting and encouraging an "us vs. them" mentality. Of the worker vs management. Not in every instance (for example the airline industry is known for it's positive relationship with it's unions), but for the most part takes the "bargaining" out of the collective bargaining agreement (which is why arbitration incidences have increased dramatically).
With the advent of OSHA, the oversight of the Federal Government on companies regulates safe working conditions. Federal and State employment law assure non-discriminatory practices (or follow up on allegations of such), as well as standard work week + compensation for non-exempt employment. These are things the union assisted in bringing about, but no longer needs to do this.
These are but a few examples, scholastically, professionally, and historically, why unions are no longer considered "functional." We could also discuss organized crime influences, strong arm tactics, fabrications (in the case of Wal*Mart), and internal corruption (the most famous being Jimmy Hoffa Sr.) but on a purely functional level, I hope I answered Mr. Ruckman's letter.
Posted by Dan2 on August 21, 2007 03:31 PMWow Dan -- well said.
(And that's coming from a Democratic son of a Missouri Pacific Railroad Union worker.)
Posted by Tree Hugger on August 21, 2007 03:53 PMI don't have an opinion one way or the other about unions since I've never worked in a field where it was an issue.
I did read an interesting piece recently (sorry can't link to it 'cause I wouldn't know where to start) that talked about how unions were instrumental in preventing illegal immigrants from working in certain industries. The reasoning was that the last thing the union wanted was an influx of low paid labor and went to great lengths to verify citizenship.
I guess I'm wondering if the increase in job opportunities for undocumented workers can be linked to the decrease in unions.
Posted by Michael R on August 21, 2007 04:11 PMI can assure you that in at least a business I work in, the construction industry, the wages are kept low by the influx of illegals and the union is happy as a clam to add them to their roles. They even have spanish speaking union workers whose sole job is to get as many of them signed as possible and a wink and a nod is all that is required for the "Citizenship req"
Posted by Dravur on August 21, 2007 04:16 PMTree Hugger - Thanks. I really did try to be as factual as possible.
Michael,
While I do not know what you are referencing, a prime example of the exact opposite of your comment would be found right here in Colorado and the raid by the ICE at Swift and Co, a union manufacturing facility. The converse is usually true from your comment in that unions tend to desire the dues associated with additional labor, than to prevent additional labor, documented or not.
An example of this exact policy may be found within the agricultural field. Visit the United Farm Workers site (or follow this link: http://www.ufwaction.org/campaign/agjobs707?source=web)
This is directly from this site:
"Despite the senate vote, there is still an opportunity to move forward with AgJOBS this year. The bipartisan AgJOBS bill--negotiated between the UFW and the agricultural industry--would allow undocumented farm workers to earn the right to permanently stay in this country by continuing to work in agriculture. "
Notice the key word being UNDOCUMENTED, as the vast majority of the agricultural work force, especially within the western and southern regions of the United States, is comprised of uneducated, low skilled, foreign or foreign national laborers.
While you may have indeed seen something somewhere Michael, the union does not have the action item to insure worker status of a potential employee. It is the employer that is tasked with documenting the legal status of a potential employee (the I-9 form). But in doing a quick google search, I came across this press release from the AFL-CIO in 2000:
"In February, the AFL-CIO Executive Council unanimously adopted a resolution urging the end of sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers, as mandated by the so-called Immigration Reform and Control Act."
Dan2: "It is the collection of dues, and the political clout that unions currently posses that has corrupted the once very noble course of "protecting and establishing the rights of the worker."
"So, if unions didn't collect dues or have political clout they would be OK? Management would surely think so since that would render them worthless.
When Dan2 starts of with that patently ridiculous statement, you can be sure that the rest of his statement will also be highly biased and will be composed, not of any solid facts, but only of his unsupported opinions.
More ridiculous statements:
"Unions are notorious for promoting and encouraging an "us vs. them" mentality. Of the worker vs management."
For evidence, review the 1970's steel workers in Pennsylvania, and the breweries of Wisconsin, or the UAW workers that have been laid off in Detroit, or Motorola's house cleaning in the late 1990's. No pensions, no commitments, no jobs, over-inflated compensation, and no transferable skills.
How do unions do that? By contending that management should provide more benefits for its employees. Well, duh!! That is exactly what the employees want, more benefits. That is exactly what management resists providing, more benefits. Of course management would love it if its employees accepted the "You can trust me, I'm from management" approach.
How long has there been tension between management and employees? Forever. It's not a union invention. It's an invention of human nature.
"For evidence, review the 1970's steel workers in Pennsylvania, and the breweries of Wisconsin, or the UAW workers that have been laid off in Detroit, or Motorola's house cleaning in the late 1990's. No pensions, no commitments, no jobs, over-inflated compensation, and no transferable skills."
Of course a person would have to study what went on to know how accurately Dan2's characterization is; I surely would not take his highly biased opinion for it. In any case, what Dan2's characterization shows is that the unions may have done a poor job. You think the employees would have been better off without the union, just relying on the goodness of heart of the steel, auto and other companies? These companies not well known for their charitable giving.
But what his statement does show is how much more effective unions are today, due to, among other things, collecting dues and exerting political pressure.
"With the advent of OSHA, the oversight of the Federal Government on companies regulates safe working conditions. Federal and State employment law assure non-discriminatory practices (or follow up on allegations of such), as well as standard work week + compensation for non-exempt employment. These are things the union assisted in bringing about, but no longer needs to do this."
Where does Dan2 get off posting this kind of nonsense? You bet your booties that these laws are not self-enforcing. There needs to be people watching closely to advocate for their enforcement. Enter the unions.
Dan2 makes a variety of conclusory, opinionated statements with no examples to support them, except for the spurious example noted above.
You don't suppose that the fact that Dan2 is a corporate recruiter has anything to do with his obvious bias, do you?
Posted by Truth on August 21, 2007 04:46 PMThe only people making the real money in unions are the controlers of the unions and the dem.politicians.
Posted by Keith on August 21, 2007 05:04 PMU.A.W. = U Ain't Workin'
Says it all. Whenever a union vote comes up at a plant building foreign nameplates by Americans in the USA, it FAILS every time!
Posted by Hank on August 21, 2007 05:06 PMTruth,
I knew a socialist like you would twist the words and meanings. That is what you do. Especially when you selectively quote. If you would have quoted the entire paragraph, "For the most part, unions are now just as much of a corporation as the "company" they negotiate with. It is the collection of dues, and the political clout that unions currently posses that has corrupted the once very noble course of "protecting and establishing the rights of the worker." it would be evident that I was comparing the capitalization of the union and not merely spouting opinion (although my experience and education should allow for a leg up on this topic, vs your off the hip comments).
My nonsense, huh? Your utter lack of understanding of employment law, the history of the labor union in the United States, the ability of the individual employee to file a claim with EEOC, and with whistle blower laws, demonstrates YOUR bias. My comments were based on fact, history, and knowledge of employment laws and regulations. You offer no counter to my statements, just resort to your typical, know nothing comments in an attempt to belittle my well versed and informed statements of fact.
Truth, I feel bad for you. It must be difficult to continue to be so wrong, on so many fronts, and offer up nothing but your slanted, biased, socialist views, and your lack of understanding of business and labor.
But to counter your asinine comments, what were the unions collecting dues for, if not to protect the employees? What happens when a union worker goes on strike, and management hires "scabs" to replace those workers? I'll tell you what happens Truth, the union represented employee forfeits their job. No pay, no pension, no skills, nothing. Recent employment history demonstrates that.
You see, fellow posters, Truth has no desire to actually write intelligently about topics using fact, statistics, or subject matter expertise. Instead, if he doesn't agree with a position, he throws a tantrum, calls names, attempts to debunk information with his personal beliefs and opinions.
I imagine, that most of the readers of these blogs would look at my first post and, just as Tree Hugger did, agree with my evaluation of the unions, based on the information I provided, and the track record of the unions themselves, with maybe the exception of Old Grouch, but I would bet that even he may see the value in that post. Even drew, while he may not agree with my evaluation, will recognize that it is not biased, but indeed valid.
Truth, stick to the things you know. I would imagine you would be a champion of Marxist history, of maybe the rise of the American Socialist Party and it's influence in Milwaukee in the early 21st century. On this topic though, unless you actually have any evidence to back up your blather, let's leave this topic to the experts in the field, shall we?
