Forum Post: The AFL CIO Supports OWS! Do You Support the AFL CIO?
Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 2, 2012, 1:03 p.m. EST by shoozTroll
(17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://www.aflcio.org/Multimedia/Videos/How-did-Wall-Street-help-wreck-the-U.S.-economy
Funny.
I didn't see or hear one positive word from the "right".
UNIONS!
Fighting the 1% for decades!
I support AFL-CIO. All unions represent the 99%.
United we stand, divided we fall.
unions leaders salaries put them in the 1%.
So? They are some of the many 1%'rs that support the 99%.
[Removed]
Take special note of those that provide no positive commentary on this subject.
As well as those with negative and questioning commentary.
What is it those people really support?
They are anything but clear on that.
Like they have long been infected with anti-union propaganda.
They ain't foolin me! We gotta stand extra strong because theanti union forces have been winning & have profoundly hurt unions for decades. Hard to see how we recover. But the 99% will do better if unions can be resurrected.
I'm in a union. Don't know much about this AFL-CIO though. Heard about it.
I'm in SAG-AFTRA
AFTRA just merged with SAG. I'm hoping SAG can teach AFTRA a few things.
The assault on Unions in this country has been disgusting. It really shows ignorance when you see people jump on the hate-bandwagon
You would think that this would be the one inarguable thing.
That we the people should be allowed and encouraged to have representation in the work place.
Here's a positive word. Union membership falling for past 20 years. Now that's GREAT news
yes
Fight money in politics with money in politics. How does this end?
The more important question is, how in the World did you get that from the video?
Unions are guilty of lobbying. You cannot in good conscience condemn your own practices. To be morally just, you must lead by example.
They are lobbying for good honest decent hard working American working families. When we remove all money from politics they can stop. but not before.
You got a problem with that.?
Go tell it to the corporations that do everything they can to obstruct labor!
I never claimed to Mother Theresa. God bless her.
YOU aren't either.
If you cannot find a better way, what complaint could you possibly have?
Union yes!!!
That is that better way I've been talking about for a while now.
All you've done is bitch. Aimlessly at that.
You seem to be speaking from a false assumption. Allow me to repeat the very short statement you are replying to.
"If you cannot find a better way, what complaint could you possibly have?"
How did I not answer the question?
Perhaps you should rephrase it?
What complaint could you possibly have if you cannot find a better way?
I did not ask to re-sequence the sentence. I asked you state it in another manner.
Unions must return to the tactics from which they were born and leave corrupt practices to the corrupt. Is this really over your head?
What corrupt practice is that?
Collective bargaining?
Union organizing?
Speaking clearly is a problem for you?
Lobbying. Political advertising. Partisan politicking. How many on the right have become polarized against unions because unions have themselves become a polarizing figure?
Sounds a lot like CATO crap.
How do propose to counter 100+ years of anti-union activity and propaganda?
The kinds of things that you are parroting right here, right now.
I have said nothing that can be construed as ant-union. If you don't like the reality, change it. Unions have a unique position in history at this time. Unions have the ear of the people, including those who listen only to complain, and ties to the community. Unions have a direct line to the White House and all of congress. What higher moral ground could one have if not changing your own direction to better represent the people and becoming a megaphone for all of the 99%. Leading the way by example. Time for such decisions is short.
an open internet forum that congress must post to to conduct business
http://www.opencongress.org
they love to aggravate those non-fiscal issues
Open Congress is a current accounting of congressional actions
thanks
CIO > AFL
UAW>AFL CIO
Hehehe......retired Ford worker here...............:)
American Football League?
No but we will finally have some real NFL action tonight! (..the players are unionized)
NY and Dallas - kick those perryites.
Still all in all - money is ruining the game.
The CIO-AFL used to be two separate unions. The CIO was much more radical and awesome than the AFL. You might be interested in checking out some of the history behind craft / industrial unionism; it's interesting stuff.
Yeah Thanks 4 the edjumucation ( U did know I was kidding Right? )
I thought so but I wasn't sure. Either way I'm hoping at least one or two people lurking will read my comment and learn about industrial unionism :)
We have one guy shadz that really shares/promotes education ( yes others do as well ) and shadz shines in the position of educator. Perhaps he will take up the challenge and provide interesting links as he always does on other things. {:-])
Yes, If all American workers realized that there was a literal war fought to obtain what rights they have, maybe we wouldn't have so many foolish enough to want to see their demise.
I knew you were kiddin'!
Union membership plummeting...America wises up to the thugs, and FREE choice to join them....or NOT.
America says...NO THANKS
Corporations surely love to abuse labour, and Unions have been about the only thing that has helped reduce that abuse... but Unions have an age-old problem of leadership where leaders are "concentrated power" and can be corrupted. Just as in political elections, Unions should change leadership every year and the leaders should allways be from the rank-and-file membership.
Or, love is all you need!! [there is no love in capitalism]
Wouldn't work.
Well thats not helpfull shooz, just to say "that wouldn't work" - or maybe you have "wooden shooz" HA! sorry WHY wooden it work to have rank and file members be union bosses, its not rocket science.
Remember Iceland changed their government that way - average people got elected and are running Iceland now. [and they arrested the bankers who were demanding a bailout, by the way, totally off topic]
Union bosses, is false, a misnomer.
In fact it's a Limbaugh kind of expression.
So much so, that I'm wondering why you didn't just call them thugs.
But anywho, to answer your foolish question.
It wouldn't work because, expecting a rookie from any plant floor, to be able to deal with room full corporate dicks and lawyers is foolhardy at best.
In fact this sounds like some kind of management idea in the first place.
one would have to wonder what you were high if you're not management, to even suggest such a thing.
Well this is the crux of it my friend - the 1% talk the talk but they are NOT so special. Wouldn't it be fun to hear what they actually talk about in those meetings?
I know a few corporate dicks and lawyers and despite your condemnation of labourers, and many of us "commoners" can hold our own with them. There is a certain language they have developed to create a wall between them and us, but the issuess are all simple enough.
