[quote]Edgy wrote:
get rid of unions, and all ya’all’ll suffer.
think corporate greed is out of control now? Did the unions create the problem that caused the world into a recession? No, who did? right~
Unions are their own worse enemy, there is no arguing that point, but so are the corporations. One needs the other to temper the situation, and come to an agreeable resolution.
As for the safety aspect, OSHA is in place, that is for sure, and it is underfunded - this means that there are less inspectors and the addition of workplace protections that Unions provide allow for workers to stand up and contact OSHA without the repercussions. for the most part, anyway.
As for the comment that they were useful 100 years ago, but not now…Ask the corporations 100 years ago if they were needed and they would have said the same thing.
Ya’all really need to think about this before you shoot your collective mouths off.
what am I doing here in PWI? I must’ve wandered through the ladies locker room, and got lost…[/quote]
Unions are corporations who’s greed is out of control. These are the same unions that fire bombed the company I work for (before I started here) and sued Boeing to stop them from creating thousands of jobs in South Carolina.
Far from being necessary, most of them are detrimental to the blue collar workers of America.[/quote]
Unions are not corporations, they are not-for-profit bureaucracies that, if left untended, will gorge themselves out of control, kinda like the Blob
[quote]Edgy wrote:
As for the safety aspect, OSHA is in place, that is for sure, and it is underfunded - this means that there are less inspectors and the addition of workplace protections that Unions provide allow for workers to stand up and contact OSHA without the repercussions. for the most part, anyway.
[/quote]
Out of curiosity, have you ever dealt with OSHA?[/quote]
Umm, no - not directly. but I have dealt with MSHA, and that is kinda the same - but when does experience and education come into this forum? from what I understand, as long as you have bullshit and bravado, then you are welcome here.
Hey AC - I appreciate your diatribe on Craft Labor Unions as opposed to those dirty nasty other unions, but I would like to submit the following…
Federal Express is a good company that pays their employees well, has a good retirement/health and welfare package and a good safety record, and is non union.
UPS is a good company that pays their employees well, has a good retirement/health and welfare package and a good safety record, and is union.
NOW… would FedEx be such a good company if it’s direct competitor was not unionized?
[quote]Edgy wrote:
As for the safety aspect, OSHA is in place, that is for sure, and it is underfunded - this means that there are less inspectors and the addition of workplace protections that Unions provide allow for workers to stand up and contact OSHA without the repercussions. for the most part, anyway.
[/quote]
Out of curiosity, have you ever dealt with OSHA?[/quote]
Umm, no - not directly. but I have dealt with MSHA, and that is kinda the same - but when does experience and education come into this forum? from what I understand, as long as you have bullshit and bravado, then you are welcome here.
there you go changing the rules on me~[/quote]
Hah. I was just going to mention that most of OSHA is bureaucratic non-sense. It’s rules for the sake of rules. Rules made to justify the jobs of the rule makers. Then there are rules that could be debatable about if they really make anything safer. There are some rules really just there to make money. And even with the few good rules left, they sometimes make working environments less safe. They protect manufacturers who don’t do all they can to make their products safe, because they met the requirements. CE requirements are even worse. For a while there every large crane sold in Europe was against the law (EN1300) because the technology doesn’t exist to build a crane to comply with it (they have sense passed some amendments to at least make compliance possible).
I personally think organizations like OSHA do a terrible job of making stuff safe.
Unions are not corporations, they are not-for-profit bureaucracies that, if left untended, will gorge themselves out of control, kinda like the Blob
[/quote]
The people in power at unions are definitely for profit. And large companies are bureaucracies too. It can be bureaucratic and a company.
And, while I’m no expert on non-profits, when the UAW owns large parts of GM, Ford, est. I’m not sure how they can be non-profit.
The cost of housing in many places is pretty absurd.
I got lecture once by a guy who said that “When I was you age…I had a two houses”.
Kind of made me feel like a piece of shit.
So I looked up house prices vs median income, and that gap has grown a shitload.
Doesn’t really seem like an apples to apples comparison to me, when the ratio used to be 3:1 and is now about 8:1
Here’s for US
Really seems out of control to me. IIrc, if you look back to the 70’s the ratio was like 3:1 for most cities.
