Forum Post: Unions are socialist
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 18, 2011, 7:25 p.m. EST by kingscrossection
(1203)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Bring it on.
Public Forum
2 comments 1 month ago by gsw
1 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 2 years ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
In the sense that unions are class organizations open only to the working class and not to bosses they are organizations that are consistent with the socialist idea of class struggle. In terms of how they present themselves and how they understand themselves it is another matter entirely, Many union constitutions, for example, have in them very specific advocacy of in support of markets and private enterprize, No union in the United States is explicitly socialist in its stated views and beliefs, no matter how it might act and in fact, compared to unions in other industrialized democracies, America unions as institutions are really quite conservative in both what they say about themselves, what they think about themselves and how they act as a matter of policy,
A handful of union leaders at the local and regional level would admit to being socialist if asked, I can't think of a single officer of a national union right now that would acknowledge being a socialist, though there may be one or two that I am overlooking. Despite a handful of radicals numbering not more than a few hundred in a movement of 13 million, the vast majority of elected union leaders are not only not socialist, but actually quite conservative in their political views, While most union leaders would undoubtedly identify as Democrats (which is not a socialist organization) they would tend to be in the more conservative wing of the Democratic Party, In terms of rank and file union members the tendency toward conservatism is even stronger and there is a very strong, though probably a minority, Republican tendency among labor's rank and file,
what is the socialist view ?
What is the socialist view of what? If you are asking what is the socialist view of the labor movement I think most democratic socialist would agree that as class based organizations for working people that specifically excludes bosses and employers labor unions are consistent with socialist notions of class in our society, On the other hand in terms of what American unions think of themselves, in comparison to unions elsewhere in the world they are really quite conservative, a fact that is even memorialized in some union constitutions which very specifically stand in favor of markets and private enterprise, It is also the case that not a single union constitution in the United States and not a single national union leader would profess to being socialist, A few hundred socialists are scattered among labor's secondary leadership, its paid staff and rank and file members, Most national union leaders are probably conservative Democrats, Much of labor's rank and file articulates rather conservative political views but also tends to act quite militantly on the job, All that said most socialists would agree that even the most corrupt and bureaucratic unions are more democratic than any corporation and even the most conservative unions are the only thing in America standing between ordinary working people and untamed corporate power, While there would most certainly be differences here and there, that, I think, pretty much sums up what socialists think about labor unions in America,
union workers = working class joe's/blue collar workers it is simple as that, last i checked working class joe's hate communists still.
Well it's not exactly true that all workers universally opposed to communism, The Communist Party is very tiny and discredited, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, so there are actually very few Communists in the United States, but it is also the case that some working people are members of the Communist Party, Of course, when asked most rank and file union members poll more conservative than do elected union leaders and union staff members, but consciousness and behavior are two different things and very often working people who voice the most conservative of political views act very differently and are often quite militant when it comes to their relationship with their employer,
the union guy i have known are stereo typical blue blooded americans.
the union guy i have known are stereo typical blue blooded americans.
That's true generally, but not universally and you might have to talk to 100 rank and file trade unionists and go out of your way to talk to people who are in industrial unions or service unions rather than the building trades before you find a conscious labor radical, On the other hand consciousness is not the same as behavior. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance and many, perhaps most, rank and file union members act much more militantly on the job than their self conscious conservatism would imply.
one thing about union guys dont fuck with their job...
That is precisely my point,
RedJazz43, your understanding of American history puts these children's arguments to shame. The solidarity you show for the working class is a quality lost to this generation and their dog eat dog mentality. If there were more Americans like you--at least I hope you are American--then the one percent paradigm would have never come into existence. I solute you and commend you for trying to educate the uneducated. Peace!
Explain this to me please. Morenci arizona mine. Union workers burn company houses because they are striking and the mine will not give into their absurd demands. On $32 and hour, the mine wanted to take 50 cents out to pay for health insurance and the Union would not let the miners work.
Well, there are all kinds of absurdities in the class structure of the United States, Most athletes are millionaires, but when they go on strike against the billionaire owners I'm on their side,
WHat the hell is wrong with you? This is 1.65% they were talking about and they destroyed company property which they were living in at a discounted price as well.
I stand with the workers, always unequivocally and without question in any struggle that any worker has with any boss no matter how bad the worker or how bad the boss, That is what class solidarity is all about,
It is not that I never disagree with any behavior of any worker or workers organization, Many individual workers are subject to corruption and many labor organizations are extremely corrupt, That said the most corrupt union in the United States is, by the simple virtue of its mere existence, more democratic than any corporation that you care to mention, I think there are many struggles within the labor movement in which I would disagree with the behavior of individual workers or labor organization, but those are matters internal to the working class movement and not the business of any boss, In terms of my relationship to the employing class as far as they are concerned anything that any worker or any labor organization concerned anything that any worker or any labor organization does with regard to any boss is always right and anything that any boss does in regard to any individual worker or labor organization is always wrong, That is my understanding of class solidarity,
Union members are the laziest most ignorant entitled people that ever walked this earth. Unions are literally the downfall of the United States.
The United States has the smallest and weakest labor movement of any democratic nation in the industrialized world, The notion of union power is a total myth and is only idicative of how profoundly conservative the United States is, Only in the United States would someone like Nancy Pelosi be considered left, On top of that the United States has the most restrictive and complicated set of administrative labor laws of any industrialized democracy in the world,
Wealth has gradually trickled upward for nearly the last 6 decades, About the only force that provided any resistance to the increased immiseration of the middle class was organized labor but it was not able to do a very effective job of resisting middle class immiseration largely because of how relatively small the American labor movement is and how restrictive American labor law is with regard to the freedom of action of labor organizations, Organized labor as weak as it is is about the only thing that stands between ordinary working stiffs and the corporate state and the corporations that state serves,
Far from being the downfall of the US, union brought us the week end, the minimum wage, over time pay, social security and many other benefits too numerous to mention,
You just named benefits that unions bought to the US over 70 years ago. They served their purpose now they should just go away. I work very closely with unions they are the most incompetant, overpaid, whiny, bunch of people. They should not be getting paid and the benefits they do, we could hire high school kids and they would do a better job than them. The US would be better without these bums.
