What is Digg?132 Comments
- offrdbandit, on 06/04/2009, -16/+52Better question: Should organized labor survive?
- inactive, on 06/04/2009, -2/+36it's a good question to ask, and I think that the answer is yes. But they need to not become the monster than UAW became. Unions should be there to protect the worker from arbitrary abuse by the organization they work for. But they shouldn't be there to control the company.
- EricG, on 06/04/2009, -5/+28History has a nasty habit of repeating itself when people forget the past..
- Deveak, on 06/04/2009, -16/+36Unions are not obsolete, they just don't serve the purpose they originally did. All they do now is line their coffers and lobby for more money, a leeching business.
- codyman, on 06/04/2009, -9/+28Auto Workers, thanks to the unions, get their 40 hours a week regardless of demand
Nothing says success like building a product at the normal rate (due to being forced by the unions to give the workers hours) regardless of the product demand
Unions need to revist Supply/Demand Economics 101 classes cause damn they just don't get it - aekdbbop, on 06/04/2009, -18/+34Unions are obsolete.. they served a purpose when working conditions were rough, but we have it so easy here now.
- TracerMan, on 06/04/2009, -4/+18Organized Labor:
Upkeep - low
Required Tech - Economic recession
Effect One +1 gold per city
Effect Two - 1 happiness per foreign trade route - stonebear, on 06/04/2009, -1/+15Hard to do when it is so actively discouraged by the tax code. There is invisible-but-immense pressure forcing people who don't have a substantial advantage into wage slavery.
- cheddaro, on 06/04/2009, -14/+27The unions don't really have a choice but to agree to concessions. Eventually they will kill the cow, and then there will be no milk for anyone.
- alpharaptor, on 06/04/2009, -0/+9thank you for not reaching for a pitchfork and lighting another torch
- megaflyman, on 06/04/2009, -0/+9Organized labor will survive as long as people are willing to fight for it. Unfortunately when times get tough like they are now and people get into a lot of debt people are less likely to fight for it.
- askantik, on 06/04/2009, -9/+18Wow, you people saying we don't need unions-- you've apparently never been in one. Are there corrupt people in unions? Sure. But then there's corrupt people in every nook and cranny of the world, am I right? Unions keep you from working 10 years at a job with no raise. They keep you from being "let go" for no reason, they provide representation during cases of employees being accused of things, and they make the game fair. Without unions, even more jobs would be in India and China right now. Unions are the reason our work week was set at 40 hours and daily limit at 8 hours, among a host of other things.
And people keep saying UAW caused the auto companies to fail. Oh, really? Anyone saying that has absolutely no idea how a union or collective bargaining works. Unions don't "demand" things-- they negotiate, hence the term "bargaining." Anything that is set forth in the employee-employer contract was AGREED UPON by both the employee and the employer. So you can't say, "Well the union employees are asking for too much money!!" (or too many benefits, or whatever). The company AGREED to those benefits. The contract doesn't say, "Unless the company is too stupid and runs out of money, then the employee gets A, B, or C." That ain't how it works, folks. Is UAW blameless? Maybe not-- but they certainly aren't the main ones at fault here.
The auto companies would love to use the unions as scapegoats, though. It's not actually that they're retarded or mismanaged or stubborn. It couldn't possibly be that the companies don't know how to be innovative or keep up with the foreign automakers. IT HAS TO BE THE UNIONS!!!11 Bah. - Philistine13, on 06/04/2009, -9/+17LOL! Why do you think work conditions are easy now? You think it's out of the kindness of the corporations hearts? Unions fought through the years so that we could enjoy decent conditions today. If you appreciate luxuries like a 40 hour workweek, overtime, and healthcare through your workplace... Stop and thank a union member who fought for those rights.
- Eorster, on 06/04/2009, -0/+8A lot of people don't realize how inhibiting the tax code is on new companies without the resources to pay for expertise in law and taxation, sorry folks quick books doesn't cut it. I also believe it is by design. You are actually the first comment I have seen anywhere that mentions it. Wage slavery sums it up very well for a W2 worker.
- stonebear, on 06/04/2009, -1/+9"There has to be recognition that the next workforce is working more independently. That recognition would mean... look at the tax code, make sure that we're giving freelancers the same tax treatment as traditional workers."
How about we give freelancers the same tax treatment as corporations instead? - askantik, on 06/04/2009, -1/+8Unions don't force anything. It's called bargaining for a reason (because that's what it is-- an agreement between two parties).