Did you know that Union bosses have lawyers who advise them?
Remember ICELAND!! - average people are the government now, the voters kicked out all the lawyers and corporate humps and the new government arrested the bankers. This is the point of OWS - are you on our side or what?
[the CEOs and lawyers I know smoke pot, by the way... but I quit that shit about 5 years ago]
There are NO union bosses.
There are 1%ers that make theirs from union fees. You deny that? Extortion from workers much. There needs to be a pay cap for all union executives.
Union dues are in no way shape or form extortion.
I expected better from you richard.
When they are used to pay WallSt executive style salaries to management, it's extortion. There needs to be a pay cap for union execs, thats all I'm saying.
These are NOT WallStreet "style" salaries.
They just aren't.
They have a formula by which they are paid.
In my plant (UAW), no elected, or appointed union rep gets paid more per hour than the lowest paid worker in the plant.
Over half a million annually is pretty substantial and I'd like to see the justifications.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/03/03/2097/scores-union-leaders-earn-six-figure-salaries
How long would it take the average Koch brother to make that dough?
How long for Jamie Dimon?
Since you made the initial statement about "WallStreet style" salaries, it's incumbent on you to justify that statement..
Ah yes, "he started it" or, "Yeah but he's doing it too". Common man. 180,000 pay cap is more than reasonable.
Actually, richard, you came in on a conversation I was having with Karlin.
You made inflammatory statements as to extortion and Wallstreet style salaries, and now you refuse to justify those statements.
Deferring to pay caps.
I don't recall you being active in the many other threads here on pay caps, but I may be mistaken about that.
So lets talk.
If you would cap the pay of union leaders, would you also cap pay for everyone else? Wallstreet, the Kochs, hedge fund managers et al included?
Pay caps should apply to positions that have the ability unilaterally to decide their pay. This should include top level management teams. As in, if the top management is only a team of say 20 people, well it would be far to easy for that small group to act cooperatively to enrich themselves at the expense of the institution and those beneath them. This would not apply to the self employed or in cases that their pay does not effect the business or those bellow them.
Anyone with ethics could easily decide where pay caps should apply and the proof is in the existing institutions where pay caps are already in place for management. This isn't a hard argument, unless you need it to be.
Take is easy. Don't get angry with everyone. This is just a forum. Remember, OWS is open to all ideologies and refrains from engaging in divisive partisan politics. Obama is not a God. Repeat after me "Viva el anarchy! Viva!"
You still haven't justified your statement.
I reject your attempts to change the subject.
We can discuss pay caps after you justify.
Pay has been my point this entire conversation. Neat trick trying two morph it into two subjects then redirect away from the issue. You may not like some of the words I used to make my point but I'm hardly interested in entertaining the dissection of delivery.
Rank and file members do the jobs that got them into the union - they need to continue in their work - what kind of time does that leave them to take care of union business?
no, well obviously they would stop machining bolts and be full time Union bosses - that is a full time job I assume. There are 10s of 1000s of workers per boss, and people lining up to replace any worker that became a boss, and I am sure there are workers who are up to the task - lots of labourers have degrees they don't use.
And if you are continually rotating the union leadership - wont that kinda mess up their positions on the job? I mean what do they do when their leadership term is up? Go boot the guy out of their position that filled in for them?
DK, I have never been able to even sign up for a Union [which bugs me a bit] so I don't know the inner workings. You do, it appears, so I will heed your advice. The point is to try to keep Bosses from being corrupted, as is so common when power is concentrated. If they are doing a good job and the workers are satisfied, perhaps a vote would be best but there should be candidates from the rank and file workers to vote for - hows that for a comprimise?
I can't argue with that - I have said that union dues should be next to nothing as their power should be in the members of the union and their ability to unite to form a solid voting block. I have also said that the union members need to unite to clean their house and have it running the way it should - just like all of the American people need to unite and clean our governmental house.
Indeed!! In fact, "sweeping clean the Old Boys in government" was where I got the idea that maybe Unions needed it too. When the same group is in power too long they get corrupted. Imagine how the corporations would squirm at having to grease new palms all the time.
Actions should always be taken/approved/forwarded/pushed by the union members and any deals should only be accepted/approved by the union members. Yep - just like the People and government.
Does it really make a difference if the AFL CIO supports OWS? What exactly are they supporting? My guess would be more unions membership which in their interest (more dues, more control, more influence).
They give a great deal of support to OccupyDetroit and ask for nothing in return.
Unions often support social ideas and ideals, beyond membership.
You are just quoting the propaganda machinations that have been arrayed against them for over a century.
No, I was not quoting anything. I was asking a question and stating an opinion. In this day and age, there are a lot of hidden agendas (re: good PR) and unions (among most others) are by no means innocent in that activity.
That's how ubiquitous anti-union propaganda has become.
Sometimes, one doesn't even realize one is quoting it.
It's just one more lie big enough and repeated enough, to be believed.
Maybe ubiquitous to some, but I have my own views and opinions, ranging from left to right depending on the particular issue. I have been around long enough to see what is going on around us. Just because I ask or state an opinion, it does not necessarily equate to someone else's quote. There are only so many words available and whose to say i may have already said it before they were even born yet. Besides, what I stated is not anti union, but rather an question about intent of an activity. If it is anti union to question motives, then that is a real shame and just limits discussion and brings on more rhetoric.
See what I mean?
Your opinion on unions is as clear as mud, and as twisted as a cucumber vine.
Propaganda infested.
Shooz, your emotions and prejuduices deny you of any critical thought and discussion. A real pity.
OMG!
A FLAKESnews style retort!!! You're moving down in the propaganda world.
Here's your quote, "What exactly are they supporting? My guess would be more unions membership which in their interest "
A propagandized lie through oversimplification.
A lie first passed on by corporations around 100 years ago.
PS your response is a lot more emotional and judgmental than mine.
gosh, usually when something isn't fixed, complications are blamed
It's even stranger, when it's not really broken.
