What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
138 Comments
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -15/+50Capitalism is quietly pulling in some wins lately. Well done.
- Pseudorious, on 03/27/2009, -14/+41Let me know when we're willing to treat labor monopolies like we do corporate.
- Landthatilove, on 03/27/2009, -3/+28We The People are slowly waking up. Another couple of months should do it.
- dwhitbeck, on 03/27/2009, -5/+26Any vote should be secret. Period.
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -12/+29Unions are destroying our manufacturing base. We cannot compete globally with Americans being paid 50 bucks an hour to turn a wrench. Sorry.
- edstate, on 03/27/2009, -1/+17We just need the "investigation" to continue.
Meaning we should laugh in the face of the politicians and pundits who are urging us to "move on" and "fix this" and "not point fingers". Quite the contrary. We need to point lots, and lots of fingers, and look under lots and lots of rocks, to ultimately -and intimately- understand why and how this ***** happened.
I'll give you hint of where 95% of the fault lies, and it rhymes with "Lovermnet". - Speedy7, on 03/27/2009, -8/+22I don't understand American politics...
Dugg for Blinker1315's shout.
(To be honest) - ptheroux, on 03/27/2009, -5/+17Unions are cartels. Like any cartel, their power comes from their ability to exclude competition from the market. Their purpose is to obtain financial benefits for themselves and their members at the expense of other workers who get shut out of the workforce.
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -14/+25***** the Unions.
- diggwut, on 03/27/2009, -7/+16It's interesting how businesses that conspire to set prices of products are hit with charges of collusion, but labor unions can conspire to set "prevailing wages" with absolute impunity. The reality is that both should be illegal.
- govsucks, on 03/27/2009, -6/+15Yea, chalk one up for human liberty.
- nomojunkscience, on 03/27/2009, -12/+21Employees already have free choice that bill is garbage
- ptheroux, on 03/27/2009, -3/+10No, unions are much worse. If businesses collude to set prices artificially high, entrepreneurs can come along and undercut those prices (except if there are government regulations designed to squash competition of this sort). If a union demands high wages for their workers, it is illegal to go around the union and higher someone who will work for less.
- mjk340, on 03/27/2009, -1/+7$50 an hour total compensation, not just take-home pay, but those benefits all add up.
- yeahwhatever58, on 03/27/2009, -2/+8hey PhotoJ-
I am familiar with how EFCA works. The problem is that you gloss over the words " fill out a union card." This IS the problem. A person has to have the fundamental right to vote in secrecy....right from the beginning. You see, your naivety shows through regarding this, no disrespect intended. The unions are not going for the 30% to then move to a secret ballot. They are counting on the 50%+ so it will go right to unionhood. You totally underestimate both the overt and covert power and influence of the unions and those associated with them. I grew up in a union household. My father was VERY high up in the union hierarchy.... I saw first hand and learned much about how they really work. This type of legislation is right down their alley....that is why they are pulling for it so much. So much of the corruption of the unions have been exposed through the years and that is why they are slowly becoming more of a dying breed. People can see what is happening. This is a last ditch legislation to try to re-energize the union movement to what it was before. - Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -2/+7Of course not. Capitalism is entirely compatiable with collective bargaining. However, only in so far as that collective bargaining is not enforced by the government, that it is still subject to competition, and that intimidation is not used to compel people.
The problem with the unions is that they're backed by the government, they monopolize labor in their industry which means they're not open to competition, and they have a long sad history of using the most intense forms of intimidation.
That is the problem. Change that and I'm 100 percent for unions. Keep it the way it is and they're a cancer. - yeahwhatever58, on 03/27/2009, -5/+10No, it is congratulations to that individual who happens "to work for a living" because now he can breathe easy and feel like no one is looking over his shoulder and pressuring him into something he might not want. After all, if he does want it, he still can vote for it in the privacy of a secret ballot. So, yes, congrats on a good victory for the working person.
- cxxfxxh, on 03/27/2009, -1/+6I had a job making $19 an hour. came out to like 30k a year cash. my annual compensation was almost 50...the 20k was 401k contributions from my employer and the cost of my health care. that said, many places in this country are too expensive to make a decent living on 36k a year...like NYC, where i was earning that wage.
sure, unions can go too far...but dont be a jerk about it. - Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -1/+5Logpony,
That's not a reason that makes any sense. you're saying we should make things less secret because they're perfectly secret now? It's irrational.