Posted by Dan2 on August 21, 2007 05:08 PMAnother example of Truth selectively quoting:
Truth quotes me and then writes:
"For evidence, review the 1970's steel workers in Pennsylvania, and the breweries of Wisconsin, or the UAW workers that have been laid off in Detroit, or Motorola's house cleaning in the late 1990's. No pensions, no commitments, no jobs, over-inflated compensation, and no transferable skills."
Of course a person would have to study what went on to know how accurately Dan2's characterization is; I surely would not take his highly biased opinion for it. In any case, what Dan2's characterization shows is that the unions may have done a poor job. You think the employees would have been better off without the union, just relying on the goodness of heart of the steel, auto and other companies? These companies not well known for their charitable giving.
Well, here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE:
"Unions offer no "real" protections. For evidence, review the 1970's steel workers in Pennsylvania, and the breweries of Wisconsin, or the UAW workers that have been laid off in Detroit, or Motorola's house cleaning in the late 1990's. No pensions, no commitments, no jobs, over-inflated compensation, and no transferable skills."
Why would someone that calls himself "Truth" omit the first sentence of that paragraph? Is it because it is actually true? I guess I can see how he would have a hard time trusting me on this subject matter, since I only hold a MASTERS degree in Human Resources, and have worked in the industry my entire career. I certainly would give his opinion more weight than mine, if I was a casual observer, since he is so forthcoming with his education and experience in this subject matter.
Posted by Dan2 on August 21, 2007 05:25 PMUnions protect no one but themselves. If a person who is very qualified for a job but does not want to join a union will be denied that job and someone who is union but has NO experience will get that job, driving up costs for a product by needing to train the individual and also the person denied the job must now live on unemployment or have to get another job they are not qualified for and the costs for his training there would also be passed on to consumers. How is that protection by the unions? It screws everyone over except the union who makes money all around.
Posted by Nick on August 21, 2007 05:47 PMOver 3,000 miners a year die in the mines of China. They have no unions, but they have instituted Free Market capitalism. Isn't it great? People have a choice to work in the mines, and life is cheap. Let the Market decide!
We need a Chinese style system here. Put the Liberals, the terrorist lovers, the US Haters, Mud People, Environuts, Feminists, Unionists, Clinton-Lovers, Poor People, and Non-Christians all in the bottom of coal mines, and that would solve most of our problems.
Posted by Hung Lo on August 21, 2007 07:02 PMEverybody and his dog has a lobbyist, or ten, in Washington. But Dan2 thinks unions should not? Unions should not have political clout?
Posted by Truth on August 21, 2007 07:31 PMThe desire of humans with similar interests to organize is quite obvious to those whose eyes are not covered with the cataracts of ignorance. Workers, as well as all other human beings, will continue to organize themselves, no matter how many college degrees they have or haven't and no matter what their course of study might have been. Unions arise out of human nature, not out of study in college.
Lawyers have unions. Doctors have unions. Baseball players have unions. Manufacturers have unions. Business interests have unions galore. Politicians have unions. Nations have unions. But working men and women should not have unions?
Dan2's comments are not about having or not having unions. It is about how well and effectively unions operate. He is saying that in his "humble" opinion unions do a poor job. I presume he is talking about all unions, even though he obviously has no acquaintance with a myriad of unions. To say that unions do a poor job is to argue that unions should improve, not that they should cease to exist. The same reasons why there was a place for unions in the past exist today and always will. A prime symptom of ignorance and prejudice is that of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Posted by Truth on August 21, 2007 07:42 PMDan 2: --
Truth can't respond to anything with factual, logical argument. It's either cut and pasting (usually out of context) quotes from others, or Wikapedia; or, pure gut based emotion. Don't let him get to you, Dan2. I usually skip over what he posts as being irrelevant. The only reason I'm talking about him now is because you were baited by his inane emotional rhetoric.
I've been a union carpenter for 26 years and am happy with my membership, for myself. But, the unions have evolved from their original objectives into something that I would not join again if I were an apprentice without my seniority. They're as bad, if not worse than the companies they're supposed to protect us from. It's really a pity to watch the slow death of a previously honorable American institution.
And the fact that they are recruiting illegal workers is absolutely correct. They recruit them to bolster the membership and treat them worse than the non union shops treated them. They're the last to get assignments and the first to be let go. You might say that the union likes slaves as much as the businesses do.
Ken G
Posted by on August 21, 2007 07:50 PMTruth most of the unions you are referring to insofar as doctors, baseball players and other professionals operate at a different plane than do labor unions for hourly workers. Don't confuse function and leverage with what's available to, for say, the local food workers union. They don't have near the leverage as a doctor's union when they are talking strike. Scabs fill in for food workers, doctors treat scabs on people.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 07:57 PMWell said, Dan2. Thanks for those comments.
I actually don't oppose unions at face value. I do not oppose collective bargaining. But, I think union members should be honest about the consequences of their actions: They reduce employment.
I was once a manual labor worker. I worked in factories. I unloaded trucks. I worked in hot, sticky factories during the hot, and humid Jersey summers. I would have gladly joined a union.
But, I also understood that getting into a union is not easy. They set the bar higher than a free labor market would. In some cases, it's a good thing. I had a few union friends that bragged about how their crew would win contracts over non-union crews because their union shop had more training and experience than their non-union competitors.
But, again, unions exist at a cost to employment. Less people are employed in union shops than in non-union shops.
By the way, Truth is a moron
I would like to add a little info to my post of 0:750pm
While I'm a union carpenter most of the construction work my employer company is involved in is either direct governmental work or work under financing (for ex. Lockheed) by the government -- either fed state or local -- or under municipal or state joint financing with private business (tax incentives to build). All of those projects are covered under the Davis-Bacon Act which mandates prevailing union wages be paid.
(The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 is a United States federal law which established the requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects. All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects.)
So union shops are automatically included in bidding consideration. But for a private construction project without any government links union shops aren't even asked to bid. So without government support union shop construction companies would most likely not even exist. Political payback for all those union donations are useful for some.
Ken G
Posted by on August 21, 2007 08:54 PMRegardless of our varying viewpoints on unions, doesn't anyone else agree with the logical comparison the letter writer makes between corporate trade associations and their lobbying efforts with worker unions?
I thought that was a very valid point, and one I hadn't seen made before on any of the threads about unions.
Quick comment to Dan2, who said:
"The "market" may determine that an uneducated, semi-skilled laborer working a general assembly line should be paid $12.50/hr ($26,000/yr), while in a union environment, that job is now $18.75/hr ($39,000). While it may appear on the surface that the union is getting the worker "more money" it is in fact hindering the expansion of the position to allow for additional employees, as the real value for a semi-skilled, uneducated laborer is now inflated beyond market value, and as such may influence where the company locates, especially in a manufacturing environment, not to mention actual wages paid, minus union dues, is not substantially higher than market value to the employee."
I have to say I was struck by what you're essentially advocating here. A recruiter in favor of lower wages? Whose side are you on, anyway? :) I can tell you when I was a recruiter in a past life (for Snelling and Snelling), I took a much more pro-employee approach to my job.
Anyway, unlike Dan2, I don't believe American workers have been sold out by American workers (i.e., unions). Instead, I would propose that American companies sold out American workers.
For example: the outsourcing of American jobs overseas certainly hasn't helped the current state of work wages, either. It can be argued that unions have a hand in driving up wages, but - why is that bad? Is it a crime for a man to make a wage he can live well on in this country, in exchange for his effort and sweat, not to mention the better part of his day?
What big business would have people believe - and I guess you believe this, too, Dan2 - is that they would go under if they have to pay a living wage. Interesting, because with all this corporate bankruptcy going on these days - oops, I forgot its referred to as "restructuring" when we're talking about businesses - CEOs are still paid millions, executives still keep their golden parachutes, and the company still churns out products and gains new customers. The money's still there - it's just being "redirected."
And not to American workers. Rather, a pittance is going towards some sweat shop in China.
Well, you get what you pay for and what you tacitly support by advancing an anti-union agenda. Product recall after product recall. The decimation of a country's entire class of prosperous and skilled blue collar manufacturing workers (yep, we used to have one, in large part because of unions). A hard earned reputation for inventiveness and quality. Declining standard of living. And so on.