I guess maybe that we are both guilty of getting off topic so quickly.
It did take over 24 hours..........LOL
My point is still true. The AFL CIO does support Occupy.
Those corporations whose labor they represent?
Not so much.................:(
We do sleep sometimes. And yes, your point is accurate. Today, we all are just a bit skeptical on intent. Honesty and integrity is lacking in society these days.
Plus of course real lives and it's attendant responsibilities.......:)
As far as the rest?
If I were a better typist and literary composer, I could go on for pages and pages about why I believe that is the case, and how it came to be so.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/yes-virginia-there-really-are-differences/
There is a new book coming out on a study of just that kind of thing.
Been a while since I had a subscription to SA. Always found it a good read and that brief article was no exception. Some good thoughts on middle ground, or ways of "moving the mountain". Trust me, for a worst typist than you, look no further, your talking to him.
The worst problems between the two "natural states" seems to occur whenever the extremes of either are brought to the forefront.
And the moderate views are shoved aside. There are more moderates than the sum of the extremes, yet who seems always to be the loudest? Likely because the moderates are somewhat divided or maybe scattered across the broad middle of the spectrum.
you're right. when union dues are not automatically deducted from union members paychecks, the majority of members dont pay the dues.
Which is actually surprising on the face, but when assessing the sometimes "staged" events which is to show large groups in marches or protests, it is these same members who will not pay the dues if they have to pay on the own. And there is no excuse by saying "times are hard". "Times are hard" is reserved for the unemployed, not the union employed. IMO, I believe that a lot of the membership does not support the political activity that their dues go to support, and / or they believe they are not getting much of a return for the amount they have to pay. It would be fascinating to see what a good poll would come up with. A union does have expenses, so dues are necessary, but maybe not in the amounts that are asked for.
union dues are used to back dem candidates, pay the huge salaries on union heads.
Fighting the 1%? The union bosses are the 1%:
Mary Kay Henry, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), earned $290,334 in 2011;
Gerald McEntee, President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME), earned $512,369;
James Hoffa, General President of the Teamsters, earned $372,489;
Dennis Van Roekel, President of the National Education Association (NEA), earned$460,060;
Joseph Hansen, President of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), earned $361,124, and
Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), earned$493,859.
I have to say, to attempt to compare those salaries to the multinational CEOs is weak at best.
The Union bosses do make a lot of money. If they are part of the 1 % how can they relate to the rank-and-file?
This isnt so much about the "official" one percent, its more like the .01%.
I work with a couple of very well off individuals. They have absolutely nothing to do with whats going on, and pay everyone more than fairly, even when they are ripped off.
Almost every company, even the small ones, are going to have well off people running them. But I have to think that the union guy who makes 300k is more in touch with reality, by far, than the say the CEO of Pepsi. Its not even close.
I agree. So why is the fight made between the 1% and the 99%? Why is it not about good vs evil?
1% and 99% is kind of a catch phrase thing. Its powerful, and while the percentages are slightly skewed, I do think it gets the point across- that a very small group of people are fucking the entire country up.
99.9% vs the .01% doesnt seem to have the same ring to it :)
Should be 99.99% vs the 0.01%.You're right. It just doesn't sing.
I agree. It's a catch phrase that focuses on the wrong thing.
Demonizing someone solely because of their wealth fails to consider what actual value they may have provided to their fellow man.
Bill Gates is a very wealthy guy but through improved productivity from the tools he developed he has done more to lift workers wages than all the union bosses in the last 40 years combined.
He did the equivalent of taking the shovel out of the ditch digger's hands and sitting him on top of a back-hoe.
BTW the average salary of a US CEO is $ 167,000 (much lower than the union bosses). Are they more in touch than the union guys?
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6960503_average-salary-ceo_.html
No, we are comparing multinational CEO to union bosses.
CEO's that only make 167k are probably pretty in touch with reality.
Its the ones that make 167m that are the problem. They arent helping liberal or conservative causes, they are simply extracting the country.
How many CEOs make $ 167 million? What is that number?
So? We aren't against people making good salaries? We don't prefer the obscene salaries of 1% corp execs who are making 10's of millions and do nothing but scam the consumers & workers.
These union pres work hard for the 99%.
It may well be that the union bosses work hard for their members. I would expect that since it is what they get paid to do. That is their job. They should be paid in proportion to the degree that they benefit their members. I would be most pleased if they made improvements that earned them $10s of millions. How do you rate their performance over the last, say, 25 years? Are they earning their money?
BTW, of all the CEOs earning $10's of millions today that scam the consumers and their workers which are the top three scams that you find the most egregious?
Please. You would prefer that all unions were busted. You ain't kiddin me.
Biggest scams? All insurance corps. Thats trillions. All banks, Not just the LIBOR scam (trillions) not just housing bubble, cdo, bundled bad mtgs,(trillions) even the excessive fees/penalties/minimums/interst on uncleared funds probably equals hundreds of billions.Cr card corps, loan shark level interest, fees, penalties,
There are more. Those execs do not earn there pay. They make money be cheating consumers. You don't support that do you?
If all insurance corps scam their customers why does nearly everyone buy insurance? Are they all ignorant to the scam?
BTW, what is the one insurance today that you must purchase?
You ask why does nearly everyone buy insurance then you ask which one must be purchased.
We buy, auto, home, because we must if we want to own these things. Ifwe want healthcare we must by health insurance. So people buy it because we have no better option.
Seems to me the ins corps collude to keep prices high for us. We should have real competition in this area like maybe a public option for all insurance.
That'll do it!
Why is auto insurance necessary in order to drive?
Will a public option decrease the cost and increase the quality of insurance?
Public option will decrease the cost and quality will be controlled consumer demand/expectations.
The public option drives up cost, price caps reduce the supply and the quality of supply, and the consumer is stuck. The consumer has no market mechanism to demand anything because the Gov tries to fix the price, the supply drops and the consumer suffers.
The biggest, fastest growing part of this countries deficit is runaway medical costs. The ACA WILL get control of that crime perpetrated by private health insurance corps, big pharma and providers.
