Service employees union uses threats, censorship to spike health care debate

But we all know as soon as labor IS management, it's game over, right comrade?

And, even when labor has ownership handed to them on a silver platter, they don't want it.

Chief says UAW will sell its Chrysler stock - Autos- msnbc.com

When said laborers vote on a referendum that rejects full employee ownership and direct democratic management of the company granted without any compulsive elements or side effects, by all means, I'll happily hand you your trophy. Until then...not so much. ;)
 
But we all know as soon as labor IS management, it's game over, right comrade?

And, even when labor has ownership handed to them on a silver platter, they don't want it.

Chief says UAW will sell its Chrysler stock - Autos- msnbc.com

When said laborers vote on a referendum that rejects full employee ownership and direct democratic management of the company granted without any compulsive elements or side effects, by all means, I'll happily hand you your trophy. Until then...not so much. ;)

But this does not happen in real life. Big labor has vast financial resources. They don't buy ownership stakes in corporations with it. Who are you trying to kid?

They spend their money on political action. And that's not a bad thing, but it's what they do. Without friction with management, their entire reason for being is gone. How long before they figure out as owners they can't just vote themselves raises? That's a dream world.

They are entitled in "direct democratic management" if they buy into the companies. And most collective bargaining agreements in large public and private unions are tantamount to management decisions, anyway, since management does things it might not otherwise based on union contracts. What else do they want?
 
But this does not happen in real life. Big labor has vast financial resources. They don't buy ownership stakes in corporations with it. Who are you trying to kid?

They spend their money on political action. And that's not a bad thing, but it's what they do. Without friction with management, their entire reason for being is gone. How long before they figure out as owners they can't just vote themselves raises? That's a dream world.

They are entitled in "direct democratic management" if they buy into the companies. And most collective bargaining agreements in large public and private unions are tantamount to management decisions, anyway, since management does things it might not otherwise based on union contracts. What else do they want?

You're ignoring a critically obvious factor: market and wealth concentration. This is able to undercut the power of the working class, which is significant, because the financial class obviously does not have an interest in financing institutions that would bring about far more equity in profit whilst simultaneously surpassing the efficiency of the conventional capitalist firm. Meanwhile, their private control of the means of production permits them to consolidate both wealth and effectively authoritarian power, thus preventing workers from obtaining the resources and capital to finance the creation of independent worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives. Jaroslav Vanek states the point exceedingly well in an interview.

If you go to a bank and ask for a loan to start a co-op, they will throw you out. Co-ops in the West are a bit like sea water fish in a freshwater pond. The capitalist world in the last 200 years has evolved its own institutions, instruments, political frameworks etc. There is no guarantee that another species could function if it had to depend on the same institutions. In capitalism, the power is embedded in the shares of common stock, a voting share. This has no meaning in economic democracy. Economic democracy needs its own institutions for one simple reason. Workers are not rich. Let's face it, most working people in the world today are either poor or unemployed. They do not have the necessary capital to finance democratic enterprises.

Moreover, the existence of more established capitalist firms, along with their access to an exceedingly greater amount of capital and resources, plays a role in preventing the development of worker-owned enterprises, regardless of the ability of the latter to utilize their own resources more efficiently (and effectively), than the capitalist firm. The role of inequivalent access to productive resources and financial capital prevents the worker-owned enterprises from engaging in fair competition with capitalist firms. For instance, this letter of John Stuart Mill makes the point well:

Sir, I beg to enclose a subscription of [10 pounds] to aid, as far as such a sum can do it, in the struggle which the Co-operative Plate-Lock Makers of Wolverhampton are maintaining against unfair competition on the part of the masters in the trade. Against fair competition I have no desire to shield them. Co-operative production carried on by persons whose hearts are in the cause, and who are capable of the energy and self-denial always necessary in its early stages, ought to be able to hold its ground against private establishments and persons who have not those qualities had better not attempt it.

But to carry on business at a loss in order to ruin competitors is not fair competition. In such a contest, if prolonged, the competitors who have the smallest means, though they may have every other element of success, must necessarily be crushed through no fault of their own. Having the strongest sympathy with your vigorous attempt to make head against what in such a case may justly be called the tyranny of capital, I beg you to send me a dozen copies of your printed appeal, to assist me in making the case known to such persons as it may interest in your favour.

This simply scores to illustrate Vanek's point that "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market." The consolidation of the private ownership of the means of production by the financial class prevents fair market competition and maximization of efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Oh, do tell how the UAW gave no "power" to the working class in the long and tragic history of American automobile manufacturing.

When the "financial class" at GM and Chrysler was still making profit, those autoworkers still had jobs. How do those pinhead statist writers you cite explain that?