Try again. - ChuckDees, on 03/28/2009, -5/+9This bill doesn't end secret ballot.
This is a lie pushed by the business class.
They are worried workers will have more leverage in the work place. - Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -1/+5Those are my opinions.
You don't believe in secret ballots? Yes or no?
You do believe in competition? Yes or no?
The irony here is that the only reason you could reasonable be for card check is that you're the one without his own opinions.
Disagree? I would LOVE to hear someone explain why card check is a good idea. One reason that makes any sense. If you can't do that then you're totally clueless. - ptheroux, on 03/28/2009, -3/+7Unions think the law should be that if a majority of workers sign a card, a union is automatically formed. I wonder if they would support changing the law so that a majority of workers can dissolve a union just as easily?
- RonPauls, on 03/27/2009, -3/+7For Liberty!
- Genghis1, on 03/28/2009, -1/+5A union is just hiring a group of professionals to negotiate your salary, benefits, and working conditions. You pay the fee and they negotiate with the company. It evens the playing field between employees and the company. More Unions are needed in the US.
It has nothing to do with competition or monopolies. If anyone has a chance to join a union, I would recommend it highly. - kortiz, on 03/28/2009, -1/+5"legislation that would eliminate secret ballots in union elections."
LIES!! it gives workers the option!! maybe if they read the bill they would have a freakin clue - ptheroux, on 03/27/2009, -4/+8Wages and benefits are fundamentally based on the productivity of the worker. The more productive the worker, the more he or she is worth to the employer, and the higher a wage he or she can demand. That's why our standard of living is higher today than 150 years ago. It has nothing to do with unions having the power to influence policy. How do to account for the fact that only 8% of the private sector work force is unionized, yet far more that that number have the benefits you describe?
- KirbyMeister, on 03/28/2009, -1/+4Well if Tim can't get 30% cards to start a ballot, he sure isn't going to get 50% cards to force a union on the company!
- snowwrestler, on 03/27/2009, -1/+4Some workers who are probably happy about it:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/25/card-ch ... - KirbyMeister, on 03/27/2009, -3/+6Unions can only raise wages by monopolizing markets and demanding everyone use their workers. This causes higher prices, of course. You see, when a company is forced by it's union to raise wages, they have to raise prices to cover increased costs, and if not everyone is raising prices, buyers will flock to the non-unionized products because they are cheaper. Minimum wage laws have a similar effect but since they're government enforced, all the prices rise at the same time... which means that the just-won wage increase is all for naught.
Note how many of the unionized industries are either dying in america (factories, etc) or have government-mandated monopolies on their products (entertainment, writers, etc) so they can raise prices without impunity. And even in the second case the unions aren't helping when they decide to organize a strike. Remember the writers strike a few years back that subjected us to the horror of 24/7 reruns and reality TV? Everybody lost - the workers, the employers, and the buyers. - DanThePainter, on 03/28/2009, -0/+3Labor's Agenda Undermines its Members' Livelihoods
Organized labor has accelerated its metamorphosis in recent years away from a movement committed to improving the lot of workers towards becoming a vast policy advocacy effort devoting a disproportionate share of its efforts to political operations. In doing so, much of the traditional labor movement has been hijacked by newer unions devoted to vast expansions of government and an undermining of the economy in a way that directly punishes those they call "brothers.".......>> continue >>
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/labors_agen ... - Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -1/+4Cxxfxxh,
NYC is largely expensive because the real estate and taxes have gotten out of control. That's a factor of the area being desirable, cheap credit, and poorly run government.
As to unions, they're fine so long as they don't turn into labor monopolies. Which is sadly what they've mostly become. Without competition in labor prices it's impossible to negotiate fairly the unions. They have all the power. Imagine if there were only ONE manufacturing company in the US that made EVERYTHING. Would you want to negotiate with them? If they want to they can screw you because they have a monopoly on the only job your labor is good for...
In the US however there are literally tens of thousands of manufacturing companies. So there's lots of competition. The unions need to be broken up a bit so they at least have to compete with each other. - ptheroux, on 03/28/2009, -0/+3You can't leave the union and continue to work at the same shop.
- Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -5/+8This isn't just the businesses winning. This is the American worker. How can anyone think that having open ballots where your vote is seen by everyone is a good idea? Why not do that for national elections. Would you like to be a democrat voter in Texas or a Republican voter in New York?
All the ballots used to be fairly public and the result was intimidation, discrimination, and bribery. With secret ballots no one knows who voted for what... only the result. So you can't even reliably bribe people to vote against their conscience.
Secret ballots are good for everyone but unions that think they can keep/expand their power through intimidation. There is literally no good reason to make the ballots open. NONE. - inactive, on 03/27/2009, -6/+9Worker Unions are the reason we have a middle class in the first place. Some of you probably didn't notice but we have a major wage stagnation going on. Once we lose the right to organize we will lose middle class. And we will officially become India or Mexico.
- keraneuology, on 03/28/2009, -0/+3Really? The unions put Clinton into power and he enacted NAFTA....
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -5/+8I think you'd be surprised at the amount of power the AFL-CIO and Teamsters wield politically in this country.
- barstegry, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3Do you have any clue what EFCA even is? I am thinking no...
- aurorous, on 03/28/2009, -0/+3"Once we lose the right to organize we will lose middle class. And we will officially become India or Mexico."
Ever since NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton DEMOCRAT the $15/hr + Benefits jobs have been steadily going away. All that's left are the minimum wage jobs with no benefits. I know the promise of this bill is that it will unionize these jobs and improve pay and benefits but the corporations aren't even going to argue the point. As soon as the employees start to organize they'll simply move to China. This bill (or anything similar) has no teeth as long as American workers are directly competing against virtual slave labor.
The promises of free trade to the lower and middle classes were bald face lie... one that President Obama continues to tell to this day. All it did was allow companies to slash labor costs boosting profits and give out bigger pay raises to the executives.
The middle class is going away and no politician has any interest in doing anything substantive about it. Our choice is poverty working for minimum wage or trying to organize and losing what jobs we have left. It's a crappy choice but as long as Democrats and Republicans are working together to enrich themselves and the con the voters into voting for them no matter how bad things get it's the only choice we have. - GordonClass, on 03/27/2009, -2/+5I've worked union and non union and I can tell ya there are some companies out there that treat workers like ***** and the unions are the only way to get fair treatment. But I have to say for most companies that they do a great job of respecting their employees.
- yeahwhatever58, on 03/27/2009, -1/+4Part of what you said is spot on. Many companies out there will treat their employees well because they are smart enough to know that having good employees is the life blood of running a good business. For the companies that don't treat employees well, then it is the employee's perogative to search out new employment elsewhere. Those kind of companies will end up losing out in the long run due to competition in the workplace to attract good employees.
- Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -2/+4SaperKain,
I am not against free choice... quite the opposite in fact. How does having an open ballot increase choice? How does exposing voters to intimidation increase choice? your policy would give people no choice at all. They could submit or be harassed until they submit.
Remove this nonsense about making the ballot public I might support the legislation. But with it I can NEVER support it. It is wrong. It is immoral. It is bad for the economy. It is bad for America. - ChuckDees, on 03/28/2009, -4/+6Really, capitalism means the worker has no collective bargaining power?
- yeahwhatever58, on 03/28/2009, -0/+2Correct. That was what I was telling GordonC in a slightly different way.
- ChuckDees, on 03/28/2009, -3/+5No, neoliberalism is destroying manufacturing.
Sorry kids your empty rhetoric picking on the working class isn't going to fly.
The guy turning a wrench didn't make his country join the WTO or pass NAFTA CAFTA or GATT.
Sorry push your lies on some other fools. - Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -1/+3SaperKain, I pulled those off the top of my head... they're fairly obvious points and serve as an easy counter to your silly argument. Labeling them talking points does nothing to refute them.
As to your comment about wage stagnation, there are many explanations for that. Among them the huge amount of competition in unskilled labor and entry level jobs. I'm sorry but without some skills or talent there are a LOT of people that can do low level jobs. In fact, there are vastly more people applying for these jobs then we have jobs available. The number of people that want these jobs actually holds back automation because the cheap labor in many cases is less expensive then buying robots to do it instead.