We must remove profit from healthcare delivery wherever we can. Because it must be about helping people not making money.
People before profits!
Your fears are unfounded. Costs WILL drop as we pressure these corps. Public option. once implemented in the biggest states will put the private health care insurance criminals out of business!
We will always have people power to pressure for better service!
and there is nothing the people united can't do!
Perhaps - I know that my Minnesota care coverage was better then my medicare coverage and it cost less as well - and both coverages cost less then the private ins I had when I was still working - which covered less then my Minnesota care coverage..
Think about the biggest public option of them all; Medicare. Medicare has been the single biggest factor in increasing the cost of healthcare in the US, ever. When insurance for a thing becomes available the cost for that thing goes up. It is axiomatic.
http://www.nber.org/digest/apr06/w11609.html
http://freedomkeys.com/medicare.htm
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/saving-medicare-from-itself
No it has not - the biggest factor in the increase of all health care cost has been unregulated greed. PERIOD.
Medicare costs $560 billion for 45 million retired Americans. That about $12000 per year per person. Its government run so there is no "greedy" insurance company.
Shoots your theory all to pieces.
No it has not - the biggest factor in the increase of all health care cost has been unregulated greed. PERIOD.
Haven't you noticed that insurance tends to increase costs?
Can you name a medical procedure that has decreased in price over the last 15 years? I can think of one.
health service increases costs due to greed insurance costs rising is also due to greed - the whole damn thing has gone unregulated for way to long.
The one medical procedure that has gone down in price over the 15 years is laser eye surgery. The reason, the procedure is not covered by insurance.
There should never have been an additional fee for uninsured driver coverage - that was another INS perk that they got approved ( MONEY OUT OF POLITICS DAMN IT ) Ummm get rid of insurance for health care? I am all for that - and it could have been done with a proper universal health care program - and that should be an issue that the public pushes for.
[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (526) 19 minutes ago
Well the market sure seemed to work with Lasik, why not get rid of the insurance and let the market work?
Does it not gall you , just a little, when the Gov forces you to buy car insurance, and then adds a premium for uninsured drivers? You have to pay for the people that break the law and drive without insurance! What kind of disturbed thinking went into the drafting of that law? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Universal (free) health care causes the same increase in cost as paid insurance. They both have the same effect.
It comes down to proper market regulation - caps on profits for one thing.
[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (526) 1 minute ago
Universal (free) health care causes the same increase in cost as paid insurance. They both have the same effect. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
If the you want to create a shortage of a thing put a cap on the price.
Sure that could very well be true - ins don't cover it so you gotta be able to make it affordable to people to do out of pocket. Still that goes into proper regulation also. Because it could be covered and stay the same as long as the breaks were applied properly to greed.
Well the market sure seemed to work with Lasik, why not get rid of the insurance and let the market work?
Does it not gall you , just a little, when the Gov forces you to buy car insurance, and then adds a premium for uninsured drivers? You have to pay for the people that break the law and drive without insurance! What kind of disturbed thinking went into the drafting of that law?
Why is insurance necessary in order to own a home?
Why is it necessary to have insurance to get healthcare? What is the one healthcare service that has actually decreased in price over the last 15 years?
Which of course is chicken feed compared to the salaries of those they must fight.
So much so, that you should be embarrassed to even post this shit.
Doubly true to post it on labor day weekend.
But there you go, trying to make a rather blunt case.
Spoken like a guy who has no concept of the 1%.
But most of us already knew that.
If you make $512,000 are you really much worse off than the guy that makes $ 5,120,000? Surely they don't fret about the source of their next meal.
What is your concept of the 1 %?
Are there some good and evil in the 1 %? Must be because the Union bosses are good and they are part of the 1 %. Are there also some good and evil in the 99%? Must be because 90% of Republicans are in the 99%.
If all that is true then isn't the issue really about good vs evil; not 99% vs 1%?
Nope. You just don't get it.
Please take your anti worker crap elsewhere for at least the remainder of the weekend.
How about some data.
Over the last 40 years which has made the greater contribution to the lot of the worker, US corporations or US Union Bosses?
Seems how wages are stagnant, and unions are declining, I would say that the question isnt who has made the best gains, but who is fucking the country up worse.
Which is clearly corporations.
Why are unions declining?
I have no data to back this up, its just my own thoughts.
I think that life has been very good for a very long time. Its apathy.
I think apathy is at the heart of almost all of this. That being said, I think we are going to see union increases over the next decade to try to combat globalization and banking cartel.
This link gives some arguments on union decline from different political slants. Once major labor issues become the law of the land the need for unions seems to decline.
A lot of folks just also don't want most of their waking hours to be constant conflict. They view work as a useful and important effort. They often do not view their employers as the enemy, but as fellow employees working toward a common goal. The cynic may claim that this is just successful brainwashing on the part of the business owner, but that seems unlikely in the face of the wide spread sentiment.
http://www.shrm.org/research/futureworkplacetrends/documents/visions1005.pdf
I suppose that would depend on your definition of "contribution".......
Should I assume that yours is monetarily based?
Unions don't technically have bosses, and that term is inaccurate to the point of being propaganda.
For not being bosses they sure get paid a lot:
Mary Kay Henry, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), earned $290,334 in 2011;
Gerald McEntee, President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME), earned $512,369;
James Hoffa, General President of the Teamsters, earned $372,489; Dennis Van Roekel, President of the National Education Association (NEA), earned$460,060;
Joseph Hansen, President of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), earned $361,124,
Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), earned$493,859.
It would seem the anti-unoin guys get all their info from the same place, as they all post the very same thing.
Now why is that, and why on Labor Day?
That was not a rhetorical question, by the way.
The union bosses earn every cent that their members are willing to pay them.
The point is not whether they are union presidents or the CEO of GE. They earn their salary because that is what the orgs that they work for are willing to pay them. The point is that the amount of money a person makes each year is not an immediate condemnation of their value to their their fellow man.
