Hatred of unions

[Quantum Windbag]

The actual quote is above in my original response to your vicious attack on another poster in the clean debate zone. People can read it for themselves; the more gifted may want to click the link to learn how to discover more about Milt.

I did not attack anyone, I attacked the position that poster expressed. If you can't tell the difference feel free to go back to the kiddy boards.

Bottom line on Friedman: he was all over the map on everything but monetary policy, and his position depended precisely on who was writing the checks. Friedman was a for-fee thinker/publisher whose views on unions changed in the latter part of the 1970s after he sold voice to Reagan's crowd. No question about it.

I see the problem, you see intellectual consistency as being all over the map. could that be because your position is actually dependent on the PC position instead of you thinking for yourself?

Friedman consistently argued for the good of the many over the good of the individual, which is why I don't particlaularly like his philosophy, but that is no reason for me to pretend he said something other than what he said.

Last but not least, my posts are factual. Facts are by law not attacks.

Your posts are opinions. You might try to base your opinion on facts, but you clearly have failed.

For example, your claim that, by law, facts are not attacks. What law are you referring to? In a debate facts used to counter someone else are an attack, and no law I am aware of nullifies that.

Meanwhile you called another poster a liar and belittled her post in the clean debate zone, then accused me of attacking you which did not happen (entire post above). The rest of the crowd can determine who is, uh, windbagging it thirteen to the dozen and who has Friedman dialed in.

Feel free to report my post to the mods if you actually think it was an attack, and are not simply trying to circumvent the rules of the CDZ in order to attack me.

 

[AmazonTania]

Thanks for cleaning up the posts.

Let's put this into perspective. If you privatize the entire education system you end up destroying the very foundation that this nation was built upon. Jefferson understood that an educated populace was essential to the very freedoms and liberty this nation holds most dear.

That's great, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this requires public education. In fact, I have no problem with public education at all. The problem is when the public education has a government granted monopoly and the employees (teachers) are unionised, which doesn't help anyone. There essential is no incentive for improvement, as the great teachers are lumped together with the average and below average teachers.

Do you know why teachers became unionized in the first place? Here is a high level synopsis. In order to save costs school districts hired women at lower salaries during the 1900's because they were paid less than their male counterparts. Since they couldn't vote they formed unions to protect themselves. They were instrumental in women's suffrage too so the right of women to cast a vote is in part due to unions. Secondly teachers are paid less than people with equivalent degrees in the private sector.

Modern teachers of today have different goals than their predecessors. It may have started due to lower pay and less suffrage, but things have changed. In many places where the monopoly is stronger (New York, California, Chicago, etc) as opposed to teachers in South Dakota, North Carolina, Florida, etc.

Thirdly there are incentives for improvement within the teaching profession itself. Another factor that is very often ignored is class size. Trying to maintain order and teach in a class of 20 children is far easier than it is with 40.

I don't think this is true. We often hear that smaller class sizes are better, as they provide for a more personal learning environment, but other nations have perform better with much larger class sizes. I don't believe it has much to do with the class size, although sometimes it does.

Even the very best teacher becomes a baby sitter when they have to spend half the period just taking attendance and collecting homework assignments. So when evaluating the performance of a teacher it is not as simple as just looking at how many kids passed vs failed. Would your own job performance suffer if you were expected to do 4 or 5 times the work for the same pay? Note: the number of interactions is an exponential factor of the number of children.

So you don't believe there should be some sort of set standard? If no, how do you determine whether or not your students are doing well or doing poorly?

Bingo! So let's deal with that problem rather than demonizing the entire teachers union.

But this is the problem. The teachers union oppose school choice and vouchers. Charter schools are simply the same as public schools, but are not forced to abide by the same rules and contracts as normal public schools. You have claimed that privatised education will only result in an educated ruling elite, but this isn't any different from how Public Schools operate. You go where you are zoned, and that is final. The ones who can afford to move for the education of their children will be better off. The ones who will be stuck are the poor among us. The only escape for them is a small chance in winning a lottery for a Charter School.

If they children have a choice to attend the school of their choice, the unions doesn't have a government granted monopoly.

The charter school model has proven to be no more successful than the public schools in terms of results achieved. This is because the problem is not the teachers or their union.

Most charter schools already do outperform those of their public school counter-parts. Many parents even lie about their addresses to get their children to attend these schools.