There is no answer to this short of some kind of "brave new world" make work economy where the point is to keep everyone happy and employed instead of actually accomplish anything or do anything well. The fact of the matter is that we need more skilled labor and our education system is failing us. I could take some guesses as to why it's failing us but that's a different discussion. The point is that if you want a good job you can't just show up to the factory with two hands and the will to work... there are just too many people showing up for that job for you to get a good deal.
I wish I had a magic answer to this question that would make it all better. But there isn't one. The Union response of labor monopolization, exclusion, and protectionism won't solve your problems. It will only make things better for the unions. Along the way the unions will exclude many people from joining them simply to protect their wages... Where will those people work that can't join the unions because the unions are already full? See... it only solves the union's problems. The REAL problem of what to do with all the people only gets worse because by damaging international trade you'll hurt the whole economy. - Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -0/+2ChuckDees,
I did examine your logic in the first line.
I said that the system was failing before your listed causes. Thus the effect precedes the cause which is temporally impossible.
The logic is irrefutable. You've just been proven wrong. I did that in the first line of the previous post... but now you should understand that better.
As to "real conservatives"... I'm a libertarian... and pat is an embarrassing idiot.
As to Tariffs, I'm not going to bother debating them. The damage they do when imposed is undisputed and uncontroversial. Thus the burden of proof is upon you. More economic collapses can be linked with their imposition then with their removal.
As to GATT, it is the only thing you cited that predated the failing manufacturing industry. Are you implying we should go back to pre ww2 trade policies? Just curious...
As to bets... I'll be your huckleberry.
As to diggs... I've not been active on this site for long. So I don't know the etiquette... I thought you digged people down when you disagreed with them?... right?
By the way, I haven't dugg you down in this discussion... someone else is doing that. - Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -1/+3That might be true but how does making it worse make it better?
I'd support making the process more secretive if you like to protect workers. But there would also have to be a way to make sure that the unions aren't just making people up either.
Furthermore, there is something monopolistic about mega unions. Once ALL the auto workers are in one union it means that there is no competition any more... and prices get out of control.
The businesses need to be able to go to different unions and say "well, they offered us 'X', what will you off us?" That's good business.
I support unions, I just think their current implementation is abusive. - yeahwhatever58, on 03/28/2009, -2/+4logpony-
regarding both of your comments...
"you consider some union guy yelling at a crowd to try and get their support some kind of unspeakable horror of coercion, but the ability of an employer to "train" and fire those who step out of line is A-OK?"
Like I was telling photoJ, you really don't understand how unions really work....no disrespect intended. If you haven't had any direct involvement at the highest levels or seen what happens, then it would be natural to say and feel the way you do.
And yes, if an employer has hired and is paying an employee to do a job, and they don't do that job, it should be the perogative of the employer to fire those kinds of employees.
"Nice logic... except your examples suck. "I grew up and saw blah blah blah." What did you see? Care to describe it or provide evidence? Same with the "corruption of the unions." Explicate that for me, please."
I do understand that when debating an issue, it is important to present a little thing called facts to bolster your position. So I appreciate your response regarding this. Do I care to describe or give evidence....in a word, NO. So we will have to leave that part unresolved and if you want to claim victory in that part of our debate, go for it! I was merely adding my own personal touch and experience to my position on the issue.
"As for privacy....THE 30% ISN'T PRIVATE... so why aren't you mad about that? The time lapse gives employers ample time to fire and coerce employees before the secret vote, if it even reaches that far"
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my response to PhotoJ. Let me clarify this. I don't like ANY PART of the EFCA. That really should clear it up for you! ALL votes for possible unionhood should be secret. I don't care what percentages are broken down...50%, 30% or even if it was 1%. ALL VOTES RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING SHOULD BE PRIVATE. You see, the beauty of the private vote is that even employers would not know who voted for a union and who didn't. So how would they know who to coerce or not? Privacy is a beautiful thing... - inactive, on 03/28/2009, -0/+2Hell no. You can't even get unions to support right to work laws.
- Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -2/+4No, I PERSONALLY as an INDIVIDUAL have a right to a secret ballot. I always want to have that. If 51 percent of my peers what a public ballot I don't care. I want my ballot to be secret.
Why is making my ballot public a good idea? All it will do is lead to intimidation. There is no legitimate reason for it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is