The problem is that whatever gains labor made are not carved in granite but need to be vigilantly protected and the fact is that the labor movment has grown ever weaker since its peak of about 35% of the nonagricultural work force in 1947 when the anti labor Taft Hartley law was passed, Because the gains that labor made are not carved in granite but necessarily protected by an active and vital movement, those demands have been whittled away one by one as the labor movement grew weaker and weaker until to day when it is weaker than at any time since the 1920s before the upsurge of organized labor and before any of the significant labor law reforms had been passed, The unions very nearly have gone away owing to very restrictive labor laws and an extremely timid labor leadership but the consequence of that has been the greater and greater accumulation of weath into the hands of a very few and the increased immiseration of the middle class,
I stand with the IWW leader Bill Haywood when he said that nothing was too good for the American worker. This is especially true after decades of immiseration,
you must be the fraud.
yup. change the font, and the last letter is clearly a capital i.
hitgiri
yer a liar
I don't like liars.
I fall under your class and feel no solidarity with you. Also, I don't think that national sports players who make millions of dollars fall under your own class.
So you support billionaire owers against millionaire players or don't you care one way or another? I think all struggles between workers and bosses are class struggles and as a matter of course we owe our solidarity to the employee class no matter how much they make,
I think as things go you get paid what people are willing to pay you. As I remember it, most of the money paid to professional athletes is from advertisements
When workers organize they tend to get paid more than when they are not organized so it is not a matter of simply getting paid what people are willing to pay you, People are clearly willing to pay you more if you are organized and willing to with hold your labor in an organized and systematic way than if you are not organized and bargaining simply as a mass of unorganized individuals,
I could argue that what the workers get paid after striking is unnatural when it comes to the supply and demand model that we have.
That workers get paid after striking it seems to me is perfectly consistent with certain interpretations of supply and demand, though I do not necessarily agree with the formulation or metaphor, But when workers withdraw their labor that both decreases the supply of a commodity (their labor power) and conversely increases the demand for it, which is precise how and why they sometimes get wage increases as the consequence of an effectively organized strike,
I meant getting paid more. Obviously when they get paid after a strike it is just entirely logical. If the labor force goes down, supply of the labor goes down and demand for the labor goes up. When they strike for more money the supply goes down demand goes off and when they get what they want they supply goes down but the money they get paid stays the same. Its not entirely natural.
The social relations of production are not especially natural or even consistent with the principles and notions of Adam Smith in spite of how clever he was, The state has always played a role in the ecoomy since before mercantilism, The Colombus expedition, for example, would never have gotten off the ground without state intervention which essentially laid the ground work for the capitalist exploitation of the western hemisphere, There never has been a truly invisible hand or an entirely free market, The main point of labor organization, though most workers or even union representatives do not think it though in this way is to take labor out of competition. In a sense to obliterate the labor market, In that sense any labor union is objectively socialist even if not self consciously so,
What about it?
It. Unions are not socialist. Say, that reminds me.
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery.
Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.
One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
Preach it!
Thanks for the support. Glad to be on the same team.
There's really people on this thread who don't understand what your post has to do with middle class men and women negotiating a decent living wage through a union. I doesn't give me much hope for this country.
[Deleted]
I though your post was completely relevant.
I misunderstood you. Sorry about that.
[Removed]
Nice. How often do you copy and paste this seemingly thoughtful rebuttal in order to garner praise? You mentioned the word "union" once, in your intro and then rambled on about platitudes etc. Don't get me wrong, I agree with much of your sentiment but the post posed a view point and begged a counterpoint that you in no way provided. nice work.
What does that have to do with the post
How on Earth does this have anything to do with the topic?
This post should be removed from this thread as spam.
How does wealth get consolidated? By using government. Why would people in government want to help one business over another? Money. How do we stop this? Vote the bums out. Do we just take all wealth and distribute evenly? This will destroy our economy and we will all be imprisoned by those who cause this - the government and their friends.
"Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." Alexis de Tocqueville
"Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen." - Ayn Rand
Some sources: 1 http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJY2PCy6FgI&feature=player_embedded#! 2 http://www.businessinsider.com/uncovered-tarp-docs-reveal-how-paulson-forced-banks-to-take-the-cash-2009-5 Obama refused repayments from banks: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html ** 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQQiFW2YDLM&feature=related 4 Obama and Hillary: http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm Hilliary's political science thesis (1969, Wollosley College): http://nukegingrich.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/hillaryclintonthesis.pdf **Know Your Enemy*Don't Be A Useful Idiot*
I don't want equal. I want reasonable. And I'm nobodies' puppet.
If you consider unions to be "socialist".
What do you consider management?
People with power
Power to do what, exactly?
buy supplies
Run a company, crash a company, whatever they want they own the company.
Most CEOs are appointed, not owners, beyond stock..
You know what I mean. They have control and have the power to do what they want.
You misunderstood by stating that a CEO owns the corporation.
That's rarely the case.
Yes I understand that I spoke a mistruth but the idea is still there that they are the ones in control o the corporation
They don't really do much.
Most are figureheads, put in place to impress Wallstreet.
Since most American police departments are unionized that saying something.
It says that they help people sometimes. Does not really mean much in relation to this post.
40 years of union busting and this is the best that you can do?
Morenci Arizona mine. Union workers burn company houses because they are striking and the mine will not give into their absurd demands. On $32 and hour, the mine wanted to take 50 cents out to pay for health insurance and the Union would not let the miners work. Unions pay people who have worked 20 years but may have little ability to perform the job they are a master in while a person working at a job for a year may be the best there ever was at the job but he will never get paid the same amount.
The Final Blow to Labor
Since the 1915 strike in Bisbee, Phelps Dodge had managed labor by granting some wage increases to the local unions with the agreement that the miners would forego national union affiliation. In 1967, the national manufacturing wage was $3 an hour, the average national mining wage $3.10 an hour, but the average Arizona mining wage was about $2 an hour. From mid-1968 when the pattern agreement was finally met, the company would be required to sit down with a powerful Steelworkers coalition to negotiate a contract—every three years. For the next 15 years, things went well for copper miners. The unions demanded and won cost of living adjustments and higher wages from Phelps Dodge, although usually only after a walk-out by employees.
But Phelps Dodge had an ally. As in the case of using an Arizona Governor—if they couldn’t control the system, they would find other ways to manage it. A cantankerous Wharton School of Business professor took it upon himself to start a program to reverse “union power buildup.” Professor Herbert Northrup wrote a series of books on formulas for weakening unions. A founding partner in the project: Phelps Dodge. He had the brains; PD had the dollars. It appears the company would bear any cost to cut labor costs.