Good God man, stop with the bullshit propaganda!!!!
"Union bosses", is a purely propagandized term!!!
There's no correlation at all.
There is nothing in common between a union chairman and a CEO.
Only in your poisoned dreams.
Who has done more to lift workers wages Jimmy Hoffa Jr. or Bill Gates?
I think that if you really look objectively at this question you can find evidence that the products Gates produced have increased the productivity of hundreds of millions of people world wide. This increase in productivity has provided them with jobs at incomes many times their previous wage.
Gates did not do this out of the goodness of his heart, he did it for profit.
Actually the profit from the 80% increase in productivity over the last 40 years went overwhelmingly to the top 1%.
A ditch digger with a shovel makes $8 per hour. A ditch digger with a back hoe makes $ 30 (non-union).
Why?
Because corporations create productivity enhancing tools. They do it for profit, not because of altruism. Profit is a more compelling motive. Instead of trying to diminish corp profit we should find ways to motivate more corporate innovation. Corporations have done so much more than Unions to lift wages it is nearly incalculable.
BTW, when you sell you house, and if you make a profit, will you give some of that profit to the laborer that helped frame it?
And that band is one of those that has (and will?) lived forever. On the backs of every teenage stoner generation perhaps but such is life.
I think still the longest album (dark side...) on Billboard top 100, or 500.? 27 yrs? I forget
Peace.
LOL. a twinkle for you.
I think Pink was Syd Barret and sadly he has now passed.
The '70's were a great time for trippy music.
Peace
It gets a little scary when you count the number that have passed.
It must be satisfying to leave a legacy of music, invention, art, literature, or the like that generations will enjoy long after you are gone.
Like OWS says: "PEOPLE OVER PROFITS!"
"Money, it's a crime
Share it fairly
But don't take a slice of my pie
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil
Today
But if you ask for a rise
It's no surprise that they're
Giving none away" PF
Peace, And good luck in all your good efforts.
BTW, which one is "Pink"?
I thought Necessity was the mother of invention (innovation), consumer demand it's father.
Corp profits might facilitate research and innovation. But corps are not in the business to create jobs, their focus is only profit (over people). Seems many complain that corps use their profits for ever larger exec salaries/bonus, stock dividents or buybacks rather than people centric worker raises, and/or benefits.
Corps should make profits, and we should rejoice!. We should also expect and pressure them to use that profit for people. Hire more (not outsource) increase wages/benefits.
Corps should feel a responsibility to people not just profits.
[Removed]
Profit is the father, mother, nephew, child, and creepy Uncle of invention. Profit is the prime mover.
You are exactly right. The goal of a corp is to make money. Jobs are incidental.
But profit is a much stronger motivator than altruism. Consequently, corps have done much more to lift wages and provide meaningful jobs in the US and worldwide than Unions have in 40 years (in fact Union leaders have lost jobs to the tune of about50%).
If corps fail to use their profits wisely their competitors will eat their lunch.
A profitable corp is a healthy corp. Corps should stay focused on profits. Don't dilute their resources and distract them from their purpose. Don't try to make a chicken be a cow.
"Union leaders have done such a poor job for their members over the last 40 years that they have succeeded in reducing the number of jobs by almost 50%."
Union leaders did not reduce the number of jobs. Even non union manufacturing jobs declined in the late 90's.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/chart-graph/Union%20Manufacturing%20Jobs%20in%20Decline.JPG
Notice as union membership climbs, wealth disparity decreases. When union membership drops, wealth disparity increases.
http://classwarinamerica.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/econ-pol-inst-inequality.png
Using 3 pdf's as proof of facts but with no location of those facts is pointless.
Unions have lost membership (50%?) because of a concerted effort to Bust them by Business and 1 Political party.
Corps must be convinced, & incentivized to think beyond just the obvious profit motives.
Corps must come to feel that they have a responsibility to their country. To the consumers who they serve.
Consumers can boycott, that is fair. Consumers should also be able to gettheir representatives to join in and support a boycott by passing laws that punish poor corporate nehavior.
Unfortunately we have come to believe the hurtful fallacy that corps have no responsibility beyond their own profit! We have allowed corps to gain control ofthe govt that is supposed to be of, for, & by the people!
We must get money out of politics, take our govt back, and make them serve the 99%
replace anti union conservatives with pro union progressives!
"it's the only way to be sure"
Union leaders have failed their members. If the CEO of a corp presided over a 50% drop in sales they would be fired. Their shareholders would not care how hard they fought (dental work notwithstanding). Results are what matters and the union leaders failed to produce results.
As evidence of the drop in Union jobs over the last 40 years (that would be the period from 1972 until 2012. If you subtract those two numbers you will find that it equals 40 years) please use the following instructions:
Go to the following link to find an accounting of the Union Job losses from 1980 until 1984.
Table 1 on page 26 gives a concise report. This table was derived from the Current Population Survey complied by Bureau of Labor Statistics, and conducted by the Census Bureau. As you will read, total jobs increased by 3.85 million while Union jobs decreased by 2.678 million over the same period.
This means that under the leadership of then union presidents 2.7 million jobs were lost at the same time 3.9 million jobs were created. An embarrassing achievement for the union leaders. The total number of jobs increased while millions of Union jobs were lost. That is not unlike the total hamburger consumption increasing while the number of Wendy's burgers sold drops. That would be bad for Wendy's and the CEO could not blame it on slumping fast food sales.
http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1985/02/art3full.pdf
http://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/352/1iie3411.pdf
http://courses.washington.edu/lstudies/WallersteinWestern.pdf
"Home owners in the US that sold their homes between 1998 and 2008 made a total of $ 1.255 trillion in capital gains (accounting for inflation and maintenance)"
1998 to 2006 were the housing bubble years. Hardly a fair comparison. Here's a fair comparison:
http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/RealHousingPrices_1890_2010_log.png
So when corps make windfall profits and fail to reward laborers they are greedy, but it is ok when home owners are greedy? Many people like to point out the failings of others while ignoring their own foibles.