Benefits like vacation pay, hours worked and sick time were only mandated into law because of unions.

They're not mandated into law. Plenty of employers already don't offer these things. But the point is they shouldn't have to. If you want these benefits, you should have to prove it with the work you have provided.

Compete for what exactly? Where is the competition in education? Can you teach more facts in a given time? Can you teach children how to learn faster? Is there a better way to focus their attention and make them concentrate on the subject matter? Children are individuals and while most are well behaved there is always a joker in every classroom and they will jump at any opportunity to "change the channel" in a manner of speaking. So let's have some concrete suggestions on what constitutes competition is a classroom.

I'm not talking about competition in the classroom, but a school competing with another school in the basis of the quality of education, type of learning environment, extra-curricular activities, safety, etc. It's not just for just how well you learn.

Now that we agree that the current system is broken what are our alternatives? This thread is about unions so let's start there. Should all unions be outlawed here in the USA? Do you believe that will solve all of our present economic woes?

You are approaching this from the point of view that teachers would improve if there was competition. Well there is and it is called charter schools. The problem is that while they pay their teachers less they don't get any better results. What does this tell us?

They often do get better results from what I usually read. The only sources I have read which claims Carter Schools are usually no better are the sources which supports public education. But this has to be looked at by a state by state, or individual, basis as Carter Schools are able to run their school however they want. There are good Carter Schools and there are Bad Carter Schools, but the general key is to offer a choice. Public Schools can become better if they didn't have a monopoly, just as any other entity in the marketplace. Not because they want to, but because they have to in order to keep market-share.

 

[The Rabbi]

If anyone hate unions then they must hate freedom, the free market and the working class.

There are people in unions that have done bad things but there are people in every walk of life that have done bad things. That wouldn't be a reason for hating humanity would it?

I must hate freedom.
Can you explain how it is freedom to force someone to join a union as a condition of work? Is it freedom to force employers to hire only certain kinds of people and not others? Is it freedom to set wages across the board regardless of individual merit? Is it freedom for an employer not to be able to fire an incompetent employee?
The answers are self explanatory.
Unions are the opposite of freedom. They are the opposite of capitalism. They are all about coercion. And they need to die.

Freedom to assemble.
Freedom to associate.
Freedom to negotiate contracts. (including exclusive supply of labor contracts and how terminations are handled)

Unions dont do any of those things. But nice try.

 

[Eric Cartman]

I must hate freedom.
Can you explain how it is freedom to force someone to join a union as a condition of work? Is it freedom to force employers to hire only certain kinds of people and not others? Is it freedom to set wages across the board regardless of individual merit? Is it freedom for an employer not to be able to fire an incompetent employee?
The answers are self explanatory.
Unions are the opposite of freedom. They are the opposite of capitalism. They are all about coercion. And they need to die.

Freedom to assemble.
Freedom to associate.
Freedom to negotiate contracts. (including exclusive supply of labor contracts and how terminations are handled)

Unions dont do any of those things. But nice try.

It amazes me that even though the 'to big to fail' crony capitalist corporations have almost eliminated private sector unions, they have still managed to convince many that unions are the problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

Freedom to assemble.
Freedom to associate.
Freedom to negotiate contracts. (including exclusive supply of labor contracts and how terminations are handled)

Unions dont do any of those things. But nice try.

It amazes me that even though the 'to big to fail' crony capitalist corporations have almost eliminated private sector unions, they have still managed to convince many that unions are the problem.

Huh?

 

[Eric Cartman]

Unions dont do any of those things. But nice try.

It amazes me that even though the 'to big to fail' crony capitalist corporations have almost eliminated private sector unions, they have still managed to convince many that unions are the problem.

Huh?

You have won, it is time to celebrate, private sector unions will be all but gone soon. Big corporations will rule with no opposition.

 

[The Rabbi]

It amazes me that even though the 'to big to fail' crony capitalist corporations have almost eliminated private sector unions, they have still managed to convince many that unions are the problem.

Huh?

You have won, it is time to celebrate, private sector unions will be all but gone soon. Big corporations will rule with no opposition.
]

Actually workers win when unions shrink. Recall that workers need to vote to unionize. And unions have consistently lost such votes.
Gee, kinda blows your theory to bits, doesn't it?

 

[Eric Cartman]

Huh?