John II, thanks for the link proving that once again, you've proved nothing.
I particularly enjoyed your insistence that Truth can't think for himself, followed by your spouting statistics from one of the most partisan organizations out there, the Cato Institute.
Although I should probably cut you some slack, seeing as it's one of the few times you actually made an effort to research your own claims, rather than have everyone else do your homework for you.
Truth really gets under your skin, doesn't he?
Cato is a libertarian organization. Yes, they are partisan as far as that goes. But their data is solid. Do you question it? Or do you prefer Truth's method of just cutting and pasting random quotes?
Again, mytwosense, you comment on me rather than my arguments. Was there something in my argument that you dispute?
Truth doesn't get under my skin. He's an intellectual lightweight like most of the liberals on this forum. He's lucky (and so are you) that I spend the time that I do educating him. He won't admit it (and neither will you) but he has learned a lot from me.
Truth cannot think for himself. He relies mostly on cut & paste quotes and excerpts without actually thinking about the arguments he's making. I can make an argument based on my own thought and back up the argument with relative data.
You, on the other hand, are a feeble-minded, over-emotional sciolist. You don't think; You feel. But, your feelings are not worth the digital paper they're printed on. You have no original thoughts whatsoever. I could get the same intellectual arguments from a 16 year-old girl.
Posted by John II on August 21, 2007 10:23 PMJohn II: "Again, mytwosense, you comment on me rather than my arguments."
John II: "Truth is a moron".
Get the picture?
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 09:33 AMJohn II: "Again, mytwosense, you comment on me rather than my arguments."
John II: "You, on the other hand, are a feeble-minded, over-emotional sciolist. You don't think; You feel. But, your feelings are not worth the digital paper they're printed on. You have no original thoughts whatsoever. I could get the same intellectual arguments from a 16 year-old girl."
Get the picture?
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 09:37 AM"So without government support union shop construction companies would most likely not even exist."
While there are many private construction jobs that use union labor, it is true that unions probably would not exist in a viable form without government support.
Neither would food and drug regulation. Neither would industrial safety regulation. Neither would child labor regulation. Neither would any of the other regulations which have turned predatory capitalism into regulated capitalism.
It is the nature of capitalism that big business has more innate power than its employees, just as it has more innate power than the consumer, than the common man, than the people. That is why we have government, to prevent the powerful from exploiting the less powerful.
There are many instances in which unions have done wrong. There are many instances in which business has done wrong. None of these instances support the conclusion that they should therefore disappear.
People with impaired reasoning often think that if something with an innate good is causing problems, the solution is not to eliminate the problems but to eliminate the whole thing, good and bad. Of course, their "reasoning" applies only to whatever is contrary to their political philosophy, such as the welfare of the people.
It bears repeating: People who would throw the baby out with the bath water are speaking out of emotion and prejudice and not out of intelligence or reason.
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 10:06 AMTruth -- why do you continually confirm your inept stupidity by attempting esoteric revelations based solely on ineffectual cut and paste efforts?
I guess John II is right, your a freakin' moron.
Posted by on August 22, 2007 10:10 AMTruth,
You have to remember that John 2 and JJ make up the "Batman and Robin" duo on this website. (Though who plays whom at any one time is left to the viewer.) They both have their own "world" - an entirely imaginary one - from which they propose to "educate" everyone else on how life "ought to be" in THIS world, of reality today. And, if you - or anyone else - won't agree to join them, and view the real world in the light of their fantasies, they must put you down.
They are, of course, never "wrong". They can't be. If THEY fantasize it, that's the way it always "must be". And thus, they hop, skip, and jump around; change topic in mid-stream; deliberately mis-quote - even invent things never said in the first place - hallucinate; and, finally, just wind up in juvenile tantrums, because people don't agree to always look to their imaginations as the "true source" for everything.
Enjoy them for the comic relief they provide; and for the fun they offer when one does contest facts, reality, evidence, sources, and sound judgment with the world of smoke and mirrors. Oh! What whizzes of whizzes they ises!
Dan 2,
No human activity is ever "perfect". Corporations are no more possessed of that quality than any other form of human endeavor. To the UAW and Hoffa, one can oppose Enron, for instance, or Nacchio and the Qworst debacle.
Being a "company man" is no more a sign of "final righteousness" than being pro-Union is a sign of "obsolescence, because of past achievements". As a head-hunter, your position has its own fixed qualifications for response, and behavior. And, some of your responses clearly show the absolute necessity for continuing Union representation, and action, in all areas of the economic, and social, structure.
Stagnation never equates with progress and growth, whatever area in which the stagnation exists.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 22, 2007 10:22 AMTruth, there is a big difference between arguing ad hominem and arguing ad res. Calling you a moron or a jackass is ad hominem. Providing the facts and logical arguments why you are a moron and a jackass is arguing ad res.
I don't let you off so easy with just a "you're a moron" comment. I provide the facts to prove my accusation.
Posted by John II on August 22, 2007 10:39 AMDan2,
I face the same misquotes in Rocky Mountain News/Web Extra/Opinions and Editorials whenever I post.
You handle yourself well. I wish I had your self control instead of calling the illogical left, leftist whores....
But alas, my constraints aren't enough...
Thank you for taking the time to post so concisely. Now if we could get RMN to give you a speakout column in the Saturday edition, they might retrieve some lost advertising dollars, instead of blaming it on the changes in technology...bwahahhaahahah
May God Bless You Dan 2,
Father O'Malley
As a former member of the Teamsters, I have seen the amount of coruption possible.In New Jersey there are two kinds of garbage sevices ones that are family owned and ones that are"FAMILY OWNED"!!!
Posted by tj on August 22, 2007 10:52 AMTruth:
"That is why we have government, to prevent the powerful from exploiting the less powerful". No it isn't. where do you get off making that assumption????
Both unionists and capitalists work for one reason. Self Interest!!!!!! Both are rooted in Money, period. All thye other benefits are based on their cost, so it is still money. Example: Vacation = lost production= gained leisure=etal = cost=money.
Somehow, Truth, you seem to be convinced that you have the ability to decide who deserves what amount of money.
AF
Posted by on August 22, 2007 11:06 AMMytwosense,
I was surprised by your comment. I was not advocating anything. What I was doing was pointing out the changes that have occurred within the union, over the years, and demonstrating why they are not as valuable as they once were. But as a corporate recruiter, my job is to find talent at market wages, provide information to my clients of market variables, trends, wage scales, cost of living differentials, and advocate for the best employment package for candidates.
I don't believe in anything as arbitrary as a "living wage" because what standard are you comparing that to? A living wage in Boulder, is vastly different from a living wage in Pueblo, do to housing, transportation, cost of living, lifestyle, etc. I think people should be paid, and advocate for wages, based on the scale of education, experience, position, value add, and labor pool. As an example in the Denver market, someone that picks up trash on 16th St. Mall, and changes the public trash can liners, should be paid no more than $8/hr. It is a position that requires no education, no skill, no special training nor talent, and no potential for career advancement. It is a medial position that could be filled by any individual who may legally work in the United States (including high school kids with a work permit).
Vastly different than, let's say, a very specialized position within the configuration of an ERP system converting from an AS400 system to SAP (where consultants typically make $225/hr), because of the severe shortage in the labor pool, the specialized knowledge of a sophisticated platform, and the amount of education and training that is involved.
It is literally the difference between thinking analytically and feeling with emotion. There are people in this world that just do not posses the intelligence, the desire, the drive, the commitment, the talent, or the will to perform at higher than standard levels. Unless you are advocating a socialist system of employment, where regardless of talent, expertise, knowledge, or skill, throwing out the term livable wage has no real meaning.
I also feel it is an insult, especially in reference to Ken G's trade of carpenter, to say that everyone is the "same" based on how long they have been performing their job. Ken may be an artisan, highly skilled and talented craftsmen, and maybe one of 20 people in the world that are able to create sheer beauty in their work. He will be paid, because of the union that he joined, the same as the idiot, who does just crappy, terrible work, but has been a carpenter for as long as Ken has, because of the seniority system. Now, Ken could leave his trade union and start his own business to differentiate himself (sorry Ken for using you as an example) from the other carpenters, but again, what benefit then did the union provide him?