We can begin to see a trend here—Phelps Dodge had deep pockets for expenditures to curtail labor demands even though labor's demand were always small and reasonable. PD had money to hire attorneys to argue right up to the Supreme Court to avoid paying back wages to the 35 employees who they had fired for being union members. This trend was also true in the historic 1983 strike, when the workers had agreed to a wage freeze and were only asking for the continuation of their cost of living raises—which would have been minimal since cost of living was not increasing significantly in the early 1980's. Recognizing this fact, all other mining companies had already signed the pattern contract. Phelps Dodge had bigger plans. Break the union once and for all.
With the 1983 strike, they succeeded. Phelps Dodge broke the strike with assistance of Arizona Governor Babbitt, National Guard and State Troopers. But it was all worth it to them, within two years PD had wiped out thirty union locals made up of 2,000 workers. They were used to having their way—money was the bottom line.
For a brief description, I defer to Barbara Kingsolver—who was there—and who wrote a book about the strike, Holding the Line.
In a place a few hours' drive from where I live [ Tucson], the government, the police and a mining company formed a conspicuous partnership to break the lives of people standing together for what they thought was right. That ironclad, steel-toed partnership arrested hundreds of citizens on charges so ludicrous that the state, after having perfectly executed its plan of intimidating the leadership and turning public sympathy against the strikers, quietly dropped every case. [ New York Times review of Holding the Line]
In the aftermath of the strike, Phelps Dodge officials celebrated, while loyal miners whose families had worked in PD mines for generations sorted out new lives for themselves. The cost in human dignity has reverberated through the decades and still touches the ex-miners lives. The wound still has not healed, there are families in Clifton-Morenci who still do not speak to each other. Of course, the permanent replacement workers they had recruited during the strike voted against a union!
And Arizona was not the only place the tactics were used. Former Phelps-Dodge head caught 'selling' union-busting plan to Oregon Steel.
In 1995, Jonathan D. Rosenblum, union attorney and author of Copper Crucible published a report on previously uncovered documents and interviews that revealed facts there were unknown during the strike. The Arizona taxpayers had no idea that they were paying for a covert Tucson-based intelligence agency, the CIA of Arizona state government that was acting against the Union. During the copper strike:
• Undercover agents with the Arizona State Criminal Intelligence Systems Agency (ACISA) infiltrated every union in the Clifton-Morenci mining district early in the strike, bugging nearly one out of every two meetings and monitoring the rest with informers. "We were using about five (informants) at any given moment and as many as eight or nine others moved on and off assignments," said ACISA's former supervising undercover agent.
• A sophisticated supercomputer in Tucson enabled ACISA to compile intelligence files on hundreds of union members and supporters.
• ACISA, in tandem with the Arizona Department of Public Safety, set up an elaborate sting operation to entrap alleged arms dealers during the strike. But the Department of Public Safety botched the operation by critically wounding one of the suspects in an accidental shooting. Meanwhile Phelps Dodge was smuggling arms into the copper mine with impunity.
• ACISA shared some intelligence reports directly with the plant manager and security officers at Phelps Dodge. [Complete report by Rosenblum]
By 1985 Phelps Dodge was making record profits again in copper. Earlier Phelps Dodge had diversified, so not all of its financial problems in the early 1980's were due to copper prices. Phelps Dodge emerged as a model for other American Corporations, for its "ruthless" labor relations. Phelps Dodge president gloated, "We created a new approach to labor. It was followed all over. Suddenly people realized, hell, you can beat a union. Time was big unions were considered invincible. We demonstrated that nobody was invincible."
Several analysts have calculated that it would have cost them less money if they had satisfied the small demands of labor. The strike cost them plenty. There were continual expenses: attorneys, lobbyists, full-page newspaper ads, travel and accommodations for management, alleged gratuities to Arizona politicians and labor officials—getting their way in Arizona was doable, but it could not have come cheaply. http://www.mining-law-reform.info/WrittenComments.htm
Though far from perfect, unions are the only viable check on the power of management to exploit and abuse workers.
If you don't like unions, then work seven days a week. You owe the five-day week to unions.
I could care less about a five day work week.
So are bridges, roads, schools, parks, firemen, police, courts, ports, airports, social security and the military. If you want to live in a place with none of those things I would recommend Congo.
Didn't say they didn't serve their purpose but the time of unions should have ended after they established the system they wanted.
Regarding what can be done by whom in unionized workforces: Many Collective Bargaining Agreements contain a clause that allows for a workers performing a LIMITED amount of work outside of their job classification. It's called "Incidental but necessary" to the task at hand. There are almost always means for making things work. The willingness to do so has to be there. While adding some flexibility to task performance, it can be abused and so labor and management must determine exactly what constitutes incidental and necessary.
It is ridiculous that one union worker cannot pick up a piece of paper just because they have to provide jobs for people that cannot cut wood.
Under the CBA that exists where I work a union worker cleans up after him/herself. When work done outside of the worker's job classification constitutes more than 10% of the task, then it's beyond "incidental but necessary." It's then that another worker who normally performs like tasks is assigned to the task in question.
Yes I know how it works. It is however, still ridiculous.
Do you work for or own the company you cite in your example? If so, perhaps what I've suggested as one possible solution might be viable. I should add too, that under my CBA workers are prohibited from any work stoppage of a job unless safety is the reason for the stoppage. Otherwise work is to be completed, even when the assignment is outside of the workers job discription. The grievance procedure would then be initiated, investigation performed and appropriate resolution sought. That may include wages for others that would have been paid had they been there during performance of the assignment - a monetary penalty to the company.
And how is that fair to the company?
I don't think that it's an issue of fairness, so much as it tends to cause careful consideration when directing workers to perform tasks that may be outside of the workers job discription and prevents the "crossing of trades." Each job title (electrician, heavy equipment operator, plumber, laborer, etc.) has a discription for that job title that's spelled out in the CBA.
So the underclasses deserve fairness but the upper classes do not?
How is it unfair to any "class" for signatories of a contract to be held to what they've agreed to?
So, unions are Socialist.
Yeah, so???
Since when did meaningless labels become either sound argument or basis of discussion?
It leaves it open to talk about anything concerning unions or socialism or both. If you don't like it you can shut the fuck up.
So?
Is socialism good or bad?
It's good by me!
Why's that?
Because I believe the role of any society is to protect its weakest members, not run them over in the endless pursuit of profits. I also believe that it's important to sacrifice some of one's own comfort for those who have little or no comfort. I assume you don't--and that's the difference between you and I...
Man how fast the country would crumble under your ideas.