I’m kind of conflicted on this opinion, haven’t had the chance to fully analyze it, but sometimes I feel like certain businesses would be better off if they were run as a co-operative.
My big brother told me about this one company in France called Mondragon
Kind of ties in to that maximum wage thing (ratio of highest paid to lowest paid stays proprtional), which I’m also kind of conflicted about.
I think they would help address some issues, but then you have the “punishing success” aspect.
Which is probably illegal, but when some people acquire enough capital/wealth, they can start doing things that mere mortals cannot.
Seems kind of parasitic to me.
Which brings me back to the co-op idea, is that you have people from the community where the businesses exist, so they have an incentive for their business to do well, they see the results. Some of these larger corporations, while they do donate to charity, are completely disconnected from many of the communities that they operate in. But then it’s also their choice to run their business how they want. Guess not enough people protest with their wallets. Anyway, enough rant, it’s a very complex issue.
With respect to the issues with banking, I think this cartoonish story explains it fairly well
Basically, 5 guys are stranded on a island, they each have different skills that they use to barter but the complications of this arise, and a banker washes ashore and introduces money to expedite transactions, so he loans them each $200 at 8% interest. The problem here, that one of them figures out is that they owe $1080, but that there is only $1000 in circulation, and thus the debt can never be paid off.
I’d like to hear your guys opinions on this
[quote]Edgy wrote:
get rid of unions, and all ya’all’ll suffer.
think corporate greed is out of control now? [/quote]
Typically when someone tries to tie greed and corporations together they pick non-union corps (like Wal-mart). So how would eliminating unions change corporate greed at all?
[quote]
Did the unions create the problem that caused the world into a recession? No, who did? right~ [/quote]
Lets not pretend unions ascended straight from heaven. Unions are one of the reasons Detroit is so messed up.
[quote]
Unions are their own worse enemy, there is no arguing that point, but so are the corporations. [/quote]
I don’t think the two are all that comparable.
[quote]
One needs the other to temper the situation, and come to an agreeable resolution. [/quote]
Maybe. Maybe not.
[quote]
As for the safety aspect, OSHA is in place, that is for sure, and it is underfunded - this means that there are less inspectors and the addition of workplace protections that Unions provide allow for workers to stand up and contact OSHA without the repercussions. for the most part, anyway. [/quote]
Okay.
I agree it wouldn’t stifle corporate greed; however, unions certainly haven’t stifled corporate greed either.
The American work might suffer. White collar works rarely (that I know of) have unions and we’re doing fine.
[quote]
2) Unions are probably the direct reason why Detroit suffered - That and…CORPORATE GREED! [/quote]
That same corporate greed is why Detroit became motor city though. The auto union (or unions I don’t) could of worked with the big 3 struggling automakers, but the chose not to. Now we have a decimated Detroit.
[quote]
3) The two are probably more comparable than you would think - probably as polarized as our political status, but I digress… [/quote]
I don’t see how corporations are their own worst enemy like unions. I am not pro or con corporations, I just don’t see the comparison.
[quote]
4) yeah…yeah they do. [/quote]
No… no they don’t. Why are white collar works able to do it, but blue collar workers can’t?
[quote]
5) Whew…agreement? nice~
6) I was trying to make a point on a point made earlier about unions being needed 100 years ago, but not today. Thats all~ [/quote]
Okay. I agree some unions are still useful. Angry crushed that one, imo.
[quote]
7) Umm - yeah, you’re right - that was just nonsense.
[quote]Edgy wrote:
Hey AC - I appreciate your diatribe on Craft Labor Unions as opposed to those dirty nasty other unions, but I would like to submit the following…
Federal Express is a good company that pays their employees well, has a good retirement/health and welfare package and a good safety record, and is non union.
UPS is a good company that pays their employees well, has a good retirement/health and welfare package and a good safety record, and is union.
NOW… would FedEx be such a good company if it’s direct competitor was not unionized?[/quote]
Probably not. It’s just like non-union skilled trade workers around here often benefit from “scale” jobs (referring to government work covered under the Davis Bacon Act Davis-Bacon and Related Acts | U.S. Department of Labor ). They are happy to get the extra money working on scale jobs (the scale that WE negotiate), “but FUCK the Union!”… Then they bitch when they have to work on a non government job and make 25% less money.