The important point is that profits drive innovation. Innovation is the engine for creation of the new, high paying, and meaningful jobs. Would you rather make $ 8 / hr siting in front of a drill press making holes in sheet steel, or make $40 / hr writing software for the robot that does that work (or better yet, designing the robot itself)?
We should rejoice when a company is profitable. The more the better. It means they are healthy and will continue to innovate and create jobs.
Reply to "What matters are results."
Did you look at the graph? It clearly shows nearly all of the increase in income went to the top 10%.
Answers full of hot air and devoid of any facts are just vapor. They don't prove anything.
Here's another fact from the Social Security administration. 50% of all U.S. workers make $26,000 a year or less. About 75 million people.
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2010
Jobs created by Apple: 514,000
http://pcic.merage.uci.edu/papers/2011/InnovationJobCreationiPod.pdf http://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/
New Mobile App Industry: 466,000 jobs
http://innovationandgrowth.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/app-economy-is-job-leader-into-the-future/
Houston growth on core technical jobs: 90,000 in one year.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/05/tech-booms
Cloud Computing innovation: 14 million jobs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2012/03/05/cloud-will-generate-14-million-jobs-by-2015-thats-a-good-start/
2G and 3G wireless innovation : 1,600,000 jobs
http://innovationandgrowth.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/innovation-and-job-creation-the-role-of-4g/
This is a tiny sample of the job growth attributable to innovation and development. In the last 40 years corporations have done so much more than Unions to lift wages and provide meaningful good paying jobs for the US and the world the comparison is embarrassing.
These corps did not do this for altruistic reasons. They did it for profit. Without the profit these new jobs would not exist.
Union leaders have done such a poor job for their members over the last 40 years that they have succeeded in reducing the number of jobs by almost 50%. Do you believe that they are earning their pay?
http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1985/02/art3full.pdf
http://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/352/1iie3411.pdf
http://courses.washington.edu/lstudies/WallersteinWestern.pdf
The corporations have done everything in their power to lower wages. Unions fought them tooth and nail in the 20's and 30's to make possible the middle class of the 50's and 60's.
The lower 90% have not seen any real increase in wages over the last 40 years when you factor in inflation. The upper 10% took nearly all of the increase, and the top 1% took most of that.
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008
BTW, when you sell your house, after repairs, and accounting for inflation, you probably didn't make a dime.
Fighting tooth and nail matters not at all. What matters are results. In the last 40 years corps have created tens of millions of new high wage jobs worldwide through innovation and development. These are jobs that did not exist before. US Union leaders have managed to lose jobs over that same period.
Home owners in the US that sold their homes between 1998 and 2008 made a total of $ 1.255 trillion in capital gains (accounting for inflation and maintenance). I can find no record that any of them gave any of that profit to the laborers that framed their homes. At least the corps gave 20%.
http://www.census.gov/const/uspriceann.pdf
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx
"It is the job of both union leaders and the CEOs to anticipate changes in their respective industries. They are steering the boat. If they turn the wrong way it is their fault, they are responsible. That is what they get paid for."
All of the wagon wheel manufacturers went out of business at the turn of the 20th century. Was that their fault as well?
"If a rock falls from outer space and lands on the CEOs factory it is his fault if he failed to get meteorite insurance."
Are you serious?
"To what do you attribute the greater productivity in1997 (BTW one year is a pretty narrow sample space, why 1997?)?"
Obviously you didn't look at the graph.
Yes.
And I am dead serious.
CEOs (and Union leaders for that matter) get paid large sums of money for their ability to correctly anticipate trends in their industry. If you look at companies that were able to stay in business over long periods you will often find that they did so because of their ability to rapidly adapt to changes.
Where did the productivity come from?
"Why did the union leaders lose jobs instead of creating them? Why at the same time did corporations create jobs?
In 1997 both union and non union manufacturing jobs were declining. The reasons? Greater productivity, outsourcing, and a shift to service and tech jobs. Not bad Ceo's and bad union leaders.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/chart-graph/Union%20Manufacturing%20Jobs%20in%20Decline.JPG
It is the job of both union leaders and the CEOs to anticipate changes in their respective industries. They are steering the boat. If they turn the wrong way it is their fault, they are responsible. That is what they get paid for.
If a rock falls from outer space and lands on the CEOs factory it is his fault if he failed to get meteorite insurance.
To what do you attribute the greater productivity in1997 (BTW one year is a pretty narrow sample space, why 1997?)?
"Manufacturing output in constant 2005 $ has doubled since 1980 (Your link shows the share of manufacturing output to total output)"
The output to GDP is more accurate because it also takes into account population growth. Measuring by just the real dollar worth can make it seem like production is increasing when it might really be stagnant. This is the problem with statistics. It's easy to mislead, and easier to be misled.
Output to GDP masks the growth in mfg because of the happy coincident rapid growth in the service sector. It hides what you are looking for; evidence that US manufacturing is increasing. If we are losing our mfg to Asia (current conventional wisdom) how does an increasing population help ?
BTW the engineering and science jobs that create the innovation which drive job growth for the most part show up as service jobs.
How is this possible that manufacturing output increased while jobs decreased (even in the face of increasing population)?
"Of course the union leaders are to blame for job losses"
Explain your reasoning for this conclusion.
no one else will take responsibility
It is the job of the Ford CEO to make money and increase the stock price. If Ford loses money and the stock drops it is the CEOs fault.
It is the job of the union leader to increase union jobs. If the number of union jobs drop it is the fault of the union leader.
This is axiomatic.
Why did the union leaders lose jobs instead of creating them? Why at the same time did corporations create jobs?
"How much has manufacturing in the US decreased since 1980?"
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/trends/2007/0307/02ecoact.cfm
Manufacturing output in constant 2005 $ has doubled since 1980 (Your link shows the share of manufacturing output to total output) .
This is even more astounding when you consider the price pressure on goods due to lower cost imports and domestic competition. That means more than two times the number of things have to be produced to match the increasing output (or new innovative, high margin products have to be developed).