I do understand your point of view on this subject. It would be nice if we could eliminate poverty and debt by paying everyone, as you say, a "livable" wage. And the history of the union's functionality, is tremendous. Through collective bargaining, political influence, and standards, the union was essential in bringing us the 40 hour work week, the minimum wage, oversight organizations such as OSHA, EEOC, OFCCP, NFPA, and others.
But in it's current state, I opine that the union may be most compared to organized crime. It's "rank and file" pay up to the "boss" who promises protection and influence. The stewards are similar to the "cappos" in their function of keeping the "rank and file" members united in whatever the cause is, and as such reap benefits above the rank and file. But just as the demise of the mafia is occurring around us, the demise of the unions may be for the same reason. Police presence has been stepped up to combat the need for "protection" (Mafia), and government has evolved to provide over-sight over areas that once needed to be addressed in the work place (unions). As more people become scholastically educated, the market need for unskilled or semi-skilled labor will regionally move to where there is labor for those jobs (cheap labor or not, a college educated employee will typically not work in a factory assembly line other than as stop gap), including over seas. As technology advances, the human labor pool typically associated with labor unions is replaced by more efficient, reliable automated equipment, further driving down manufacturing cost, human oversight, and labor necessity.
These are all observable facts. While some may wish to return to the 1950's, it continues to be important for our work force to move past the "well paying, uneducated positions of union manufacturing jobs" and towards the educated workforce that drives the goods manufactured.
Posted by Dan2 on August 22, 2007 11:06 AMHey, Vito..we got some fool in Colorado impugning our virtuosity's and integritys. Send some o' da boys to Denver and collect the garbage of the guy who calls himself tj.
Posted by on August 22, 2007 11:08 AMOld Grouch,
Thanks, but as I just wrote in my post to mts, I am not advocating anything. Mr. Ruckman, the original letter writer stated:
"Someone would have to come up with some strong new reasons why unions are bad for America and for our economy than the flimsy ones we have heard in the past to convince me—and many others that union activity is unacceptable."
My attempt was to demonstrate what has become of the unions in the US to demonstrate in Mr. Ruckman's words "why unions are bad for America and for our economy..."
I was able to demonstrate 6 specific functional reasons, in direct relationship to trade and labor unions the impact they have had on America and the economy in the 21st century. What I did not state, nor imply, is the absolute right of the people to form collective bargaining units. I was speaking about the functionality of the union. There is no longer a need to pay some head of labor 6 figures to negotiate a 15 minute bathroom break any longer, and recent history has demonstrated that paying union dues does nothing to assure that pensions, health benefits, or even a job will be provided to the employee (GM labor cuts, Ford labor cuts, insolvency of TRW). Why pay extra for a benefit that you will not receive?
Posted by Dan2 on August 22, 2007 11:28 AM"Somehow, Truth, you seem to be convinced that you have the ability to decide who deserves what amount of money.
AF"
Any more comments like that and I may cut you off completely.
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 01:05 PMTruth: --
"Any more comments like that and I may cut you off completely"
PUHLEEASE..do cut us off completely by chucking your computer in the trash...
Posted by on August 22, 2007 01:12 PMTruth, I'm sure we'd all like to be cut off from funding your cozy retirement.
Posted by John II on August 22, 2007 01:15 PMHere is one of Dan 2's so-called "functional reasons": "There is no longer a need to pay some head of labor 6 figures to negotiate a 15 minute bathroom break any longer,"
Dan 2 has this minor shortcoming. He makes up stories like that because it makes him feel good. I think it's something he learned when he was getting his masters. But if it calms down his nerves some, that's fine, as long as no one takes him seriously.
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 01:15 PMHere is one of Dan 2's so-called "functional reasons": "There is no longer a need to pay some head of labor 6 figures to negotiate a 15 minute bathroom break any longer,"
Dan 2 has this minor shortcoming. He makes up stories like that because it makes him feel good. I think it's something he learned when he was getting his masters. But if it calms down his nerves some, that's fine, as long as no one takes him seriously.
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 01:19 PMDan 2: "I was able to demonstrate 6 specific functional reasons, in direct relationship to trade and labor unions the impact they have had on America and the economy in the 21st century."
Gee, I wish I had a masters so I could make meaningless pedantic statements like that. I bet it really impresses the girls.
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 01:21 PMOnce again, Keith/Hank come to the forefront in the accurate portrayal of Unions. Thanks, guys. Having never been a union member or had to I am wondering that if unions were outlawed in Colorado would Coors pay its employees less money?
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037yahoo Risen ape/Deicide. Intelligent enough to be atheist but lack courage. on August 22, 2007 01:26 PM"I am wondering that if unions were outlawed in Colorado would Coors pay its employees less money?"
Probably. Coors would probably hire more workers as well.
Posted by John II on August 22, 2007 02:19 PMJohn II, I seem to remember calling you an intellectual lightweight a couple months back. Now you're calling me one.
Also, a few weeks ago, I pointed out that Sharon B. was funny, and you weren't. Sure enough, a few days later you called me humorless.
Don't be so lazy. Come up with your own insults, I'm tired of you stealing them from me.
Posted by mytwosense on August 22, 2007 02:23 PMDan2,
Aren't you are taking for granted that having achieved something, the Unions are "no longer necessary" because that "achievement " is now, somehow, either "enshrined" in corporate practice, or "fixed in concrete" otherwise. It certainly reads as if you are doing just that.
In contrast, I offer that, it was the Unions that finally achieved the goal of a decent retirement pension for employees. While it is that wonderful world of Enron and Qworst - among others, with Arthur Anderson and Associates assisting - who proved that the achievement was only temporary at best; since the Management eaaily looted the pension funds, and left the employees out there "twising in the wind".
You have quite well illustrated whose side you are on.
Unions are by no means whatsoever obsolete or un-necessary today, IN ANY AREA of labor relations, or "achievement".
I prefer he motto, "In God we trust", to the approach of, "In our beloved employer we place not only our trust, but the rest of our lives as well."
Posted by Old Grouch on August 22, 2007 02:45 PMThere you go again,Old Grouch, to take a line from Ronald, using common sense instead of that college type "functional reasoning" that Dan 2 is so proud of. I guess Dan 2 thinks we need to get rid of corporations in view of the many Enron type scandals. Dan 2 and I do have a disagreement about what constitutes functional reasoning and what in fact is nonfunctional reasoning.
Dan 2: "I was not advocating anything."
Wow, Dan 2 is really out of touch with reality. On the other hand, maybe he just hasn't had time to read his own posts. This business of "I'm not advocating anything, I'm just telling the truth" is not worthy of an adult.
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 03:22 PMIt would be great if we didn't need unions but until we are able to receive some of the benefits that so easily come to corporate executives, we'll probably have to have unions. You know, things like health care, decent wages, retirement packages - that kind of stuff.
Mr. Broyles,
Would you be in favor of a law that required all employees to have the same benefits (health care, decent wages, retirement packages) as corporate executives?
Posted by John II on August 22, 2007 04:49 PMHahahahahahahaaa
Truth, why do you think unions are needed?
Mr. Broyles, I concur with John II's question, and will take it one step further. Is there a difference between a corporate executive and a line worker in your mind?
If we take away the examples of the union boss that was corrupt and the corporate CEO that was corrupt, what we discover is a noticeable difference in the skill set and ability of the corporate executive and the line worker, and as such, the vast difference in pay scale. I can and if I had more time this evening, would argue against the corporate packages that are guaranteed to CEO's who not only under perform, but fail miserably. But we all know those, as they are publicized greatly in our daily periodicals.
There is indeed a tangible difference between the skill set of the line worker (typically union represented) and the corporate executive, assuming that both are as productive as their ability allows. It is the difference between not having a cog placed correctly, and not having a company that makes the cogs.
I do have a question for both Truth and Old Grouch. For the sake of full disclosure, what are your education levels and either current or past occupations (OG, I think I remember that you were an educator correct, so probably hold a master's as well?) This is especially for you Truth, as you comment on my bias and knowledge, I am curious as to what your qualifications are.
Posted by Dan2 on August 22, 2007 05:07 PMDan 2: "Hahahahahahahaaa"
And you claim you have been to college?