It's crumbling RIGHT NOW, you dope. What are you, living under a rock? The United States, your beloved capitalistic utopia, is COLLAPSING under your nose--and you're running around shrieking about the evils of socialism. Good luck, pal--you're going to need it....
Utopias are a fallacy and will never exist. It is collapsing but the reason for that is because of government control and entitlement programs
No its because the 1% don't pay their fair share of taxes. Too much greed.
socialism is no panacea, I live in Europe and the taxes are so high, waste and corruption so prevalent you don't want it.
Nonesense.
Go live in Europe then
Most government are socialist and are willing to die for it .They get benefits have free car and affordabel housing and other benifits .All are pretty much common .So our government is in America is awesome can you imagine if all people had the same life their would be little need for war ,little need for even protest . I define terrorism as any act which oppresses a certian race or people more than another ,I define terrorism as an act which forces people to commit crimes and turn to drugs.I define terrorism as injustice and inequality.I do not get paid to share this message its for free and that is what I hope for that men will stand for dignity for free .
I support Occupy Wall Street and Anonymous .I am happy to know that people are finally wanting more out of life .Like the right to have a job basic shelter .According to the U.N the support the Right To Housing and even jobs.
I say this with love please do not take no offense anyone because I plan to join the movement .I hear alot of people saying the whole wolrd is watching they are they are watching people get arrested and beaten and having their stuff taken away from them.
I wish to see this change .I wish to see the Revolution spread like wild fire when you look at all the great revolutions through out the world the formed in areas where the people are oppressed the most .
In order for their to be a real revolution thier needs to be communties set up .And more oppressed I feel the Occupy Wall Street Movement has alot more potential than what it is showing but it will take money and resources to reach the most oppressed in America.
I have spoken with people about the movement some feel it is just people that come from middle class familes I feel it primarily is .Those at the bottom the very botttom are all over America not in the millions but by the tens of millions reach them and you will have more support than what you asked for .
People ( individual ) are pretty social. Does that make us all socialists?
Well that was incredibly clever. I'm not sure how to respond to that at all.
Why are people afraid of the word socialist? I'll tell you why - brainwashing, pure and simple. I think I'll start calling the corporate model anti-socialist, because that's what it is; and I'll take socialism over anti-socialism any day, thanks
Yes sir. Russia was a great country to live in. I'm sure glad I never had to live through that era. I'm glad the government brainwashed my father so he never wanted to move their either because then I wouldn't be here now.
If you will recall, the USSR was communist, not socialist.
As I understand it the government needs to control the economy in order for everyone to get paid the same. Socialism and communism
In Communism the state runs business (very badly), in socialism it does not. The free market, or at least what now passes for one, does. Just about every country in Western Europe has a Socialist Party, and they have often been in power. Socialism is compatable with democracy, Communism is not. Are you saying Western Europe is no different than Soviet Russia? Please know something before you make such outrageous claims. I am not a Socialist myself, but to say that there is no difference between Socialism and Communism is flat out rediculous.
Socialism is when the government controls the Corporations
Fascism, is when corporations control government.
Guess which one we have.
I am not afraid of words. When someone says socialism I don't just cease-up with fear and dispense with reason. Sorry if the billions spent on indoctrination didn't work with me - it's just one of my quirks:)
Than this nation is, theoretically, socialist. We have government agencies in place right now whose job is to regulate corporations. They're just not doing their job.
Of course they are "socialist". It is a group of people. a society, who have gathered together to assist and protect one another from an unfeeling business. If they do not take up a cause in worker's rights and band together then the capitalists running the business will use them like disposable items.
Maybe you have not had to deal with unscrupulous corporations but when you have to get issues redressed then a union is valuable to ALL the workers. Imagine if the firefighters didn't have a union or the police for example, what kind of people do you think would be working there if the pay and benefits were not fair?
So what if they can be called socialist? It is only a term.
No they did and the unions fixed it. Now they act like Communist Russia
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain the establishment of this Constitution for the United States of America."
Is this a socialist notion?
No we hold a republic notion.
Yeah, and we are forced to share our society with business leaders and politicians, they seem to have forgotten the inconvenience.
Without business leaders you wouldn't have a job. Without politicians you probably wouldn't have the pay you do now.
You want zero unions? Go to Somalia.
Union households tend to be better civic citizens, while Fox news watchers were worse.
Don't watch the news. You mean union households tend to be religious. You want to take money from people who have more than you go to Somalia
Business is socialist. The military and police force are socialist
I think your censoring has changed how you view the world
"Socialist" was the insult used against women in 1850 when they came up with radical ideas of wanting to vote and wanting to have the same property rights as men. It didn't shut them up, and it shouldn't shut up people now who want to reduce corporate power and support the middle class.
First off all, I didn't say anything about women. Women can do almost anything a man can do except for maybe some of the physical stuff but some of them can probably outwork me in some of the physical things. There is a difference between working for better conditions and what they do now.
Try this one on for size. Morenci Arizona mine. Union workers burn company houses because they are striking and the mine will not give into their absurd demands. On $32 and hour, the mine wanted to take 50 cents out to pay for health insurance and the Union would not let the miners work. Unions pay people who have worked 20 years but may have little ability to perform the job they are a master in while a person working at a job for a year may be the best there ever was at the job but he will never get paid the same amount.
Also, according to OWS theory, corporations control the government and the government protects unions. Just saying
Where did you say you worked?
I've currently been trying to get a job for a year and a half.
I've been retired for longer than that.
I hope you find something soon.
It's a bitch, not having one.
Thank you and I concur. I can't buy anything and I can barely afford to drive.
No, you used "socialism" as an insult. I just showed how meaningless that is.
How do you know? That is how it was intended but the purpose could have just been to start a discussion which I've obviously started. I actually would have just had a title with Unions but there was already a post with that title so I had to come up with something else.
The government does not protect Unions. The Constitution does. I am not saying that Unions are always correct but in the days of their birth here in the USA, they were really needed to curb/change the practices of the greedy. They were successful in making positive change to labor law and practice. They can still be a positive force in our society.
Some Unions have gotten out of control like the Pilots Union and their outrageous demands for pay increases year after year.
One strike was broken by the government and that was the air-traffic controllers strike. They had legitimate grievances but unfortunately they stood in the way of Business concerns that depend on air traffic/travel. The air traffic controllers were looking for help to improve their working conditions and infrastructure, not only for their own benefit ( major stress reduction ) but also for public & industry safety.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't PATCO - I believe that was the air traffic controllers' union's name - didn't they have a "No Strike" clause in their then-existing CBA? The union went on strike and they were then in violation of their CBA. They were subsequently told to return to their jobs or they'd be fired. PATCO then claimed that since the CBA had expired and they had continued working without a contract, the clause didn't apply. As I recall a federal judge ruled against PATCO when the firings were appealed through the court system.