You have won, it is time to celebrate, private sector unions will be all but gone soon. Big corporations will rule with no opposition.
]

Actually workers win when unions shrink. Recall that workers need to vote to unionize. And unions have consistently lost such votes.
Gee, kinda blows your theory to bits, doesn't it?

The reason for the decline is all well documented but far be it for me to try to convince you differently than your corporate masters have taught you.

 

[martybegan]

Why the hatred for unions from the right wing? This is a fairly recent attitude in our history from what I can remember. I remember working in non union shops in Texas in the 60's as a welder and the old timers advised me to try to get in a union if I wanted to make good money. Now unions are called communists by the right wingers. If those words were used back in the 50's and 60's there would have been problems. I believed any number of union men back then including my uncles who were also vets of WW2 would have knocked someone's block off for talking like that. After all, the corporations have their unions (job protection). It's called most politicians in their pocket and also the U.S. Supreme court. How ridiculous can it get that Exxon can be a citizen? Never dies, can break up into dozens of holding companies and live in different countries to beat paying taxes, never get drafted, never go to jail, and yet a union worker or teacher receives nothing but scorn? I wonder if the great generation would now say "Yes, this is what we fought for"?

There are different kinds of Unions all with unique strengths, weaknesses, and interests. It is just as much a mistake for you to lump them all in together as it is for the Anti-Union crowd. How would you compare a Public Sector Union to a Construction Union? My Wife works fr NYC, my Son is an Iron Worker. I try to not hold it against them. Seriously, you need to look at the specific trends and allegiances, and the relations there with doing just, both failures and successes.

This.

Construction Unions take care of thier workers by handling benefits, providing training, and providing the industry with pools of qualified labor. They key provision is that the construction companies pay a FLAT RATE for the benefits per hour worked, and the union handles the pension, the medical insurance, and all the other items.

This provides cost certainty to the construction industry. What you have with public sector unions and alot of private manufacturing/service unions is the COMPANY handles the insurances, and the pensions. With pensions you get cost uncertainty, which is the reason compaines are switching to 401k's in droves.

The main issue I have with public sector unions is they seem to be run by, and run for the protection of, the weakest employees in the union.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have won, it is time to celebrate, private sector unions will be all but gone soon. Big corporations will rule with no opposition.
]

Actually workers win when unions shrink. Recall that workers need to vote to unionize. And unions have consistently lost such votes.
Gee, kinda blows your theory to bits, doesn't it?

The reason for the decline is all well documented but far be it for me to try to convince you differently than your corporate masters have taught you.

Translation: Darn, I didnt think of that.

 

[MeBelle]

Public unions are suffocating the city I live in and are not educating my child.

My youngest will be attending private school starting next year.

Attempting to work with the public unionized school district has failed.
My child was falling through the cracks. Why? Because she wasn't a trouble maker or stood out in a negative way. The unionized school district's response after three years of having to fight for an education for my child was "We'll give her less homework." WTH is that? As parents we did all the 'right' things. Hired a tutor for two years, paid for private summer school for two years and had her tested.


AmazonTania is totally correct when she talks about the dollars that are attached to the children. Public unionized schools only care about 'getting theirs'. Their salary, their health insurance, their paid vacation. their lifetime pensions and other tax payer paid benefits.
The 'It's for the children' tax hikes is BS.

There was one teacher who was finally fired after YEARS of complaints from parents. Last year at work she actually wore a T-shirt that said "Union Thug". WTH is that? I have two friends who are on the school board, one who has children in the same grade as mine. He understood exactly what was happening with this teacher. If he hadn't intervened on my child's behalf, my child would still be in limbo.

Private unions, I don't really give a fig about.

/rant

 

[MeBelle]

It amazes me that even though the 'to big to fail' crony capitalist corporations have almost eliminated private sector unions, they have still managed to convince many that unions are the problem.

Tell that to Hostess.

 

[The Rabbi]

It amazes me that even though the 'to big to fail' crony capitalist corporations have almost eliminated private sector unions, they have still managed to convince many that unions are the problem.

Tell that to Hostess.

Facts to liberals is like garlic to vampires.

 

[Eric Cartman]

It amazes me that even though the 'to big to fail' crony capitalist corporations have almost eliminated private sector unions, they have still managed to convince many that unions are the problem.

Tell that to Hostess.

Wow. Thousands of non-union business go under every year, who do you blame for those?

Hostess failed because:

1 Their sales were tanking.
2 Management agreed to overly generous labor contracts (based on the current market).
3 Several strategic mistakes from management.