UPS and FedEx are a very good example of how each side can balance the other side out in fair competition. I’d say it’s an example of capitalism at it’s finest. I have not familiarized myself with UPS’s union by laws, but I have not ever heard of them threatening to strike or anything like that. It sounds like a very reasonable form of collective bargaining and those dock workers could probably learn a thing or two from that. As could those Hostess employees…
Speaking of Hostess, it should be noted that most of the trouble is caused by unions controlled by the Teamsters… They have had significant criminal ties throughout their history and continue to run an “intimidation” campaign even today. Those values are NOT in line with what I, as an IBEW Local 26 union member, stand for.
[quote]Edgy wrote:
Hey AC - I appreciate your diatribe on Craft Labor Unions as opposed to those dirty nasty other unions, but I would like to submit the following…
Federal Express is a good company that pays their employees well, has a good retirement/health and welfare package and a good safety record, and is non union.
UPS is a good company that pays their employees well, has a good retirement/health and welfare package and a good safety record, and is union.
NOW… would FedEx be such a good company if it’s direct competitor was not unionized?[/quote]
Probably not. It’s just like non-union skilled trade workers around here often benefit from “scale” jobs (referring to government work covered under the Davis Bacon Act Davis-Bacon and Related Acts | U.S. Department of Labor ). They are happy to get the extra money working on scale jobs (the scale that WE negotiate), “but FUCK the Union!”… Then they bitch when they have to work on a non government job and make 25% less money.
UPS and FedEx are a very good example of how each side can balance the other side out in fair competition. I’d say it’s an example of capitalism at it’s finest. I have not familiarized myself with UPS’s union by laws, but I have not ever heard of them threatening to strike or anything like that. It sounds like a very reasonable form of collective bargaining and those dock workers could probably learn a thing or two from that. As could those Hostess employees…
Speaking of Hostess, it should be noted that most of the trouble is caused by unions controlled by the Teamsters… They have had significant criminal ties throughout their history and continue to run an “intimidation” campaign even today. Those values are NOT in line with what I, as an IBEW Local 26 union member, stand for.
[/quote]
It may also be notable that the union may be kept in check by the non-union competition. They can’t demand salaries and benefits so high it would put UPS as a significant disadvantage. Because then they’d all just be out of a jobs (though that doesn’t seem to matter to some really bad unions).
And if I remember correctly, I think a number of years ago there was a UPS truck delivery driver strike.
It may also be notable that the union may be kept in check by the non-union competition.
[/quote]
quoted for truth~
[/quote]
Sure, but the same can be said in a situation where both have unions or neither have unions. Competition is the key not how labor is or isn’t organized.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
With respect to the issues with banking, I think this cartoonish story explains it fairly well
Basically, 5 guys are stranded on a island, they each have different skills that they use to barter but the complications of this arise, and a banker washes ashore and introduces money to expedite transactions, so he loans them each $200 at 8% interest. The problem here, that one of them figures out is that they owe $1080, but that there is only $1000 in circulation, and thus the debt can never be paid off.
I’d like to hear your guys opinions on this[/quote]
“… banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies…”
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
With respect to the issues with banking, I think this cartoonish story explains it fairly well
Basically, 5 guys are stranded on a island, they each have different skills that they use to barter but the complications of this arise, and a banker washes ashore and introduces money to expedite transactions, so he loans them each $200 at 8% interest. The problem here, that one of them figures out is that they owe $1080, but that there is only $1000 in circulation, and thus the debt can never be paid off.
I’d like to hear your guys opinions on this[/quote]
“… banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies…”
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
With respect to the issues with banking, I think this cartoonish story explains it fairly well
Basically, 5 guys are stranded on a island, they each have different skills that they use to barter but the complications of this arise, and a banker washes ashore and introduces money to expedite transactions, so he loans them each $200 at 8% interest. The problem here, that one of them figures out is that they owe $1080, but that there is only $1000 in circulation, and thus the debt can never be paid off.