I don't remember hearing it was ok to burn houses down when you don't get what you want.
Have you ever heard of mob mentality? It is one of the great dangers that arise in emotionally charged situations in large crowds of people. It is something that the Occupy & 99% movements have successfully avoided so far. That is what is really scarey when police take inappropriate action at protests. They could set off a mob mentality reaction very easily.
Yes I've heard of it but have you heard of the entitlement mentality? Its when people feel they are entitled to what other people have. Or when they feel unjust when some of them have to pay a little extra just for life insurance when they can obviously cover the expenses.
Have you heard of the Morenci Arizona mine? Union workers burn company houses because they are striking and the mine will not give into their absurd demands. On $32 and hour, the mine wanted to take 50 cents out to pay for health insurance and the Union would not let the miners work. Unions pay people who have worked 20 years but may have little ability to perform the job they are a master in while a person working at a job for a year may be the best there ever was at the job but he will never get paid the same amount.
"Entitlement" is the excuse the rich use to justify their greed. We can talk about entitlement when everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and contributes to society in a proportionate manner with their income.
Entitlement is the excuse OWS uses to justify their greed.
Make me.
Make you what?
duh?
Thank you for the enlightening comment.
Not necessarily. If you work for the government, they are a must.
Why is that?
Because it's not a matter of if you're going to be fucked over, it's a matter of when you're going to be fucked over.
And when you get fucked over you strike. When you change what you wanted changed you disband.
Well, then you would never disband. That's how management is in the Government. I have no use for socialism, but if you ever work in the Government, you would understand that the union is your best friend, unless they are in bed with management. Then, if your in trouble, your finished.
Not so. Would you agree that things are better than they were in 1900?
Some things were better and some were worse. I'm just saying that if you work in the federal government and you can have the union backing you up, you wouldn't turn it down. You're still not safe, but it helps. But I don't think we should have socialist unions.
So?
Yes you are hilarious. Maybe you could contribute.
No I mean, thats it. Da oonions r da cho-cho-list.... Yeah? And? So? What?
I'M 48 and seen both sides of the unions. I don't like then nepotizm and cronyism bull. They are important though. What's going on now is exactly what was going on in the early 1900's and exactly why unions were formed. When enough people stand together, they have power. If everyone would just read labels for one month and only buy made in the USA you would send a shockwave around the world getting congress, Wall Streets, and the world's attention. Everything in this world is geared to cash "flow" like you would not believe. Stop spending any money for a short period and you can break millionaires and put billionaires on their knee's. This will work in any economy anywhere in the world.
I agree that what was happening in the 1900's was total bullshit and that the unions were good for the miners who were treated more or less like slaves. However, that said the unions of today are wrong.
Though I agree, destroying our economy is not a good thing. A lot of poor people will suffer like we haven't seen in years. That's why this movement is so dangerous, it's about destroying the rich, not helping poor people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjH4QBSwWlg&feature=related
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Krugman-Depression-us-Democracy/2011/12/12/id/420639?s=al&promo_code=DB80-1
Unionized workers comprise about SEVEN PERCENT of the U.S. workforce. How is it possible for 7% of the U.S. workforce (a low-paying 7%, at that) to "destroy the economy"??? LOL...where do you people get your ideas?
Meet the one of the puppet masters of OWS, Stephen Lerner, Former SEIU Exec. Here's the plan in his own words in March of this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQQiFW2YDLM&feature=related
According to White House visitor logs, “Stephen Lerner” has visited the White House four times over the past two years. ** http://www.theblaze.com/stories/uncovered-did-the-leftist-encouraging-economic-terrorism-have-access-to-obamas-white-house/
SEIU Former President Friend of Obama, Andy stern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSllsTLkBsw Obama says SEIU is his cause: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM
President Obama and his connection to Saul Alinsky: "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals" President Obama recommends Sal Alinsky's book "Rules For Radicals" for all colleges and high schools, and Hillary Clinton did her thesis on this book.
Saul Alinsky on community organizing, sound familiar? He talks about "change" a lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQtwo8lp_E8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1El4g3KjeNA&feature=related
Don't forget public sector unions, they're still growing - TSA agents are about to unionize. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/business/24labor.html?_r=1
Final thoughts: Remember National Socialist Party They were national socialists who were swept in by union, union members, and many other German who despised the rich and were twisted with the ideas of social justice - they targeted at the Jews and the Jewish wealth (banks). But this time it is directed towards the banks and capitalists. Hitler was brought in on the coattails of the unions. But once Hitler was in office, all the unions were combined into two (National Socialist Factory Organization and the National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization), so that workers were controlled by the State, essentially no one could strike. In Italy at the time: "The Doctrine of Fascism", Mussolini wrote "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." By 1938 dictator Benito Mussolini brought his vision of fascism to fruition in Italy, he dissolved the Parliament and replaced it with "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" or "the Chamber of Fascist Corporations".
"Those who make Peaceful Revolution Impossible...Will make Violent Revolution Inevitable" -JFK
One of the organizers (obviously familiar with "Rule for Radicals") is interviewed and she explains what their goal for OWS. Take a guess. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jOxERtkwN4&feature=player_embedded#!
Oh..... It's on!
Ok well yah no bring it to me please.
[Removed]
So? Label away. Unions saved this country then some became compromised by organized crime. They are still an integral part of what freedom in America is all about.
Oh no I agree with you that they WERE good but when they got what they wanted they should have disbanded and gotten together again when they have something new to complain about.
Not a good strategy. Keep em together and be vocal when the leeches catch hold. never disband something that saved you.
Why not. Then you get what everyone wants as opposed to the heads of the unions.
Whatever. Without unions this country is fascist. Unions are a buffer. We NEED them more than ever now.
+1
We need more of them, not less.
The Massey mining disaster has already fallen down the memory hole.
If you look any deeper you'll find America is union!
That's the part that the anti-union folks have a very hard time understanding.
They just brush off the founders call for a "more perfect union", and start whining about states rights.
The civil war has fallen down the memory hole on them too.
All of history has fallen. It's a crying shame.
Why is it that unions don't allow their own employees to unionize? Perhaps they need a card check!