How is this possible while manufacturing jobs are decreasing? What magic are they working?
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/01/the-demise-of-america%E2%80%99s-manufacturing-sector-has-been-greatly-exaggerated/
looks like product output hasn't fallen
"Table 1 on page 26 gives a concise report."
I don't dispute that union jobs have decreased. I already submitted this graph yesterday that shows similar data.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/chart-graph/Union%20Manufacturing%20Jobs%20in%20Decline.JPG
The point you make is that the decrease is due to union leaders. As the graph clearly shows, even non union jobs began declining in the mid 90's. Is that the result of the Ceo's, or is there another reason?
The next graph shows manufacturing jobs declining as service jobs are increasing.
http://www.sse.mtu.edu/images/service_graph-2.jpg
Your argument draws a correlation between job loss and union leadership that is not supported by any facts. If I used the same correlation you did, I could say the Ceo's of the non union corporations were responsible for the jobs lost in the manufacturing sector beginning in the mid 90's. That would not make it true because there is no correlation. Manufacturing jobs were lost because the economy had changed.
The public sector union jobs grew in the 70's and have been fairly consistent since. Was this due to the leaders of these unions?
http://parkercountyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/public_sector2.jpg
Of course the union leaders are to blame for job losses (BTW, you confuse the job of the CEO and the Union leader, the goal of the former is not to create jobs. The CEOs job is to create profits and a rising stock price, job creation is incidental). It is the job of the union leader to increase union jobs and they get paid big bucks to do it. They could have increased Union jobs but missed the opportunity. Why?
There is a clue in the area where they were successful. Why did the union leaders succeed in increasing Gov jobs, but lost jobs in the private sector?
BTW, the loss of manufacturing jobs had little to do with a changing economy; but something else changed dramatically. How much has US manufacturing decreased since 1980?
"If the CEO of a corp presided over a 50% drop in sales they would be fired."
Look at the following graph where non union manufacturing began declining in the mid 90's at 17% down to 12%. It's obvious that the whole industry was changing. Not because of unions, but because manufacturing was being replaced by service and tech jobs.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/chart-graph/Union%20Manufacturing%20Jobs%20in%20Decline.JPG
How much has manufacturing in the US decreased since 1980?
Jimmie Hoffa and Walter Reuther did more than either Gates or Jobs.
If it weren't for those two, it's doubtful the other two would have ever existed.
You missed Henry Ford, or I might have agreed.
Yet it was the concept and implementation of modern assembly processes and abuses of labor it made possible, that created the situation that necessitated unions in the first place.
You might not agree, but those abuses continue to this day.
I agree with you about Ford, and he is just one of tens thousands of CEO's, presidents, and company owners that through innovation have not only generally improved the human condition, but have developed productivity aids that lift wages.
I agree that abuses continue today, and when people break the law they should pay for it. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
There is no reason for industry and labor unions to be adversaries. They should be partners.
Company unions are not an option.
It now becomes painfully obvious that you have not heard the saga of Caterpillar workers.
Adversarial relationships are generally fueled corporate opposition.
Not sure what a Company union is, but I have some small experience negotiating with vendors. The worst deals are made when the relationship between the customer (a manufacturing company) and the vendor (labor) turns adversarial. Good negotiators try to find the win-win. If you squeeze your vendor too much they will either refuse the PO or take the bad deal and go out of business. The customer suffers in both cases and a competent vendor ( the one you really want) knows when to walk away.
There is no reason for industry and labor unions to be adversaries. They should be partners.
your facts dont support the ows agenda. thats why they're attacking you.
I agree with some of the OWS principals. For example, Gov bailouts are a bad idea specifically (including the GM bailout), and Gov involvement with business is bad generally. The opposite is also a problem. Corps should stay out of the business of government.
Perhaps the biggest issue on which we part ways is globalism. OWS sees it as a problem, I see it as an opportunity. Globalism should create a more peaceful world, and the fact that we presently enjoy one of the most peaceful eras in the last 1000 years is a lagging indicator (a fully armed US nuke strike-force also helps).
the purpose of the gm bailout was to save the union pensions because the union leaders use union dues to support dems . the gm stock and bondholders got a screwing.
The irony is that the 99 % may be the biggest losers in the GM bailout. Not only will they have to pay the $40+ billion loss but how many 401k accounts with GM bonds got hit?
the lockstep union members will never get that they are being used. they are the "means" being used to justify the " ends",..............the "ends" being obama and his union backers.
Some of them do.
I carry a Teamster card.
how do you feel about card check?
I am also a member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
o.k .,you belong to some unons ,but again i ask, how do you fell about card check?
There are several problems with it. It should always be a secret ballot, non votes should not be considered votes in favor of the union, and as always individual workers should have the right to opt-out.
opt out? unions dont want that. of course your vote should be private, but if its private they cant intimidate you.
[Removed]
‘Anything is negotiable’ when ‘the rich man’s’ money is threatened
Some more words from your friendly neighborhood AFL CIO "boss".
I NEVER head an actual boss talk like that!!!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/04/labor-rights-leader-anything-is-negotiable-when-the-rich-mans-money-is-threatened/
So shooz, how do you feel about the TPP?
I don't feel anything ......yet.
I doubt I'll like it very much, though I'm having even bigger issues trying to figure out what that has to do with the subject of the thread..
It is this and free trade agreements in general that undermine the influence of the unions. Seems Obama signed on to it in 2009, less than a year after he was elected. Any thoughts on that?
What seems to be and what is, are more often than not, very different things.
It would not surprise me in the least to find that it was the Worldwide influence of neolibe(R)tarians that supported it all around, and payed lots of less than hard earned money to do so.
Who are the faces and money behind it?
Negotiations After the inauguration of Barack Obama in January 2009, the anticipated March 2009 negotiations were postponed. However, in his first trip to Asia in November 2009, President Obama reaffirmed the United States' commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and on December 14, 2009, new U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk notified Congress that President Obama planned to enter TPP negotiations "with the objective of shaping a high-standard, broad-based regional pact".[24] This was extracted from the link below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership
You misunderstood the question.