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 06:47 PMDan2,
I have several pieces of "parchment" to hang on the wall; any one of which and $1.95 will get me a glass of ice tea at the cafe. And, I had better have the $1.95 in negotiable currency of the realm, since no place I know gives change for Degrees.
Yes, I have taught, on all levels at various different times. I am more or less retired from over 45 years shrinking heads as well. But, what does that have to do with the topic? Or for that matter, what do past occupations have to do with it?
In one way or another, for something over 70 years, I have also been involved with business in many ways as well. I bought the old pink-sheet Denver Post for 2 cents, and sold it on a street corner for 3 cents, that long ago.
It's all very well and good to talk about "skill set(s)", and make comparisons between CEO's and "line workers", as if that kind of thing were a set of hard-fixed little pigeon holes, into which people fit at the decision of a personnel manager; or because of something in a text book leading to an MBA, or such like. 'Tain't necessarily so.
You, yourself, tell us just what your "bias" is. Your next to last paragraph is a complete exposition thereof. Which is fine for you, in the job you hold, if that be what your employer expects by way of performance from you. In reality, however, human beings are NOT cogs. Nor does a company making cogs indicate superior knowledge of humans.
And that doesn't take a Degree to understand. I've seen "line workers" with "skill set and ability" that CEO's couldn't show if they spent their lives trying to attain it. And, over 70 years or so, I've worked for CEO's whose "skill set and ability" were far better suited to standing on a production line, punching out cogs, than they were to the occupation of a front office.
And as to "assuming that both are as productive as their ability allows"; well, who judges that in the end?
Maybe that's one of the best reasons for having Unions. They tend to serve as a reasonable check and balance on the idea that, somehow, CEO's really are worth millions of dollars, with platinum parachutes, while the "line worker" should be content to get whatever pittance is offered; take a gold watch when he's too old to stand on the line; and then die off as soon as possible, thereby saving the company the trouble of having to have a viable pension fund anyway.
And again, that doesn't take a Degree to understand.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 22, 2007 06:56 PM"John II, I seem to remember calling you an intellectual lightweight a couple months back. Now you're calling me one.
Also, a few weeks ago, I pointed out that Sharon B. was funny, and you weren't" - mytwosense
I remember you saying that to me a little over a week ago. Did you also say that to John?
Oh wait! For some reason, you think John and I are the same person.
Posted by Mike on August 22, 2007 07:46 PMBravo Old Grouch!
Well said.
Posted by mytwosense on August 22, 2007 08:14 PM"...while the "line worker" should be content to get whatever pittance is offered..."
Content to get whatever pittance is offered? What are you talking about? He should go for whatever his best alternative is. If it's a pittance, then it's a pittance. I would recommend he improve his skill set.
"They tend to serve as a reasonable check and balance on the idea that, somehow, CEO's really are worth millions of dollars..."
Are you saying that no CEO is worth millions of dollars? Do you honestly believe that?
Posted by Mike on August 22, 2007 08:29 PMDan 2 asks, why do we need unions?
Normally, I only get that question only from elementary and junior high students, so it's a bit unusual to have it come from someone with a master's degree.
Anyhow, you are in luck, Danny Boy, because I do have a short course which answers your question. Normally I charge tuition for it, but if someone has a handicap, say, he has a master's degree and still doesn't know the answer, I offer the course free.
So, without further ado, get out you pencil and paper, sit up straight and we will begin. There's be no looking out the window during the lecture. And looking down the girls' dresses is reserved for me.
We begin:
THERE IS POWER IN NUMBERS.
I'll repeat that for the slow learners:
THERE IS POWER IN NUMBERS.
Now, it's recess time, so you can go and play on the monkey bars, or, if you need additional blood flow to the brain as some of you do, you can go play with your computer.
However, there will be a test on the material next week.
By the way, tipping is encouraged; however, no more of those damned apples if you please.
Posted by Truth on August 23, 2007 08:13 AMMike,
Do try reading in context some time. In that paragraph, I was pointing out some of the reasons for keeping Unions alive and healthy. History is replete with examples of the corporate/business position of paying as little as possible (a pittance) - along with a form of indenture by way of the company store, company housing, etc., etc. - that leaves the worker without recourse to a "best alternative" by himself.
One of the Union achievements is the power of collective bargaining, by which the worker has opportunity to gain an equitable return on his labors.
The buzz words about "skill set" are not at all meaningful in human labor relations, although they do form a part of the corporate/business attempt to eliminate Unions, and collective bargaining, to try to turn the clock backwards.
The matter of any CEO being worth millions, or even a pittance only for himself, is totally individual; and asking for my "belief" about an individual case is beside the point. Again, in context, the Unions provide one form of check and balance on an otherwise extravegant idea of the difference between "management" and "labor"; which is another good reason for having healthy Unions.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 23, 2007 08:25 AMKen G, My husband also works for a company that has a contract with Lockheed.
He has been a Union Carpenter for over 25 years.
People can complain about unions all they want. The union has afforded us a good living with benefits.
As far as the political side of the union . I would like the union to open their books to the membership and let them see how much money is going to politicians,and upper management expenses.
You and my husband may work for the same company.
Posted by Carpenter's Wife on August 23, 2007 08:34 AMTruth,
I suppose I'll hear many howls and outcries; but one of the best "definitions" of the traditional " Harvard MBA" I've ever heard was: "Certificate of Massive Brain Atrophy".
Having taught history on the University Business School level - even back some 50 years ago - I do tend to feel that there is much accuracy there.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 23, 2007 08:38 AMA simplistic answer from a simpleton. Go figure.
Why not form a collective bargaining unit Truth? What current power do the unions have? Why are their numbers dwindling? I asked a serious question, and I get a childish answer (no wonder he only answers children's questions, that is the level in which he thinks).
OG,
You will get no argument from me that historically, unions have brought about positive change for the average, uneducated working class joe. And I am not the one comparing them to CEO's as it appears the "pro-union" crowd will do (hence my "us vs. them" comment in my original post). You ask "who judges (ability) in the end"? I'll tell you who does, the share holders do OG.
Truth,
Still avoiding the big question. What do you do, and what is your education?
Posted by Dan2 on August 23, 2007 08:40 AM"THERE IS POWER IN NUMBERS"- Truth
There is also mediocrity.
When you don't allow the best and brightest to be rewarded for being the best and brightest; when you don't punish (through termination, lower wages, etc...) the least skilled for being the least skilled; when you pay 2 people the same amount simply for being employed the same amount of time, or for having the same job description; regardless of competency, you get mediocrity.
"History is replete with examples of the corporate/business position of paying as little as possible."- Old Grouch
Of course. Why would they pay more than they have to? That would be stupid.
"One of the Union achievements is the power of collective bargaining, by which the worker has opportunity to gain an equitable return on his labors."- Old Grouch
Equitable? According to whom? Why would you want your compensation tied to the compensation of others? Unless, you need them to lift you up.
"People can complain about unions all they want. The union has afforded us a good living with benefits."- Carpenter's Wife
That's the point. Unions are good for (some) union members. They are generally bad for the consumer. Companies exist for the consumer; not the employee.
Good points, Mike.
An important thing to remember that liberals never seem to address is that unions reduce employment. Any union boss will freely admit this. Unions bargain for higher wages and benefits at the cost of less workers actually getting hired. Take away unions and wages will most likely drop yet employment will most likely increase. So, yes, if you've managed to get yourself into a union, enjoy your higher wages; if you couldn't get into the union, well, good luck.
So, what's more important: higher wages for the few or more opportunities for the many?
Posted by John II on August 23, 2007 09:54 AMMy husbands company chose to be union. My husband chose to be union.
If my husband was not in the union he would be working for $8-$11 per hour,because illegals have driven wages down dramatically in the construction industry.He would not have any benefits and would have to work with people who produce shoddy workmanship.
My husband works hard and is an excellent carpenter.He has never been without work and has a good reputation with the other carpenter's,Foreman and Superintendents he works around.
So he gets paid well,get's time and a half,and double time for Sundays.He has health,dental and eye insurance.He is vested for a pension in 2 states,has a growing annuity,two vacation checks per year and works for a company that treats him with respect.
What is wrong with that?
One myth I would like to clear up.