It's on like Donkey Kong!
Those make my initials.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
GeorgeCarlinRules, ok I agree this is a wonderful vision, but change society yes! But not religion by creating a new symbiotic religion, its obvious greed powers the planet now, and that needs to change soon, but the true religious beliefs now embrace the symbiotic beliefs and more.
Post something other than links and I may actually look at these.
Unions were important once and still are in some industries. They also hurt certain professions. I tend to think that teachers unions do the teachers no favors by refusing merit pay and insisting upon tenure. What other careers have tenure? None, because it's ridiculous.
Oh I agree with you. The original unions helped the people basically escape from slavery. However, now most of them do little more than keep people out of work.
"sorry, I can't pick up that piece of paper on the ground, it's not allowed by the union, that's someone else's department". Or how about the "rubber rooms" in the NYC education system? So effed up.
That said, the coal miners should probably have a union to keep their profession safe etc. Teachers though?
That said, I'm a HUGE proponent of paying teachers more for better performance. I realize that gauging the performance of teachers is a difficult thing, but it needs to happen.
If you were to ask any parent which teachers were the 3 best and the 3 "least effective" in their kids school, I think you would be shocked how similar the lists were. Good teachers shine like coal.
"That said, I'm a HUGE proponent of paying teachers more for better performance."
Oh, great! LOL! If teachers had a nickel for every time someone said that they "thought" teachers should get more money, they wouldn't need to get more money. Why do you think teachers unions exist??? Because they're the ONLY WAY that teachers can get better wages--good performance or otherwise. I mean, gee, it's really nice of you to say that teachers should get better pay, but what are you doing about it? NOTHING! What's ANYONE--except the unions--doing about it? NOTHING! That's why unions exist--because workers receive nothing but LIP SERVICE from everyone else. Get it?
I think Unions have a place, even in education.. they are just severely broken and aren't doing anything (currently) to help teachers get more pay. The NEA consistently opposes merit pay, the loosening of tenure and broadening curriculum. -They exist to protect crappy teachers and make sure they get paid as much as the kick ass teachers. -Of which there are plenty and they deserve to earn more year over year like any other top performers in business. When asked about his opinion of the NEA, Steve Jobs (someone that knows a thing or two about running a successful organization) said, "What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn’t get rid of people that they thought weren’t any good"? -He's right, it doesn't make sense and it wont change so long as the NEA has control of our policy makers. If I were a really good, teacher (old or young) I would love to get merit pay, I would love to get rid of tenure and see the ineffectual teachers let go. I would know that I'm either going to have to teach the students the ineffectual teachers had or the ineffectual teachers are going to un-teach the students I just gave them. -Either way, it must be a horrible realization for educators.
My dad doesn't work for a union but his job requires that he works with people that work on them. He picked up a piece of trash and someone else from the union walked up and called him out for taking a job away from a Union laborer. Its ridiculous the system that they have. I agree with paying teachers more. Being a high school student at the moment, I think that teachers should at least fall in the top 10 paying jobs in the country.
If teachers had the potential to earn 6 figures based on performance, you would see an enormous change in the quality of the people that entered the field. The "performance" is the key part. But how you judge that is beyond me? Standardized testing doesn't seem to work. Not sure what the answer is there. I do know that the entire education system needs to change. Check out this talk, it's what I think the future of all education is: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html
Never mind. I should have finished the video.
Oh yeah I agree with you. Its the same thing that happened with Congress and all of their extras.
Did you check out the Khan Academy? Are you already familiar? I wonder how much your generation is aware of this?
Anyways, good luck in school.
I'm currently listening to it now. Maybe it can be based off of the quality of the videos that a teacher has to post for his or her students.
I'm currently listening to it now. Maybe it can be based off of the quality of the videos that a teacher has to post for his or her students.
Wisconsin update: State Is Saving $Millions Not buying Union Health Insurance.
Since changes to state bargaining rules the state has been saving millions. How exactly? The state and local governments no longer forced to buy WEA Trust Insurance, which is union- owned and billed outrageous rates - borderline criminal IMO. Here's one of the best kept secret about the changes to Wisconsin's collective bargaining wiyj public sector unions.
"The Hartland-Lakeside School District, about 30 miles west of Milwaukee in tiny Hartland, Wis., had a problem in its collective bargaining contract with the local teachers union.
...The contract required the school district to purchase health insurance from a company called WEA Trust. The creation of Wisconsin's largest teachers union -- "WEA" stands for Wisconsin Education Association -- WEA Trust made money when union officials used collective bargaining agreements to steer profitable business its way...."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/wisconsin-schools-buck-union-cut-health-costs#ixzz1gGOu7bWk
morenci arizona mine. Union workers burn company houses because they are striking and the mine will not give into their absurd demands. On $32 and hour, the mine wanted to take 50 cents out to pay for health insurance and the Union would not let the miners work.
Wow, wtf is wrong with these people? Here's an interesting read:
We used to make things here in Wisconsin.
We made machine tools in Milwaukee, cars in Kenosha and ships in Sheboygan. We mined iron in the north and lead in the south. We made cheese, we made brats, we made beer, and we even made napkins to clean up what we spilled. And we made money.
The original war on poverty was a private, mercenary affair. Men like Harnishfeger, Allis, Chalmers, Kohler, Kearney, Trecker, Modine, Case, Mead, Falk, Allen, Bradley, Cutler, Hammer, Bucyrus, Harley, Davidson, Pabst, and Miller lifted millions up from subsistence living to middle class comfort. They did it - not “Fighting Bob” La Follette or any of the politicians who came along later to take the credit and rake a piece of the action through the steepest progressive scheme in the nation.
Those old geezers with the beards cured poverty by putting people to work. Generations of Wisconsinites learned trades and mastered them in the factories, breweries, mills, foundries, and shipyards those capitalists built with their hands. Thousands of small businesses supplied these industrial giants, and tens of thousands of proprietors and professionals provided all of the services that all those other families needed to live well. The wealth got spread around plenty.
The profits generated by our great industrialists funded charities, the arts, education, libraries, museums, parks, and community development associations. Taxes on their profits, property, and payrolls built our schools, roads, bridges, and the safety net that Wisconsin’s progressives are still taking credit for, as if the money came from their council meetings. The offering plates in churches of every denomination were filled with money left over from company paychecks that were made possible because a few bold young men risked it all and got rich. Don’t thank God for them; thank them that you learned about God.