And guess what-- I live 10 miles from the newest Toyota plant in the US. Guess who they got to build the giant ass plant? Yep, they allowed zero non-union construction workers. Japanese companies have a long-standing tradition of respecting their workers, and vice versa. It's a cultural thing (seriously). - desertDenizen, on 06/04/2009, -1/+8I see 2 comments here that are actually informed by the contents of the article. Please RTFA folks. If you did, you'd see that the article is talking about something completely different: collective bargaining for freelancers' tax rights and health insurance premiums. Not jobs, not wages, not benefits.
The organization's mistake is using the word "union" (when it's more like a lobby, like AARP). Diggers' mistake is not looking past the use of this word. Which is a shame, as there are a lot of freelancers here who'd probably like what the dude is trying to accomplish, as it could benefit them directly. - NegativeONE, on 06/04/2009, -0/+7I can't help but note the irony of your comment versus your alias.
- Tw3ek, on 06/04/2009, -0/+7http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Canon_Employees_Forbidde ...
The only proof needed to prove organized labor is still necessary. - novenator, on 06/04/2009, -4/+10Unions = better pay = more purchases = more jobs = better pay = etc.
positive reinforcement loop begins with unions, so yes, as a benefit for all workers in the country, unions need to survive. - askantik, on 06/04/2009, -3/+9Strong-arm? It's bargaining-- the companies always go below what the unions first ask for. But it's an agreement... the companies know exactly what they are agreeing to beforehand. It's a legally binding contract. Let me go hire a lawyer and then after he wins the trial for me, I'm gonna say I can't pay him because he strong-armed me into letting him be my lawyer. Pfft.
And as for incompetence... you must have proof to fire a union worker. You can't just say, "Well, you're a suck-ass teacher, so GTFO!" You know, sort of like how a cop can't just roll into your drive way, bust down your door, and go, "You're a ***** citizen. I'm taking you to jail." Sure, it's an extreme example-- but unions provide representation and give the employee protection against stupid *****. What do I mean? Let's talk about how many, many months before Circuit City went bankrupt, they fired people that had been working their 10, 20 years and then told them they could reapply for employment in 6 months at significantly reduced wages.
Now-- if they'd be unionized, they could still be laid off, but they'd have have explicit benefits or severance pay, at the least. Instead, Circuit City bent them over and put their Circuit Dicks in the employees' asses. - cubicledrone, on 06/04/2009, -6/+12Nah. All those jobs got outsourced. People aren't paid in the US at all.
- askantik, on 06/04/2009, -18/+23Yes.
- Eorster, on 06/04/2009, -1/+6I have been in several conversations recently where it all comes down to one question and no one seems to have an answer, where are these new living wage jobs going to come from? A simple question that I would love to hear an adequate answer to. Green energy is often an answer given when the person doesn't truly understand the question. We have been so keen on US "living wage" job destruction the last 10 years, whether it be outsourcing knowledge work, moving manufacturing to cheaper labor markets or simply through improved efficiencies, that we find ourselves at the cliff looking into the abyss. With companies threatening to take more jobs overseas just today, what is the answer? Government jobs are not the answer they need to be paid for by someone and without wealth creation, other than printing money out out of thin air, how is it going to get paid for?
- novenator, on 06/04/2009, -3/+8Exploitation is far from extinct. If the last 30 years of anti-unionization has taught us anything, it's that big corporations cannot be trusted to have your best interests in mind. Real wages have dropped, hours have increased (until this recession/depression hit at least), and benefits (sick/vacation time, health care, etc.) have been severely strained or removed.
- cubicledrone, on 06/04/2009, -5/+10Start your own business. Depending on irresponsible and immature American employers for your income is stupid.
- Unexploded, on 06/04/2009, -1/+6"Unions are obsolete.. they served a purpose when working conditions were rough, but we have it so easy here now. "
Totally. Because if you can trust anyone to look out for you best interests, it's a multinational corporation. - buckrogers1965, on 06/04/2009, -1/+6Except for the fact that blue collar wages have been stagnant for the past 30 years.
But don't let facts stand in the way of your anti labor rants. - novenator, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5If a company demanded blowjobs for the boss, you could always find another job too, that is, until every company out there started demanding the same thing from their employees.
- askantik, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5You honestly think the government is in bed with UNIONS and NOT with the corporations? *****, one of us is from a different planet, because I have a 180 degree view of the situation.