What crap. You have exactly the system those marxists are advocating. Government control of GM and Chrysler, is above all else, deferential to labor. It's crashing badly.

Man up and admit it.
 
Oh, do tell how the UAW gave no "power" to the working class in the long and tragic history of American automobile manufacturing.

When the "financial class" at GM and Chrysler was still making profit, those autoworkers still had jobs. How do those pinhead statist writers you cite explain that?

What crap. You have exactly the system those marxists are advocating. Government control of GM and Chrysler, is above all else, deferential to labor. It's crashing badly.

Man up and admit it.

To clarify...did you just call John Stuart Mill a "pinhead statist writer"? :rofl:

Incidentally, neither Mill nor Jaroslav Vanek is a Marxist, nor am I. Mill would probably be best described as a socialist sympathizer who didn't think its implementation feasible in Europe, Vanek as a market socialist and a supporter of Economic Democracy, and myself as an anarcho-communist. All three of us are decidedly more libertarian and anti-statist than you are, particularly considering the role of the state as an integral agent in the capitalist economy.

And for the record, no, government control (which isn't a legitimate reality, for that matter), is not a sufficient condition for socialism. Only legitimate collective ownership and management passes the test, and as an anarchist and a libertarian, I'd be among the first to identify the government as an obstacle to legitimate public management.
 
Oh, you mean the UAW never dreamed that government would be like the house guest that never goes home at the end of all this? What a shame. What were they thinking?

I have a trophy for you if you can tell me when and where the system your little author friends write glowingly about (because everything works on paper) has ever succeeded.
 
Union strength is not where it could be, and though it can't compare with workers' ownership (see the work of Karl Ove Moene for insight on that), the increased power of unions is obviously far preferable to the increased power of the financial class. As was aptly put to me, "there is insufficient attention to the 'efficient bargain' (where workers are able to secure a greater share of economic rents by increasing wages and employment levels)."

Marxism in action folks..

I was hoping to ignore the typical asinine economic remarks, but that one really is too much. :rofl:

ROFLMNAO...

"Worker Ownership"...

The fact is that there's absolutely nothing stopping any collective of workers that are so inclined from making an offer and buying into ownership... except the workers desire to BE OWNERS and bear the responsibility of ownership.

I personally love the idea of 'worker ownership'... as such is the means by which I have patterned nearly my entire adult life. As a working owner of several enterprises...

My experience with such, having made numerous offers to my workers has been rejected, on the basis that the worker just wants to collect their paycheck and avoid the liabilities inherent in ownsership.

Now what Aggrevated Prostate is talking about is NOT workers 'buying into' ownership and taking on the RISKS associated with such; she is speaking of the ethereal THEORY wherein workers are GIVEN "Ownership' and bear absolutely NO MORE LIABILITY for such that what they bear as a lowly 'worker'... It's a pipe dream, a fantasy where RIGHTS are just RIGHTS and bring with them NO RESPONSIBILITY to burden the entitlement.

It's called 'having your cake and eating it too...' and it's never been known to exist in the history of the species.
 
Oh, you mean the UAW never dreamed that government would be like the house guest that never goes home at the end of all this? What a shame. What were they thinking?

I wasn't aware that this was passed through UAW referendum. Is that the case?

I have a trophy for you if you can tell me when and where the system your little author friends write glowingly about (because everything works on paper) has ever succeeded.

Thank you for that kind proposition. It just so happens that I commented on this about three minutes ago...but repetition's fine with me, and while you're providing one of your trademark insightful answers, I'll be watching Chris Wallace. ;)

I'd refer to the Spanish Revolution --- that is, the social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War. As noted by Gaston Leval:

In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

It is estimated that eight to ten million people were directly or indirectly affected by the Spanish anarchist collectives. Leval has estimated 1,700 agrarian collectives, with 400 for Aragon, (although other estimates have been above 500), 900 for Levant, 300 for Castile , 30 for Estremadura, 40 for Catalonia, and an unknown number for Andalusia. He estimates that all industries and transportation were collectivized in the urban areas of Catalonia, (and indeed, 75% of all of Catalonia was estimated to have been collectivized in some way), 70% of all industries in Levant, and an unknown percentage in Castile.

The victories and social and economic benefits promoted in the Spanish Revolution through the implementation of libertarian socialist ideals, such as the establishment of syndicalism, voluntary association, and workers self-management strongly suggests that anarchist and libertarian socialist theories and practices are of a practical nature.