Their wealth pales in comparison to the wealth they created for millions and millions of other Wisconsin families. Those with an appreciation for the immeasurable contributions of Wisconsin’s industrial icons of 1910 will find the list of Wisconsin’s top ten employers of 2010 appalling:
Walmart, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Milwaukee Public Schools, U.S. Postal Service, Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Menards, Marshfield Clinic, Aurora Health Care, City of Milwaukee, and Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs.
This is what a century of progressivism will get you. Wisconsin is the birthplace of the progressive movement, the home of the Socialist Party, the first state to allow public sector unions, the cradle of environmental activism, a liberal fortress walled off against common sense for decades. Their motto, Forward Wisconsin, should be changed to Downward Wisconsin if truth in advertising applies to slogans.
There is no shortage of activists, advocates, and agitators in this State. If government were the answer to our problems, we would have no problems. The very same people – or people just like them – who picketed, struck, sued, taxed, and regulated our great companies out of this state are now complaining about the unemployment and poverty that they have brought upon themselves. They got rid of those old rich white guys and replaced them with…nothing.
Wisconsin ranks 47th in the rate of new business formation. We are one of the worst states for native college graduate exodus; our brightest and most ambitions graduates leave to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Why shouldn’t they? Our tax rates are among the worst in the nation and our business climate, perpetually in the bottom of the rankings, has only recently moved up thanks to a Governor who now faces a recall for his trouble.
In 1970, the new environmental movement joined unions and socialists in a coordinated effort to demonize industry. When I was in college, the ranting against “polluting profiteers” was like white noise – always there. They won, and here is the price of their victory: in 1970, manufacturers paid 18.2% of Wisconsin’s property taxes – the major source of school funding - and in 2010 those who remained paid 3.7%.
So who is it that caused the funding crisis in our schools and the skyrocketing tax rates on our homes? It is the same ignoramuses who are sitting on bridges, pooping on things, and passing around recall petitions. The unemployed 26-year old in the hemp hat looking for sympathy might look instead for some inspiration from Jerome I. Case, who started his agricultural equipment business at the age of 21, miraculously without an iPhone 4s.
Mr. Case got rich by asking people what they want and making it for them. He did not get rich by telling people what he wanted and waiting for them to do something about it. If you want to declare war on your own poverty, memorize that.
In the last decade alone we have lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs in this state – over 25%. And it’s not just jobs that have been lost; the companies that provided them are gone. Those jobs are not coming back, no matter how long we extend unemployment benefits pretending they are. The 450,000 people who still work in manufacturing in Wisconsin are damn good it at, but we are now outnumbered by people who work for government. A significant number of the latter are tasked with taxing, regulating, and generally harassing the former. While it is true that many manufacturers chased low-wage opportunities on their own, many more were driven out of the state by the increasing cost of doing business here.
It is a myth that unions improve wages. If you consider only the 1,000 jobs in a closed shop, you might think an average union wage is, say, $30/hr. But if you add in the zero wages of the 10,000 jobs lost in companies chased out by union harassment, the average of all 11,000 union workers is reduced to $2.72/hr. Do you know the average wage of union iron miners in this state? Zero. And the left is fighting hard to keep it that way in Northern Wisconsin - looking out for the working man, they call it.
It is also a myth that free trade causes job losses. Over the past three years, U.S. manufacturers sold $70 billion more goods to our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners than we bought from them. Conversely, we suffered a $1.3 trillion trade deficit with countries where no FTA’s exist. I doubt that kids are going to learn that in our government-union monopoly schools – it doesn’t fit the narrative.
No one wants to see another person suffer in poverty, and liberty is the best economic policy there is. The great industrialists of Wisconsin took less than a generation to lift millions up to a life of dignity, pride, prosperity and good will. When enterprise was free and government was limited, we all prospered.
Those great men of industry were not anointed at birth to be rich; they rose from nothing to great wealth through their own hard work and the value they added to their employees and their customers through choice, competition, and voluntary exchange. That is the only sure path to real prosperity; the debt economy is a temporary illusion.
Look again at the list of our famous industrialists and the list of our current employers. Who would you wish your child or grandchild to grow up to be? Who do you think will do more good on this earth – Jerome I Case and his tractors, or the Coordinator of Supplier Diversity at MPS.
If you chose MPS, then apply now – that job is open, and it pays up to $72,000 plus benefits and early retirement. Go in peace and save the world. Me, I'm going with the tractor guy.
Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. Visit Tim’s website www.timnerenz.com to find your moment.
Yes this is why I dislike the system of entitlement people want to set up now. The end of the story is that these people were living in these houses at a discounted price as well and after they were burnt down they union minors had to live somewhere so now they went from paying around $50 or $60 a month to $200 in surrounding housing. The moral of the story is that people are morons.
Agree Kings. A fine line between stupidity and ignorance it seems. "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." – Thomas Edison
Its the problem with society. Nobody has the inclination to work and everyone feels entitled.
How so?
Unions say that people without skill get paid the same as someone with skill
Not true in either union I belonged to. Craftsworkers make more than janitors.
What about people that have been with the union for 20 years but can barely do the work as opposed to someone who has been with the union for 1 year and can do the work better than most people?
I'd ask why is it that a worker with 20 yrs on the job can just barely do the work? Is it a lack of desire, a failure to keep up with newer techniques, other motivational factors? The culture of the workplace? Someone on the job for 20 yrs should be out-performing someone only at that same job for 1 yr. I think that in that case there's a pretty big problem going on.
I'll again cite my CBA: Evaluation of minimum performance standards for a worker is covered under a "Rights Of Management" section wherein direction and evaluation of workers is the exclusive right of management. If a worker is under-performing, something called an "Action Plan" is initiated and is in essence a paper trail regarding the performance problem of the individual employee. This is done for record keeping purposes and the employee signs for receipt of corresponence regarding the matter. (This is done in case an ex-employee attempts bringing a wrongful termination suit.) The employee is counciled and advised that his or her work has been determined to be substandard and that improvement needs to be made. If that fails, then unpaid time off is given. If that fails then the employee is discharged. An added benefit of this is that others who may also be underperforming will usually get the message and improve their work habits or come forward to seek additional training.
If the problem of performance is something knowledge based (lacking) then training needs to occur.
Apologies if I've been too narrow concerning this thread's broader topic I merely attempt to bring focus to the fact that there are solutions to the types of specific problems some have cited. Enjoy the rest of your day all!
I'm not saying this is the case every time but I this is the case in some cases. And yes it is a lack of incentive.
In the UAW, management can initiate a disqualification procedure.