If you are union you cannot be fired for shoddy workmanship or missing alot of work days for no good reason or being late alot.
This is a long standing myth. If you work for a union contractor and do not measure up to their standards,you are fired.My husband has seen them come and go. Sometimes they don't even make it a day before being fired.His company also does background checks and does not allow illegals to work for them once they are found out.
Posted by Carpenter's Wife on August 23, 2007 10:19 AMDan 2, you ask about my education and you deserve a serious answer:
Dan 2 is so very proud of his masters degree. I think that’s nice, Dan. But I must warn you that some people are inclined to substitute their masters degree for their brain.
Of course, you want to shame OG and I by asking us to publicly display how uneducated we are. Shame on you.
Nonetheless: I am proud to say that I graduated from kindergarten after only the third try. And I have a certificate without honors for my completion of the seventh grade. That was a relief because I really got tired of looking down on the heads of my fellow students. It was indeed heartwarming to see how excited the teachers were to see me go.
But that is not my only accomplishment; I also saved money by getting my car insurance at Geico’s.
And I’ve got a lot of experience with unions. I’ve been wearing their overalls for years.
You ask what do I do: right now, I am typing on my computer. Other than that, I spend my time saving the world.
As for my education, I got most of it by living. The rest I got by picking apart your posts.
I hope that satisfies you, Danny Boy.
Posted by Truth on August 23, 2007 10:39 AMJohn,
Thanks.
mytwosense must think you are having a conversation with yourself since he thinks we are the same person.
Carpenter's Wife,
Nothing is wrong with that- for him. You just said that without unions, the cost of carpenters would go down. That would be good for consumers who are more important in the world of business than employees, or owners. Businesses exist to make money, yes, but, ultimately, they exist to provide goods and services to consumers. The lower the cost (for acceptable value), the better for consumers; who actually drive our economy.
Some unions price their members out of jobs. Look at the automotive and airline industries.
"If my husband was not in the union he would be working for $8-$11 per hour"
If that's his best alternative, then that's what he makes. I would recommend he make himself a more sought after prospective employee.
Posted by Mike on August 23, 2007 10:51 AMMike,
Thank you for your exposition of your beliefs concerning companies, unions, and labor relations. I can now take for granted that any further questions you might ask are merely rhetorical; since you are certainly capable of expressing you own positions quite coherently; and you are in no real need of any assistance when intending to refute mine.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 23, 2007 10:56 AMDan2 said: "I think people should be paid, and advocate for wages, based on the scale of education, experience, position, value add, and labor pool. As an example in the Denver market, someone that picks up trash on 16th St. Mall, and changes the public trash can liners, should be paid no more than $8/hr. It is a position that requires no education, no skill, no special training nor talent, and no potential for career advancement. It is a medial position that could be filled by any individual who may legally work in the United States (including high school kids with a work permit).
Vastly different than, let's say, a very specialized position within the configuration of an ERP system converting from an AS400 system to SAP (where consultants typically make $225/hr), because of the severe shortage in the labor pool, the specialized knowledge of a sophisticated platform, and the amount of education and training that is involved.
It is literally the difference between thinking analytically and feeling with emotion. There are people in this world that just do not posses the intelligence, the desire, the drive, the commitment, the talent, or the will to perform at higher than standard levels. Unless you are advocating a socialist system of employment, where regardless of talent, expertise, knowledge, or skill, throwing out the term livable wage has no real meaning."
Dan2, I've had both white collar and manual labor jobs. Both are hard in their own way.
It may be yourpersonal opinion that someone who collects garbage should only collect eight bucks an hour, but - I'd like to see your "ERP specialist" do that job. It involves a lot of heavy lifting, not to mention the ick factor of being surrounded by garbage all day. Have you ever been to a dump? It's impossible to spend five minutes in one without encountering an overwhelming sense of nausea.
I really sense some snobbery and elitism in your comments that I put in bold, although I don't think at heart you're a snob or an elitist. However, I think you are ruling out a couple of very important qualities when determining what makes a person deserving of a higher wage:
1) Capacity for extended periods of physical labor
2) Willingness to roll up one's sleeves and perform work that would be unappealing to a large segment of the population
"Specialist" jobs will come and go, but we'll always need folks willing to do some plain old heavy lifting. I seriously disagree with any premise that these people do not possess the "intelligence, the desire, the drive, the commitment, the talent, or the will to perform at higher than standard levels."
If anything, some of the laziest, softest people I've ever encountered are white collar desk jockeys.
Posted by mytwosense on August 23, 2007 01:03 PMArggghh...this is the second time today I didn't fully italicize someone's comments I was quoting. Here's a re-post, with Dan's quote fully italicized:
Dan2 said: "I think people should be paid, and advocate for wages,based on the scale of education, experience, position, value add, and labor pool. As an example in the Denver market, someone that picks up trash on 16th St. Mall, and changes the public trash can liners, should be paid no more than $8/hr. It is a position that requires no education, no skill, no special training nor talent, and no potential for career advancement. It is a medial position that could be filled by any individual who may legally work in the United States (including high school kids with a work permit).
Vastly different than, let's say, a very specialized position within the configuration of an ERP system converting from an AS400 system to SAP (where consultants typically make $225/hr), because of the severe shortage in the labor pool, the specialized knowledge of a sophisticated platform, and the amount of education and training that is involved.
It is literally the difference between thinking analytically and feeling with emotion. There are people in this world that just do not posses the intelligence, the desire, the drive, the commitment, the talent, or the will to perform at higher than standard levels. Unless you are advocating a socialist system of employment, where regardless of talent, expertise, knowledge, or skill, throwing out the term livable wage has no real meaning."
Dan2, I've had both white collar and manual labor jobs. Both are hard in their own way.
It may be your personal opinion that someone who collects garbage should only collect eight bucks an hour, but - I'd like to see your "ERP specialist" do that job. It involves a lot of heavy lifting, not to mention the ick factor of being surrounded by garbage all day. Have you ever been to a dump? It's impossible to spend five minutes in one without encountering an overwhelming sense of nausea.
I really sense some snobbery and elitism in your comments that I put in bold, although I don't think at heart you're a snob or an elitist. However, I think you are ruling out a couple of very important qualities when determining what makes a person deserving of a higher wage:
1) Capacity for extended periods of physical labor
2) Willingness to roll up one's sleeves and perform work that would be unappealing to a large segment of the population
"Specialist" jobs will come and go, but we'll always need folks willing to do some plain old heavy lifting. I seriously disagree with any premise that these people do not possess the "intelligence, the desire, the drive, the commitment, the talent, or the will to perform at higher than standard levels."
If anything, some of the laziest, softest people I've ever encountered are white collar desk jockeys.
Posted by mytwosense on August 23, 2007 01:51 PMDan 2,
You certainly have a novel view of the difference between "thinking" and "feeling", as well a a rather ridiculous one concerning their relative "value". You also show your allegience to the current fad for looking upon a piece of parchment/paper as being a measure of a person's inherent reality.
Again, that's fine for you, in the job you hold; if your employer expects performance from you according to that set of prejudices. However, in the light of what has been said in playful jest, you also do demonstrate that an MBA often does seem to translate into "Certificate of Massive Brain Atrophy".
Having given, graded, profiled, and interpreted almost every Standard Projective Test in the repertoire over the past 50+ years, I do find your ideas concerning how to "measure" human capabilities to be extremely simplistic, to say the least. And, I would really hesitate to have to rely on your judgments were I hiring people today.
You remind me of no one quite so much as an acquaintance of mine who rose to the level of her highest incompetency - per the Peter Principle - where she was then enthroned as Civil Service Director of Testing. ALL employment referrals - throughout the entire Region - depended upon the results of the World War 1 dated GATB - a test which even the Army had discarded some 10+ years previously. The kits for the mechanical aptitude testing section themselves, dated back to a 1930's purchase; and replacemet parts were no longer even manufactured.
BUT! According to Madam Regional Director of Testing, the GATB was THE "most reliable" aptitude test of all - it having been used by the Army in the World War 1 period; and at that time having a 90+% reliability rating in an area where there were very few, if any, other tests to be found. (And Madam Director having been trained on it even before she first came to work for the Regional Department.)