Other broadly successful examples of libertarian socialism include the Paris Commune, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Zapatista municipalities of Chiapas, the Israeli kibbutzim (which I saw ignored earlier in this thread), etc. Successes of democratic socialism may be found in the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela, as well as through microeconomic analysis into the superior efficiency of worker-owned enterprises, since although they obviously do not and cannot constitute socialism by themselves, such data can be extrapolated to a prospective socialist economy.

There are other examples that can be referred to, such as Cuba and Titoist Yugoslavia, though I'm personally not of the opinion that they exemplify the libertarian social values that ought to be a critical component of any socialist revolution and political and economic order.

Regardless, it is undeniable that socialism has been been implemented successfully in the past, and empirical evidence has borne out the superior efficiency of participatory, collective management. Laissez-faire capitalism, on the other hand, has never been successfully implemented, and the shoddy forms of capitalism that exist cannot claim the same efficiency record as socialism, to say nothing of their deleterious social consequences.
 
Pubicus, my friend, you'll have to wait until later in the day for me to deal with your inanity. That said, I'm honored to have merited inclusion into your signature yet again. :)
 
Pubicus, my friend, you'll have to wait until later in the day for me to deal with your inanity. That said, I'm honored to have merited inclusion into your signature yet again. :)

LOL... Take your time halfwit.

All you're going to do is spew spurious theories which draw specious conclusions and reject the numerous failures of a centuries worth of the experiments which hoped to demonstrate the viability of such; and instead demonstrated the futility of ignoring human nature.

Which is all ya ever do...

With regard to the sig... you earned it; as did your idiot comrades.
 
Nobody is advocating laissez-faire capitalism. Has not capitalism been regulated in the US for most of its recent existence? It created the preeminant economic system of the world. The envy of everywhere.

Those little test tube totalitarian/socialist states only worked for a while because they had superpower hosts propping them up.
 
Sure, that is why over 95% of the Canadians approve of their system.

Actually it's about half of Canadians that approve of the system. Less than half of British. US is also slightly lower than half:

Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada

Annie, that amounts to outright dissassembling on your part. Here is what that site actualy says

Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada

One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied).This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).
 
Oh, you mean the UAW never dreamed that government would be like the house guest that never goes home at the end of all this? What a shame. What were they thinking?

I wasn't aware that this was passed through UAW referendum. Is that the case?

I have a trophy for you if you can tell me when and where the system your little author friends write glowingly about (because everything works on paper) has ever succeeded.

Thank you for that kind proposition. It just so happens that I commented on this about three minutes ago...but repetition's fine with me, and while you're providing one of your trademark insightful answers, I'll be watching Chris Wallace. ;)

I'd refer to the Spanish Revolution --- that is, the social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War. As noted by Gaston Leval:

In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

It is estimated that eight to ten million people were directly or indirectly affected by the Spanish anarchist collectives. Leval has estimated 1,700 agrarian collectives, with 400 for Aragon, (although other estimates have been above 500), 900 for Levant, 300 for Castile , 30 for Estremadura, 40 for Catalonia, and an unknown number for Andalusia. He estimates that all industries and transportation were collectivized in the urban areas of Catalonia, (and indeed, 75% of all of Catalonia was estimated to have been collectivized in some way), 70% of all industries in Levant, and an unknown percentage in Castile.

The victories and social and economic benefits promoted in the Spanish Revolution through the implementation of libertarian socialist ideals, such as the establishment of syndicalism, voluntary association, and workers self-management strongly suggests that anarchist and libertarian socialist theories and practices are of a practical nature.

Other broadly successful examples of libertarian socialism include the Paris Commune, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Zapatista municipalities of Chiapas, the Israeli kibbutzim (which I saw ignored earlier in this thread), etc. Successes of democratic socialism may be found in the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela, as well as through microeconomic analysis into the superior efficiency of worker-owned enterprises, since although they obviously do not and cannot constitute socialism by themselves, such data can be extrapolated to a prospective socialist economy.

There are other examples that can be referred to, such as Cuba and Titoist Yugoslavia, though I'm personally not of the opinion that they exemplify the libertarian social values that ought to be a critical component of any socialist revolution and political and economic order.

Regardless, it is undeniable that socialism has been been implemented successfully in the past, and empirical evidence has borne out the superior efficiency of participatory, collective management. Laissez-faire capitalism, on the other hand, has never been successfully implemented, and the shoddy forms of capitalism that exist cannot claim the same efficiency record as socialism, to say nothing of their deleterious social consequences.


ROFLMNAO... and as has been incessantly pointed out, EACH one of these examples are TINY micro-cultures... each one voluntary and NO ONE that I've EVER encountered in my 49 years CONTESTS this form of community.