It's the corporation that says that.
The concept of any body on the job.
The union asks for better pay for harder jobs.
You have 3 days to learn the job, or you go into the labor pool and designated for a lower paying job.
Where do you hear these things?
Explain this please. Morenci Arizona mine. Union workers burn company houses because they are striking and the mine will not give into their absurd demands. On $32 and hour, the mine wanted to take 50 cents out to pay for health insurance and the Union would not let the miners work. Unions pay people who have worked 20 years but may have little ability to perform the job they are a master in while a person working at a job for a year may be the best there ever was at the job but he will never get paid the same amount.
According to OWS theory, corporations control the government and the government protects unions. Just saying
So, you're a miner?
No sir but there are unions for most anything as far as I can tell. Why do you ask?
You talk like you know a lot about mining.
Not in particular, this is just one incident that I know moderately well.
My grandfather, my uncles and even my father (for a time) worked in the copper mines.
And how does that make you feel darling?
Like you are one of the biggest dumbasses I have ever seen. :D
I'm glad we've got that off your chest. Now I think you just dislike me because I have a different opinion than yours while at the same time I respect yours.
Your not interested in facts, kings. Not at all. You start a thread and you aren't in it for the actual discussion.
When you get to a point that you are ready for actual discussion, let me know.
Lets talk darling.
I'm totally ready for an actual discussion. Jumping in and saying my fathers worked for mines does not tell me anything but pointless shit about your family's life story.
Actually, I brought you the history. But, you knew that if you went that route you would have gotten your dumb ass kicked.
The following indicates that you are in fact a dumbass.
[-] kingscrossection 1 points 1 day ago Not in particular, this is just one incident that I know moderately well.
[-] kingscrossection 1 points 1 day ago I agree that what was happening in the 1900's was total bullshit and that the unions were good for the miners who were treated more or less like slaves. However, that said the unions of today are wrong. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
[-] kingscrossection 1 points 1 day ago Oh the were important. They got the miners of the time put of the shit storm that they were in but they have gone down hill since then.
[-] kingscrossection 1 points 2 hours ago So the underclasses deserve fairness but the upper classes do not?
[-] kingscrossection 1 points 12 hours ago Yes sir. Russia was a great country to live in. I'm sure glad I never had to live through that era. I'm glad the government brainwashed my father so he never wanted to move their either because then I wouldn't be here now. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
[-] kingscrossection 1 points 2 hours ago As I understand it the government needs to control the economy in order for everyone to get paid the same. Socialism and communism ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
Again, when you are ready to deal in the realm of facts, get back to me. Until that point in time............go fuck yourself.
OK.
You started with a false premise.
It's not the unions that want one wage level. It's the corporations.
Unions have to fight this in every contract negotiation.
@ 'kingsXs' : & 'onions' are vegetables - a bit like you {:-p) !!
Unions have lived way past there usefulness. Unions are no different than the corporations that OWS hates so much. The leadership of most unions are 1% who have made there money off the backs of those who are in this movement. Problem is, most in this movement are to blind to see it.
The existance of unions also serves the purpose of creating a desire on the part of companies whose workers are non-union to have them remain so. Unions often incentivize many non-unionized companies to compensate their workers well in order to keep the workers satisfied and less willing to consider voting for union representation.
I kind of agree with this but none of the people know what's going on.
If unions were important,,,, everyone would belong to one.
Oh the were important. They got the miners of the time put of the shit storm that they were in but they have gone down hill since then.
Missed the whole Massey mining disaster did you?
Is Massey Energy a union or a corporation?
Actively anti union, until the disaster.
No union. Now lots of dead people.
The "shit storm" from corporations never stops you know.
IF 'donuts' weren't so important to you ,,,, you would've had a decent moniker !!! {:-p) ...
All unions must go, private, public and federal. They are the disease of America
So how long would it then take for unscrupulous companies to revert to having wages and working conditions deteriorate to sweat shop levels?
Something has to change because we are losing more and more manufacturing jobs all the time. They are going overseas because of the high labor cost and not coming back. Some unionized workers that make good money when they get a raise then the cost of living goes up and the man that makes less suffers every time
Well, I think we should level the "playing field" then.
In another thread I wrote that if our import taxes were incrementally increased over years and brought up to levels in European countries and China (25% roughly) the net effect would be:
1) additional tax revenue costs would be passed on to consumers. If the tax increased by 1.5 to 1.8% per year (as opposed to increasing the tax to 25% all at once) over 8 to 10 years, inflationary effects would be dampened
2) The additional tax money could go toward paying down the federal debt. It would be a de facto federal sales tax. The wealthier a person the more that person would spend for electronics, shoes, clothing, automobiles, etc. Savers could opt out of paying the tax simply by not spending. Domestic consumer goods like food obviously wouldn't be effected, so the "unfairness" to poorer people is lessened greatly. They too, have to eat after all.
3) Over the life of phase-in period the business model changes from one of foreign manufacturing to domestic manufacturing because place of manufacture affects costs of bringing goods to the marketplace. That would create jobs in the US.
I couched this idea the other day with a Republican friend who happens to be a small business owner. He said he'd watched the Republican debate that took place the day before and said that Rick Santorum had proposed a 0 (zero) business tax as an incentive for companies to headquarter in America. I said that I didn't think that it would provide incentive for manufacturing here (we'd both had previosly agreed that a severe lack of manufacturing in the US was a very big problem) but that I'd like to see the numbers before rejecting the idea.
If the US economy continues on it current trajectory companies will lose one of the greatest consumer markets in the world - the US. Then who will these companies sell to? Europe is in dire straights, also.
I'll stop now and save the rest of my take on this friend's thinking for other posts. I've prattled on for long enough. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Lets jus get rid of them
Lets not, and say we did.
Let's get rid of CEOs instead, they are much lazier than any union member.
CEOs are responsible for something/someone. Union workers have little to no incentive to do the work they are supposed to.
CEOs responsible????
Not hardly. Where do you work and what do you make?
CEOs are responsible for their company. Just because you don't like them does not make them lazy or irresponsible for anything
CEOs crash corporations and still make millions doing it.
How is that responsibility?
In my 32 years working at Ford, every single member of management told me they became one because they were lazy and didn't want to actually work for a living.
Every one of them.
Are you sure you aren't misconstruing it as they don't want to work in their 60's? Because that makes sense.
That went for all ages.
Some of the older ones would at least sometimes, dare union reps by doing the occasional potty relief, never on a hard job though.