Dock Workers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Not all unions are the same, yet we are all painted with the same brush and it pisses me off. Many of the members of Local 26 that I know are Conservatives. We recognize that the “good times” were under a free market and business friendly environment. Right now over 90% of the new construction work is in Norther Virginia and DC - MD has simply “regulated themselves out of the market” as far as attracting new business. We see that and we don’t follow the “party line” and just vote democrat.
[/quote]

AC, excellent post and I remember you describing this in separate threads. Apologize for painting with the broad brush.

I think that most of us are not really “anti-union” on the whole as much as we are “anti-asshole political” union. Not coincidentally, California has a lot of those. Nobody can argue that your union is a huge value added organization and it is unions like that that serve to make the economy stronger and more competitive.

You take stories about my uncle (a physicist in the east coast) who got in a huuuge row over having money taken out of his salary involuntarily to pay for a union he wasn’t a part of, and stories about Hostess dying because of some fucks who couldn’t see the forest for the trees, and then more stories about auto workers and lazy union members in SOME parts of the country and add it all up, and a lot of people get frustrated myself included. You too I’m sure because it reflects poorly on organizations that add loads of value.

62

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

One more thing: there was complaints about the wage of the dock workers in SAN FRANCISCO… Do you know what the cost of fucking living in San Francisco is? If you have a job AT THE PORT, and you can’t afford to live in the city, you are looking at a two hour commute each way every day for thirty years. That isn’t fair. If a worker has an important JOB in the city (I would call dock workers an important profession that is vital to our economy), then his wage should reflect that. The union pay scale in Washington DC is 40 something an hour, the pay scale in the Shenandoah region, just 70 miles away is half that - it reflects the cost of living. I don’t have a problem with that.

[/quote]

This is exactly what I was getting at when I brought up the cost of living adjustment on the first page of this thread— a guy making a salary of 45,000/year in the midwest is going to need 106,000+ to simply maintain his current equivalent standard of living. A salary of 150k isn’t really outrageous at all when you factor in things like this, plus family.

63

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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? [/quote]Actually I HAVE. LOL Daily withdraw limit. Needless to say I switched banks. I’ll be god damned if a bank is going to tell me how much of MY MONEY I can have access to (especially when it’s in checking) [quote]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]

I don’t believe in carrying debt. If it’s not a mortgage, then I’m not really interested. Unless it’s 0% financing on a car or something. Or a short term balance on a HELOC to float something I KNOW is coming in. But carrying interest for months/years at a time? FUCK THAT.

64

Actually I have a withdrawal limit too. It sucks but it doesn’t keep me in debt. In fact, I’ve never used or felt the need for credit cards or even finance. I just saved up and bought my house outright. Same with my cars and everything else. I don’t live beyond my means and I save and invest. Right now though I’m eating into my savings and need to invest some of my funds into an investment property. I always feel property is a safe investment with good returns if you’ve got enough to buy in the right places. You can make a bucketload when property values soar as they have over the last 35 odd years here.

65

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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]

Total debt is greater than total currency in circulation.
Interest that doesn’t exist in the form of currency is being created that is part of total debt.
Based on this system, if all people tried to pay off all their debt at the same time there wouldn’t be enough currency to do so.

Just seems weird that a bank can fractionally loan money out, to collect interest on money that doesn’t exist and that it isn’t actually in possession of.
If I’m mistaken, please correct me.

66

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Is that not a fair assessment of some unions? A lot in fact?[/quote]

sorry Sexy, I have no information on whatever is going on in Russia, or Europe for that matter.

I just lost internet points, didn’t I?

67

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t get it. Why would the amount of currency in circulation inhibit one’s ability to repay a debt? [/quote]

When a deposit is made at a bank, the bank is permitted to make loans in excess of the deposited amount. (I don’t know what the current ratio is, but I think it’s in the 10:1 range). So imagine that each dollar on deposit represents 10 dollars of debt. Therefore at any given time the overall debt exceeds the amount of money in circulation. It’s not an individual kinda thing; it’s a systemic thing.

‘Multiplier Effect’

My question for the guys on the island is why didn’t they charge the banker to build the house to start with…

68

do you all appreciate the 8 hour day? - Thank the Unions…

Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.

Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree.

Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries.

The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages.

The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.

Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement, unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer.

Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers contribute 28% more toward pensions.

Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave (vacations and holidays).

Unions play a pivotal role both in securing legislated labor protections and rights such as safety and health, overtime, and family/medical leave and in enforcing those rights on the job. Because unionized workers are more informed, they are more likely to benefit from social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance and workers compensation. Unions are thus an intermediary institution that provides a necessary complement to legislated benefits and protections.

an excerpt from the Economic Policy Institute - How unions help all workers | Economic Policy Institute

69

Light reading for you spare time…

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Criticism_of_fractional_reserve_banking

70

Don’t banks have to keep a certain level of cash on hand per the Fed?

71
72

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[/quote]

Yes…see multiplier effect link.

73

I don’t really get why someone should be able to collect interest on money that doesn’t actually exist. Just seems wrong.

74

[quote]Edgy wrote:

Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.

Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries.

The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.

Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement, unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer.

Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers contribute 28% more toward pensions.[/quote]

I suspect these percentages are composed of public sector union workers as well? Not really an apt when your comparing private sector employees and government unionized employees.

75

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

One more thing: there was complaints about the wage of the dock workers in SAN FRANCISCO… Do you know what the cost of fucking living in San Francisco is? If you have a job AT THE PORT, and you can’t afford to live in the city, you are looking at a two hour commute each way every day for thirty years. That isn’t fair. If a worker has an important JOB in the city (I would call dock workers an important profession that is vital to our economy), then his wage should reflect that. The union pay scale in Washington DC is 40 something an hour, the pay scale in the Shenandoah region, just 70 miles away is half that - it reflects the cost of living. I don’t have a problem with that.

[/quote]

This is exactly what I was getting at when I brought up the cost of living adjustment on the first page of this thread— a guy making a salary of 45,000/year in the midwest is going to need 106,000+ to simply maintain his current equivalent standard of living. A salary of 150k isn’t really outrageous at all when you factor in things like this, plus family.
[/quote]

And why is the cost of living higher in a place like San Francisco, as opposed to a place like Columbia, South Carolina?

76

[quote]Edgy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Is that not a fair assessment of some unions? A lot in fact?[/quote]

sorry Sexy, I have no information on whatever is going on in Russia, or Europe for that matter.

I just lost internet points, didn’t I?[/quote]

I never mentioned Russia or Europe. Where did you get that? I was asking about the Socialist International, Trotskyist and Communist Party USA affiliated unions in the United States.

You’re posting about how great unions are and I’m asking if you’re aware of the dark side of many US unions and all the radical left-wing causes and political activity they divert members’ funds towards and so on. It seems you don’t know what I’m talking about do you?

77

[quote]streamline wrote:
If one looks at some of the largest businesses in the world that do not pay a living wage but make massive profits. So I would say unions are still needed. We can not rely on the governments to make sure everyone makes a living wage.

[/quote]

Please give us the numbers and examples to back up this statement.

What is a living wage?
What is a Massive Profit?
Examples of both, either?

[quote]Edgy wrote:

Did the unions create the problem that caused the world into a recession? No, who did? right~[/quote]

Not “corporations” either.

So I assume you can explain the Financial Meltdown of 2008 and perfectly articulate how it was the “corporations” and their “greed” then?

Ohhh right, nope you probably can’t.

No one has a problem if you voice your opinion but don’t come in here with stupid implication that “corporations caused” the FC and then make statements like above.

78

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Why can’t white-collar workers organize .[/quote]

Because we don’t need a collective to negotiate for good pay?

If I were in a Union, I’d make less than I do now. Individually I’ve done exponentially better at securing pay raises. And I don’t need the “protection” of a Union, because I’m not a lazy shit.

79

[quote]Edgy wrote:

  1. Eliminating Unions would not stifle Corporate Greed - I would just go unchecked, and the American worker would suffer.
  2. Unions are probably the direct reason why Detroit suffered - That and…CORPORATE GREED![/quote]

Please, give us examples of “corporate greed”.

AT what point does Profit become Greed? Specifically please.

80

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:

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.[/quote]

“Non-profit” doesn’t mean “doesn’t make money”. It means “has special tax rules, and is limited in activity”. Owning equities is not one fo those things, but you pay tax on them.

There is a lot more detail involved in what I just said, but I’m trying not to go all tax nerd here.