I want to know what neolibe(R)tarian entities paid for this treaty, not what politicians signed on, and even for that, you've only included US politicians.
Well I suppose they all (neolibs) were for it. I'm most concerned with US politicians because, well, I happen to be an American.
Isn't that more than just a trifle nationalistic of you?
Is it nationalistic? Maybe, but I tend to feel it's US representatives who are answerable to US citizens. No?
Well, I guess it's your focus on nationalism that prevents you from seeing a larger picture.
That's a sad thing, but it does answer why you couldn't comprehend the question.....Let alone understand the concept.
Punctuating your statement in the negative is telling as well.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Only because you never addressed the question.
In failing to do so, your response was nonsensical and nationalist to an extreme.
That, in and of itself was "neoliberal" of you..
reply to; "That's part of what I mean...." I don't see it as a misnomer. If you understand what liberal economics was, it's not hard to understand. It's a term that is widely understood around the world, except here. Neolibertarian, on the other hand is not really a word. Use it if you like. I get the gist. It does incorporate Libertarian extreme ideas. But now I would like to address what you were saying in your statement about "partisan" and "affects you alone". That is unless a clear definition of neoliberalism has cleared that up for you. If it's "partisan" ,Which is the anti-neoliberal party? If there is one, sign me up. On the affects me alone, I need to know what you mean by that. Do you mean me-the US?
I'm not concerned with it's epistemology.
It's actually very much a "right wing" kind of ideology. Liberal, only in it's relation to the 1%'s profit margins.
I find neolibe(R)tarian to be a lot more accurate, so I did coin the word.
Indeed, it even offers a more accurate description of the 1%.
Harder to paint on a sign, I'll grant you, but much more descriptive.
reply to; "Doesn't it..." No it is not for nationalistic reasons at all. Quite the contrary. take a look at this. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
That's part of what I mean. It's really a misnomer.
A kind of propaganda term all on it's own.
It's percepts are actually much more inline with modern libe(R)tarianism.
Is it the "Which neoliberals (or neolibertarins as you say) paid for it that you're concerned with? If so I have no idea. I wouldn't expect that information would be easy to obtain. That is immaterial to me. The fact that our president whose job it is to represent the US citizen is selling us out, is. This is why unions have lost their clout. Unions tried to stop NAFTA, the Korean FTA, Columbia FTA ,etc. But Obama signed on early to this, the worst of them all. Oh, and before you even go there, I'm among those that have said Obama is the lesser of evils, so don't bother with the "you're a Republican" bit.
That's not only nationalist, but partisan.
If you look only at the surface and how it will affect you alone?
Then you don't know enough to understand what it's about.
PS Neoliberal defines the policy, neolibe(R)tarian describes those who write and profit from it, and they are Worldwide.
PPS They display an affinity for Ayn Rand, objectivism and libe(R)tarians in general..
Another item. Nationalism does not equal Neoliberalism. Where on earth did you get that idea ?
Doesn't it?
Those you call neoliberals, do what they do for purportedly nationalist reasons.
So yeah, there is a correlation.
What question do you feel I didn't address?
It's not a matter of feeling. It's a matter of the question I asked.
It's not a complicated affair to scroll up and review.such things, so I won't repeat it.
You will find that it's the one you didn't answer.
Are you anti Obama because you are a racist like your CSA apologist rewriting of civil war history indicates?
Once again,VQ, your stupid habit of running your mouth, or should I say fingers, while being too damn lazy to read the link, gives your identity away.
people are anti obama because of his ideology.
Fuck you! he's a racist, if you defend you are too!
would you please clarify your post. who is a racist?
Perhaps trade unionism is the way.
unions, screwing their members for decades
Strange.......they did OK by me for decades.
and even though you obviously won't admit it, they did a lot of good things for you too.
Too bad you think you can sum up 100+ years of positive effects, in one idiotic sentence, with no basis in reality.
he's just an anti union 1% shill. You are 100% correct. and OWS in ny got some important early support from unions.
Unions are an important part of the progressive coalition that must grow to get the change we need.
Solidarity! "There is power in the Union"
How about the Teamsters then?
Some words from James Hoffa.
http://www.teamster.org/content/we-have-fight%E2%80%99-teamsters-president-james-hoffa-says-romney-wants-knock-out-unions
Did you forget who marched with OWS?
Hint: It wasn't teabagge(R)s.
A GR8 video to share today - and every day as well.
BTW - tweeted.
It's a day to celebrate the laborers that actually once made this country great. Not denigrate them.
It's not a day to celebrate those that have dismantled unions.
I hope all the steaks of the 1% burn to a crisp on their grills today.
That would be poetic justice.
And Their Toilets back-up and their cars break down - and their electricity to go out - and their food spoil - and their help to walk off the job.
Now that would approach poetic justice! {:-])
It would be a good day to force them all to go Galt ahead of their schedule.
Put them all on an island, sinking from global warming with nothing but a bag of money to get them through.
Not a single thing more.
Let them luxuriate in their denial as their Island sinks. No way off - not even if they vote each other off. {:-])
I see the corpo(rat)e "stinkle team" has been hard at work for those comments.
I guess they thought they could buy that island.
Hahahahehehe - let em. They can have all of their material possession with them on that island. They just can not ever leave the island. Or take part in society outside of that island. Let em enjoy their isolation/quarantine.
That is after all, what going Galt is all about.
Showing that they are ultimately sociopaths and psychopaths.
Won't they be so happy all together in one place with like minded individuals....HEEHehehehahahaahahahoooo..............
The morning of that day, will be the brightest and clearest the World has ever known.
We will have isolated the infection that has been destroying the Earth and it's inhabitants....................................:)
Amen!
Now to find a big Island with no high ground on it.
There's always Bikini Atoll...................:)
OH - HEY {:-]) that is fairly low elevation - and shot to shit by the military anyway. GOOD ONE!!!