- Barackalypse, on 06/04/2009, -3/+8The people making the concessions were GM bondholders, owners of secured debt, who got utterly screwed:
Bondholders held $27 billion in secured GM debt, and got a 10% stake in the new company
The Union held $20 billion in unsecured debt and got a 17.5% stake
http://www.katu.com/news/business/46111317.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124385428627671889 ...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-makes-new-bondhol ... - PanicAK, on 06/04/2009, -2/+7Unions and their negotiations are what set the standard for most non-union workers. Unions should not control the companies they work for, but unions are a very good thing that most people don't understand.
- novenator, on 06/04/2009, -2/+6Where do these false ideas come from? Have you ever been part of a union or talked with a union member? They are not the thugs they are made out to be, they are working men and women.
- askantik, on 06/04/2009, -6/+10Or maybe those companies need to revisit "How to Run a Successful Business 101" like Honda, Toyota, Nissan, or others. Yeah, that's right.
- Royish, on 06/04/2009, -0/+4Not all unions are bad. Just like not all companies are bad. Not all companies benefit from unions, some do.
For example:
Costco doesn't need a Union, they take care of their employees. - Royish, on 06/04/2009, -1/+5That's all they all do?
Quit generalizing, not all unions are bad, just like not all companies are bad. - buckrogers1965, on 06/04/2009, -3/+7Except that union wages and benefits have remained unchanged relative to inflation for the past 30 years.
Sadly non union wages for blue collar jobs have dropped a lot over the years.
Meanwhile, executive pay has increased 100 fold in the same time frame. - CTK14A, on 06/04/2009, -0/+4...I don't understand why you consider this sarcasm. Read a few history books, maybe one on the construction of the railroads; realize that history repeats itself.
- Jlaugh, on 06/04/2009, -1/+5Because you negotiated a contract, or do you not believe in contract law the basis of all business relations?
- RedsoxRock, on 06/04/2009, -0/+4According to the US Labor Bureau here are the top 20 growth jobs projected out to 2016. Most of them do not require any advanced education. Information can be found right on their web site.
1. Registered Nurses
2. Retail Salesperson
3. Customer Service Rep
4. Food Prep and serving workers, including fast food
5. Office clerk
6. Personal and home care aides
7. Home health aide
8. Postsecondary teachers
9. Janitors and cleaners
10. Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants
11. Bookkeeping and accountant clerks
12. Waiters and waitresses
13. Child care workers
14. Secretaries
15. Computer software engineer
16. Accounting and Auditors
17. Landscapers
18. Business Operation Specialist
19. Elementary school teachers
20. Receptionist - freakedguru, on 06/04/2009, -2/+6I always thought that was an interesting dichotomy. Collusion by businesses was a blight upon this world, but collusion by workers was a system for obtaining justice.
When it boils down to it, I don't mind either in and of itself, some very good things can come of both actually. Rather I mind the political clout they wield to establish "appropriate regulations" that shield them from competition and set them up for life. - Royish, on 06/04/2009, -1/+5CEO raises have gone up considerable though. All of this ignorant anti union talk in this thread is sickening. You have bad unions, bad companies, bad ice cream. You have good ones too.
The corrupt and unreasonable unions are the problem, not all unions. - Bluesky0010, on 06/04/2009, -3/+7Politicians are usually in bed with business. Relying on a politician to pass a law for you related to fairness of work would be a waste of time.
Strikes are very fair. It is the employee refusing to work for ***** wages. I hope your joking on trying to say that employees should not have the right to strike. - askantik, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3Unions and corporations are inherently enemies (at least from most corporations' standpoint). So, yes, I think they are mutually exclusive. But that's just me.
- novenator, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3So workers should not be able to collectively bargain for better conditions? Wow, way to make that door wide open to exploitation
- Royish, on 06/04/2009, -1/+4Of course it should. If UAW was an unreasonable or corrupt union which helped destroy GM that doesn't mean all of them are. I'm sure it had more to do with people not buying GM cars because of superior imports anyway.
@ freakedguru, The few companies having total power vs the many workers at least having a say in their pay and working conditions and being able to negotiate.
One worker can only do so much. - buckrogers1965, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3You have to go all the way down to 15 before you get to a job that actually produces something of value that can be sold. Every job on the list is great and all, but they don't grow the economy.
The only things that actually make money for an economy are production jobs were you take raw materials and turn them into products that you can sell.
You really don't think we can keep going forever with trillion dollar trade deficits do you? - askantik, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3Finally, someone who gets it.
- moulinneuf, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3
Almost all the rest of the world as free healthcare , your just sick in the head and physically to realize that. - ousthouse, on 06/04/2009, -2/+4Wow... corporate welfare is running rampant and unions are being screwed... we need to get a democrat elected to the White House ASAP.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is