The unions did agree to give up 110 million a year in compensation. I doubt any of their other suppliers were willing up as much.

I am sure that any company will have a better chance of survival if their workers agree to work for low wages. Go tell your boss you want a pay cut.

 

[asterism]

If unions were as good as their paid salesmen say they are there would be no need for them to be mandatory. Actions like strikes in solidarity with another union, selective enforcement of public disturbances and assaults, intimidation, and hiring non-union paid protesters undermine the public trust.

Unions are on the decline in every state that allows membership to be optional. That's not worker representation, it's racketeering.

 

[PaulS1950]

In most of the union shops I was in no one was forced to join the union. we had several non-union employees. They were not elligable for the union retirement but they got all the other benefits.

oh, it is as easy to fire a union employee as it is to fire anyone. All you need to do is to warn them - notice #1, written warning for another similar error - notice #2, and written firing for another similar infraction. 3 strikes and you're out.

It is more difficult to fire a union employee without cause but only because the backing of the union will re-instate his/her job with back pay for the time away as well as the vacation and sick leave he/she would have earned. In a non-union shop all the employee gets for being fired without cause is unemployment.

 

[jasonnfree]

Other countries that outperform our schools have unions. Japan, Finland, Germany for example. Germany has a thriving manufacturing base and they're more unionized than we are. Of course they don't send all their business to china either. America is the most productive country still, but the working class hasn't taken part in the payback for productivity. Unions traditionally helped workers wages keep up with inflation. Wages have been flat since at least the 80's. Thank reagan for that. This animosity towards unions and goverment started with reagan. "'I'm here from the government and I'm here to help", the nine hated words, and the public bought this stuff hook line and sinker. Reagan also had practice in selling stuff on tv some of you oldsters might remember and people trusted this representative of the very wealthy and corporations.

 

[The Rabbi]

Other countries that outperform our schools have unions. Japan, Finland, Germany for example. Germany has a thriving manufacturing base and they're more unionized than we are. Of course they don't send all their business to china either. America is the most productive country still, but the working class hasn't taken part in the payback for productivity. Unions traditionally helped workers wages keep up with inflation. Wages have been flat since at least the 80's. Thank reagan for that. This animosity towards unions and goverment started with reagan. "'I'm here from the government and I'm here to help", the nine hated words, and the public bought this stuff hook line and sinker. Reagan also had practice in selling stuff on tv some of you oldsters might remember and people trusted this representative of the very wealthy and corporations.

Germans drink more beer than we do. Japanese eat more fish. Maybe that's the reason they do so well?

 

[asterism]

Other countries that outperform our schools have unions. Japan, Finland, Germany for example. Germany has a thriving manufacturing base and they're more unionized than we are. Of course they don't send all their business to china either. America is the most productive country still, but the working class hasn't taken part in the payback for productivity. Unions traditionally helped workers wages keep up with inflation. Wages have been flat since at least the 80's. Thank reagan for that. This animosity towards unions and goverment started with reagan. "'I'm here from the government and I'm here to help", the nine hated words, and the public bought this stuff hook line and sinker. Reagan also had practice in selling stuff on tv some of you oldsters might remember and people trusted this representative of the very wealthy and corporations.

The animosity for unions did not start with Reagan. Unions have been destroying their own premise since they adopted the thug practices of intimidation, corruption, and bribing government lackeys. They have further destroyed their own premise by taking an automatic adversarial stance against the owners and managers of companies they work with.

 

[Nosmo King]

In the 1930s and especially after WWII in the 1950s, the big boogey man the Right loved to smack around were communists and socialists. With the advent of "Free trade" the supply siders (Reagan foremost among them) turned on trade unions.

Seems that union labor would not have the appetite to outsource work, shutter plants and take the profits from cheap foreign labor.

Back in the 30s, the communists were essentially the only group advocating for the common man. Then trade unions took the banner and the middle class thrived. That vibrant middle class made the customer base for all the products produced by big corporations.

Today, the greed that is essentially the grease of Capitalism sees the middle class as expendable. Too costly to maintain. A drain on the share of profits that should be going to the board room and not distributed on kitchen tables all across America.

Are right wingers complicit in the demise of the middle class? Absolutely. Is this demise something that will benefit the country in the long run? Absolutely. But long run thinking is something Capitalists do not do. Not when there are bonus checks to pick up right now.