She was well up on retirement age; so fixations were, perhaps, excusable. I believe you're not quite ready for going out to pasture yet. Don't lock yourself into your own form of "planned obsolescence", while there's still time to broaden horizons.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 23, 2007 02:33 PMSorry folks...I cannot get a grasp on my html today. Here are the comments from Dan 2 i intended to quote:
Dan2 said: "I think people should be paid, and advocate for wages,based on the scale of education, experience, position, value add, and labor pool. As an example in the Denver market, someone that picks up trash on 16th St. Mall, and changes the public trash can liners, should be paid no more than $8/hr. It is a position that requires no education, no skill, no special training nor talent, and no potential for career advancement. It is a medial position that could be filled by any individual who may legally work in the United States (including high school kids with a work permit).
Vastly different than, let's say, a very specialized position within the configuration of an ERP system converting from an AS400 system to SAP (where consultants typically make $225/hr), because of the severe shortage in the labor pool, the specialized knowledge of a sophisticated platform, and the amount of education and training that is involved.
It is literally the difference between thinking analytically and feeling with emotion. There are people in this world that just do not posses the intelligence, the desire, the drive, the commitment, the talent, or the will to perform at higher than standard levels. Unless you are advocating a socialist system of employment, where regardless of talent, expertise, knowledge, or skill, throwing out the term livable wage has no real meaning."
Posted by mytwosense on August 23, 2007 02:53 PMMike, Take the blinders off and as your driving around look at the crap the companies who are making huge profits off the back of cheap illegal labor ,are building.
Yes they are entitled to make a profit. Consumers have the right to buy cheaply made homes.
My husband does commercial work.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 23, 2007 03:06 PMCIGAA,
What are you talking about? Your post made no sense.
Posted by Mike on August 23, 2007 03:10 PMMike
"Companies exist for the consumer; not the employee."
I humbly disagree. Companies exist, rightfully so, for the generation of profits. Most non-profits usually generate profits, not all for their underlying cause nor the consumer, but to expand their base and profits to then support their clout and underlying cause. The consumer is only one step above the workers, or labor costs, in both instances.
Trinity,
Maybe you missed this part of my post:
"Businesses exist to make money, yes, but, ultimately, they exist to provide goods and services to consumers."
Obviously, if there is no profit, there is no reason to be in business. I was speaking about the mentality that businesses exist to provide people with jobs; when that is not their purpose at all.
Posted by Mike on August 23, 2007 05:09 PMMike: "That would be good for consumers who are more important in the world of business than employees,"
That's a rather silly statement. Both employees and jobs are essential. That's like saying that Hydrogen is more important than Oxygen in making H2O.
Posted by Truth on August 23, 2007 07:20 PMTruth,
Did I say that employees are unnecessary? No, but, in some areas, they are less necessary. Think assembly lines; through automation, fewer people are required on the line. That is good for businesses and consumers; not so good for the employees who used to work on those lines.
Businesses do not exist for the purpose of providing people with jobs. They exist to provide goods and services; and make a reasonable return on investment.
If they can do it with fewer employees, or employees making less rather than more; so much the better- from the business's and consumer's point of view.
You are a naive child, Truth; which is why you embrace socialism and your view of how you would make the world more "fair"; as you would define it.
Your analogy of making water is "rather silly".
Posted by Mike on August 23, 2007 09:15 PMMike,
Just out of sheer curiosity, would you be kind enough to tell us how many businesses you own, or have owned?
How many you are managing, or have managed?
How many employees you have, or had in any one - or all - these businesses over the years?
What products your business, or businesses, provide?
How these products affect the consumer as you provide them?
How your products affect the overall market for consumers as a whole?
How your ways of managing and employment serve to make your business, or businesses, superior to those not using , or applying them in their own companies?
Just curious of course. You are such an expert on the whole area, I am certain we could all benefit from a more lengthy exposition of your experience. Would you oblige?.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 11:20 AMLiberals have a hard time grasping the "invisible hand" concept.
1) Business exists purely to make a profit. [Greed]
2) In the quest for a profit, they need to sell a service or product that people want. [Demand]
3) As more and more people buy products and services, businesses share part of their profits to entice others to help sell even more products and services. [Labor]
So, what started out at with what some would call greed, ended with consumers getting what they want and labor getting paid to work.
Profits, consumer, employees.
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 11:24 AMOG,
I have never owned a business, but I currently manage one with about 125 employees.
We are a subcontractor in the construction industry.
Our product is a part of the house the consumer lives in, and the cost of our product directly affects the cost of the house.
Our product also affects the energy costs of a home.
We have the largest market share of companies who provide the same products and services we do in the Denver market.
And, we make a pretty decent profit; even in this down market because we keep our labor and overhead costs low; while offering great service to the homebuilders, and a great final product to the end consumer- the homeowner.
Posted by Mike on August 24, 2007 11:31 AMJust for kicks, I'll enumerate how liberalism's version of capitalism (Socialistic Capitalism according to Truth) works:
1) Liberals desire pure egalitarianism. [Utopia]
2) In order to achieve egalitarianism, they must take from one group and give to the other. [Wealth redistribution]
3) As more and more is taken from one group, the incentive to produce more is diminished. [High unemployment]
So, as we can clearly see, Utopian goals of egalitarianism leads to unfair taxation and reduced employment.
Utopia, taxation, unemployment.
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 12:01 PMMike ,How many low cost illegal laborers do you have working for you.
Posted by on August 24, 2007 12:14 PM12:14 P.M.,
Zero.
We do a thorough check, and if there is any doubt, we don't hire that person.
Posted by Mike on August 24, 2007 12:33 PMThank you, Mike.
I think some of your presentations concerning what business is all about are a bit "flaky"; but you certainly demonstrate that you are speaking from a position of a degree of reasonable experience, rather than merely parroting one of the wilder theories of a college economics class.
John 2,
Wild theory from an economics class? Or some kind of telepathy from what you fantasize as "liberalism"?
Source? Evidence? Relationship to actual fact - if any?
Or just another flight of fancy as to how things "ought to be" where you really know nothing about them?
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 02:17 PMThank you, Mike.
I think some of your presentations concerning what business is all about are a bit "flaky"; but you certainly demonstrate that you are speaking from a position of a degree of reasonable experience, rather than merely parroting one of the wilder theories of a college economics class.
John 2,
Wild theory from an economics class? Or some kind of telepathy from what you fantasize as "liberalism"?
Source? Evidence? Relationship to actual fact - if any?
Or just another flight of fancy as to how things "ought to be" where you really know nothing about them?
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 02:19 PMOld Grouch,
I think you may be better at writing mildly amusing lyrics than trying to argue against my points. Show me where I have erred, Old Man. Don't just lecture me. Teach me.
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 02:36 PMOG,
I will echo John's request. Please, tell me where my presentations are "flaky".
You were a teacher, right? What did you teach?
Posted by Mike on August 24, 2007 03:13 PMJohn 2,
What points? Your fantasies about what "liberalism", etc., is - "Utopia" for instance - are just that, fantasies. You make up claims to the knowledge of what something as a whole must be; label anything you don't personally like with an epithet; assert that the matter so labeled is a part of that which you have insisted it must be; and pass it off as a reasoned form of judgment and discussion.
If you really had points, you would be able to answer my questions. They are very simple; and are the foundation of dialogue.
Other than complelely imaginary fiction, tell us then, just how is it that:
1. "Liberals desire pure egalitarianism" .
You have made a generalization. I, myself, regard myself as a "liberal" in some ways; and i have no desire for "pure egalitarianism" - whatever that is supposed to mean in your fantasy construction. Any particular that does not agree with the general, invalidates the general.
When you begin from false premises, you will arrive at false conclusions.
Called Strike One!
Next pitch: "In order to achieve egalitarianism, they must take from one group and give to the other. (Wealth distribution)" You beg the meaning of "egalitarianism", which in turn begs the question. You fail to distinguish what is meant by "group", as well as tack on a non sequitur that the begged question is intended to mean "Wealth Distribution":.
Wholly false construction.
Called Strike Two!
Next pitch: "As more and more is taken from one group, the incentive to produce more is diminished." (Higher unemployment) A contradiction in terms presented with an excluded middle that itself begs the question.
Called Strike Three!
YOU'RE OUT! Grade = F Dismissed!