I’d like to hear your guys opinions on this[/quote]
“… banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies…”
-Thomas Jefferson
[/quote]
I don’t get it. Why would the amount of currency in circulation inhibit one’s ability to repay a debt? Have you ever been unable to pay off a debt because the bank tells you you can’t withdraw or transfer(but the story is currency anyway) that much money? It sounds like nonsense to me. Perhaps someone can explain what I’m missing? I realise that many people live in debt beyond their means but I don’t see how it relates to the amount of currency in circulation.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
With respect to the issues with banking, I think this cartoonish story explains it fairly well
Basically, 5 guys are stranded on a island, they each have different skills that they use to barter but the complications of this arise, and a banker washes ashore and introduces money to expedite transactions, so he loans them each $200 at 8% interest. The problem here, that one of them figures out is that they owe $1080, but that there is only $1000 in circulation, and thus the debt can never be paid off.
I’d like to hear your guys opinions on this[/quote]
“… banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies…”
-Thomas Jefferson
[/quote]
I don’t get it. Why would the amount of currency in circulation inhibit one’s ability to repay a debt? Have you ever been unable to pay off a debt because the bank tells you you can’t withdraw or transfer(but the story is currency anyway) that much money? It sounds like nonsense to me. Perhaps someone can explain what I’m missing? I realise that many people live in debt beyond their means but I don’t see how it relates to the amount of currency in circulation.[/quote]
Even the island situation would assume that you cannot offer a service to earn money from the banker. You could pay him 10 bucks, do 10 bucks of work for him and get the bill back, and pay the same 10 bucks back. Thus paying 20 dollars of debt with a single 10 dollar bill.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
With respect to the issues with banking, I think this cartoonish story explains it fairly well
Basically, 5 guys are stranded on a island, they each have different skills that they use to barter but the complications of this arise, and a banker washes ashore and introduces money to expedite transactions, so he loans them each $200 at 8% interest. The problem here, that one of them figures out is that they owe $1080, but that there is only $1000 in circulation, and thus the debt can never be paid off.
I’d like to hear your guys opinions on this[/quote]
“… banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies…”
-Thomas Jefferson
[/quote]
I don’t get it. Why would the amount of currency in circulation inhibit one’s ability to repay a debt? Have you ever been unable to pay off a debt because the bank tells you you can’t withdraw or transfer(but the story is currency anyway) that much money? It sounds like nonsense to me. Perhaps someone can explain what I’m missing? I realise that many people live in debt beyond their means but I don’t see how it relates to the amount of currency in circulation.[/quote]
Even the island situation would assume that you cannot offer a service to earn money from the banker. You could pay him 10 bucks, do 10 bucks of work for him and get the bill back, and pay the same 10 bucks back. Thus paying 20 dollars of debt with a single 10 dollar bill.[/quote]
But you can earn money from the other people on the island and transfer money between accounts without the need for all your money in currency. And as I said, who’s running out of currency? That happens in the run up to crashes sometimes but those occasions were unique in that the banks withheld currency and then the run turned into a swarm and the value of the currency plummeted. Those unique circumstances are not in play today. We’re not going to run out of currency.
from dock workers on strike, to PuffyDear not being able to lube adequately, to the evil dark unions destroying democracy for the world to ya’all living on an island and working for money for some reason.
ya’all sure do have a hard time focusing here in PWI~
[quote]Edgy wrote:
from dock workers on strike, to PuffyDear not being able to lube adequately, to the evil dark unions destroying democracy for the world to ya’all living on an island and working for money for some reason.
ya’all sure do have a hard time focusing here in PWI~[/quote]
What about the “socialist international” unions that use the red flag and claim ideological heritage to the Trotskyists and are run by corrupt, left-wing fanatics who divert members’ Union fees into all kinds of left-wing activist radical schemes and agitate and do things like boycott Israel or the dock workers who striked on command in late 1939 and 1940 around the world because Stalin ordered munitions to Britain must be stopped so he and Hitler could avenge Polish outrages against ethnic Germans.
I don’t like those unions. If they wave a red flag they’re Communist scum. If they’re socialist international then they’re Communist scum. If they’re radical left-wing kooks like the teachers’ unions then they’re a menace. If they’re corrupt wastes of space like some of the auto unions then I don’t like them. Is that not a fair assessment of some unions? A lot in fact?