Mike,
You assert more than you can prove logically about certain aspects of business; i.e. the "purpose of business", which you tend to oversimplify. Sorry about the word "flaky". Just an unhappy bit of slang, as I was rushed at the time I wrote.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 08:18 PMThat's impressive, Old Grouch. If only it were that easy.
Liberalism desires an egalitarian society. It wants to take from "rich" to give to the poor. Why? To even things out, of course. Liberalism taxes the "rich" at a higher rate than it taxes (if it taxes at all) the poor. Why? To even things out. The same goes for racial quotas and gender quotas. It doesn't matter whether or not the best people are doing the job, what matters to liberalism is that the job is evenly distributed to all groups regardless of skill. Liberalism despises religious celebrations so it uses terms like "Season's Greetings" and "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas. Why? To evenly distribute celebrations. You see, now even the atheists can receive a hearty Winter's Wazzup or Season's Greetings or whatever it's called these days.
There's a lot of words I can use describe liberalism. But, if I had to choose one it would be egalitarianism.
As for wealth redistribution and higher unemployment, I'm not sure what you are disputing. Taking from one group and giving to another is wealth redistribution. Ruining the economy with high taxes leads to high unemployment.
As for your baseball analogy, you seem to forget that the pitcher and the umpire are typically two different people.
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 10:24 PMOld Grouch,
I reread Mike's comments and I have no idea what you are disagreeing with. He suggested that the primary purpose of business is to sell goods and services for a profit. Is this what you are disputing? If so, then what do you believe the primary purpose of business is?
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 10:44 PMOG,
Was I oversimplifying here?
"Businesses do not exist for the purpose of providing people with jobs. They exist to provide goods and services; and make a reasonable return on investment.
If they can do it with fewer employees, or employees making less rather than more; so much the better- from the business's and consumer's point of view."
Some things are simple, OG. The aim of business is very simple: Sell your product or service for as high a price as you can, while keeping costs (including labor) as low as you can.
I don't need to fill your entire screen with my diatribe and leave you asking at the end, "What was he talking about?"; as you often do.
Posted by Mike on August 25, 2007 08:07 AMKen G , You outed youself and the company is not happy.
Posted by Carpenter's Wife on August 25, 2007 02:28 PMCarpenter's Wife:--
Trust me, I've been around long enough to know a lot of union and company dirt -- even know where the "bodies are buried" so to speak. I'm about as close as you can get to total job security.
Posted by on August 25, 2007 06:00 PMKen G,
That's not what I'm hearing through the grapevine.I think you are thinking a little to highly of yourself. You better be careful
, Dude.
oooooohhhhhhhhhhh! Dude.
By the way; "...little to highly...:
Should be: ...little too highly...
You're welcome, wanna be tough guy.
Posted by on August 25, 2007 09:01 PMSome information about unions:
"2006
Reporting unions 2006 = 25,351
Reporting unions 2006 = 15,269 with membership of 200 or less"
"In 2006, 12.0 percent of employed wage and salary workers were union
members, down from 12.5 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Department of
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of persons
belonging to a union fell by 326,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million."
"In 2006, full-time wage and salary workers who were union members had
median usual weekly earnings of $833, compared with a median of $642 for
wage and salary workers who were not represented by unions."
I presume the point of the barrage of verbiage being posted by John II is that in his opinion unions are bad and that they do a disservice to the working people and to the country. because they sometimes make mistakes which are bad for the employees.
Are corporations bad because they sometimes make mistakes and go out of business?
There are some 10,000 unions, not counting the very small ones, with some fifteen million members. Where are the examples of what John II repeatedly expresses his opinion about? Well, he doesn't provide a single legitimate example. His only attempt it to say "Detroit"; a very specious example: the auto industry.
Generally, when two parties negotiate or bargain, each expects the other to look after its own interests. For example, if a car company negotiates with an auto parts company, the car company looks after its own interests and expects the parts company to looks after its own interests. It could turn out that if the parts company is imprudently managed it will negotiate a contract it can't live with and have to go out of business. That can create serious problems for the car company. The same with labor negotiations. The company looks after its own interests and the union looks after its own interests.
The problem with the American auto industry has not been the unions; it has been the car companies, the failure of their management to manage prudently.
It is not at all just wages. The car companies emphasized immediate profits to the detriment of long term viability. They made the wrong kind of cars and cars with too little quality. The unions unions don't determine what kind of cars the companies make nor do they determine the quality question. The car companies made an egregious mistake in the projection of people's life expectancy and thus are saddled with the pension problem. Those were mistakes made by the car companies, not by the unions.
The only mistake the unions made was assuming that the car companies knew what they were doing, assuming that the management of the car companies was competent.
When Dan 2 asked "why unions?", I replied "because their is power in numbers". That is a very accurate statement. It is the reason behind all organizing. It is not a product of a particular time in the past but is a truism for all time. It is why there are still thousands of unions and millions of union workers. It is also the reason why business do a much better job of looking after nonunion employees: when you see a cop car ahead, you slow down to the speed limit. And business wanted to conduct business in a way that made unionizing difficult. There will always be unions and the need for unions, at least if our industries don't become socialized, something neither I nor John II advocates.
Basically, John II seems to be saying that unions are bad because of the possibility that they may [may, not will] make such exorbitant demands that the company may [may, not will] move, go out of business, or find some other way to escape the union. Yes, the company may do that. Or it may not. It might instead give in to the union demands or negotiate those demands down to a level it finds acceptable.
That same challenge and risk exists in all negotiating and bargaining, that is, the challenge and risk that one side may be so stubborn that the other side simply withdraws from the fray.
John II makes some really asinine statements, such as:
"Unions demand a certain level of health insurance from employers. Unions should provide this benefit to their members instead of forcing an employer to pay for it."
Of course, since unions get their money from their members, what John II is saying is that employees, both union and nonunion, should provide for their own health care.
Is John II crazy? The employees should just voluntarily give up the tremendous economic benefit they get from company health care? Obviously, if the employees and the company decide to transfer health care costs directly to the employees, the companies will also have to transfer the money necessary to pay those costs in the form of wage increases. That is in no way a union problem; that problem exists in every single company and employee that exists.
John II is saying that since the unions do make mistakes, although he does not cite a single one, they are bad. It makes me wonder why those stupid football coaches keep having their quarterbacks throw passes. In the majority of games, some of those passes will be intercepted, sometimes for a touchdown by the opposing team. Since quarterbacks sometimes make mistakes when they throw passes, shouldn't the coaches just have them quite throwing passes? John II's fallacious reasoning would suggest that result.
Truth, do you ever think about the things you post?
Half of that post was pointless. The other half was comprised of poorly thought out ideas and meaningless lecturing.
Combined, your post was desultory at best and too lengthy for any reasonable rebuttal other than the usual insult tossed your way.
Pick a couple of my arguments, provide your specific counter arguments, and then I will proceed to educate you once again.
Posted by John II on August 26, 2007 03:20 PMOne of John II's most common mistakes is he so often speaks in monolithic terms about very diverse and varied groups. The need to speak in absolutes when one is not dealing with something that has much diversity is usually a product of either ignorance or prejudice.
There are some 15,000 unions, 10,000 not counting the very small ones. John II makes the mistake of speaking of them as though he were talking about one item, one entity, something with no diversity or variance within it.
I probably shouldn't call it a mistake that John II makes because I think he is well aware of what he is doing, but when one is expressing his prejudices he really can't be bothered with accuracy or discrimination.
He does the same thing with respect to socialists, Muslims, immigrants and I expect others which are the subject of his frequent prejudices.
I was wondering if John II would try to come up with a few examples of what he opines about so repeatedly and at such length. But, no. It's easier, if not intellectually honest, to speak in general terms. Anyhow, when you simply don't know of any examples but are simply spouting off, you have no other choice. You'd think he would be embarrassed.
Truth said:
"There are some 15,000 unions, 10,000 not counting the very small ones. John II makes the mistake of speaking of them as though he were talking about one item, one entity, something with no diversity or variance within it."
No, Truth. It would not matter if there were a million labor unions. What I have said about labor unions is inherent to all unions. They raise the cost of labor and decrease employment. This is inherent to all 15,000 unions.
Posted by John II on August 26, 2007 07:47 PM