Thus, what you're driving at through the advancement of these examples is known ONLY TO YOU; as such is not a point of contest, by anyone and in no way is forbidden or even discouraged in the US.

Which begs the question: WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
 
Cost of Canadian Health Care


10. This all sounds great — but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn’t the system in bad financial shape?
False. On one hand, our annual Canadian tax bite runs about 10% higher than our U.S. taxes did. On the other, we’re not paying out the equivalent of two new car payments every month to keep the family insured here. When you balance out the difference, we’re actually money ahead. When you factor in the greatly increased social stability that follows when everybody’s getting their necessary health care, the impact on our quality of life becomes even more signficant.

And True — but only because this is a universal truth that we need to make our peace with. Yes, the provincial plans are always struggling. So is every single publicly-funded health care system in the world, including the VA and Medicare. There’s always tension between what the users of the system want, and what the taxpayers are willing to pay. The balance of power ebbs and flows between them; but no matter where it lies at any given moment, at least one of the pair is always going to be at least somewhat unhappy.

But, as many of us know all too well, there’s also constant tension between what patients want and what private insurers are willing to pay. At least when it’s in government hands, we can demand some accountability. And my experience in Canada has convinced me that this accountability is what makes all the difference between the two systems.

It is true that Canada’s system is not the same as the U.S. system. It’s designed to deliver a somewhat different product, to a population that has somewhat different expectations. But the end result is that the vast majority of Canadians get the vast majority of what they need the vast majority of the time. It’ll be a good day when when Americans can hold their heads high and proudly make that same declaration.

Next week: More mythbusting on common conservative canards about efficiency, innovation, and competitiveness.
10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted | Physicians for a National Health Program
 
Rationing of Health Care in Canada

8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
False. And bogglingly so. The papers would have a field day if there was the barest hint that this might be true.

One of the things that constantly amazes me here is how well-cared-for the elderly and disabled you see on the streets here are. No, these people are not being thrown out on the curb. In fact, they live longer, healthier, and more productive lives because they’re getting a constant level of care that ensures small things get treated before they become big problems.

The health care system also makes it easier on their caregiving adult children, who have more time to look in on Mom and take her on outings because they aren’t working 60-hour weeks trying to hold onto a job that gives them insurance.
10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted | Physicians for a National Health Program
 
When Americans wake up and realize government is going to make their health care decisions, this will lose.

God willing, there are people with money out there to get that message across.
 
Rationing of Health Care in Canada

8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
False. And bogglingly so. The papers would have a field day if there was the barest hint that this might be true.

One of the things that constantly amazes me here is how well-cared-for the elderly and disabled you see on the streets here are. No, these people are not being thrown out on the curb. In fact, they live longer, healthier, and more productive lives because they’re getting a constant level of care that ensures small things get treated before they become big problems.

The health care system also makes it easier on their caregiving adult children, who have more time to look in on Mom and take her on outings because they aren’t working 60-hour weeks trying to hold onto a job that gives them insurance.
10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted | Physicians for a National Health Program

We have that system here in California, and it's broke babe. The socialists have run out of other people's money to spend.
 
You have to wait forever for a surgical procedure in Canada.

3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again — it depends on which province you live in, and what’s wrong with you. Canada’s health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don’t plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that’s just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who’d consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country’s health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland’s grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada’s third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country’s newspapers, it’s a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it’s on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it’s certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it’s far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I’m finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It’s the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.
10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted | Physicians for a National Health Program
 
Rationing of Health Care in Canada

8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
False. And bogglingly so. The papers would have a field day if there was the barest hint that this might be true.

One of the things that constantly amazes me here is how well-cared-for the elderly and disabled you see on the streets here are. No, these people are not being thrown out on the curb. In fact, they live longer, healthier, and more productive lives because they’re getting a constant level of care that ensures small things get treated before they become big problems.

The health care system also makes it easier on their caregiving adult children, who have more time to look in on Mom and take her on outings because they aren’t working 60-hour weeks trying to hold onto a job that gives them insurance.
10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted | Physicians for a National Health Program

We have that system here in California, and it's broke babe. The socialists have run out of other people's money to spend.

Canada has a balanced budget and a falling National Debt. So how do they manage that and still take good care of their citizens? Maybe we should look at making our system of government a lot more like theirs?
American national debt vs. Canadian national debt | NowPublic News Coverage


American national debt vs. Canadian national debt
Share: by Bender_420 | December 8, 2005 at 11:27 am
81174 views | 5 Recommendations | 76 comments
OK, so i had a few minutes to kill this morning and decided to look at North American debt levels per citizen.

The Current national debt owed by the USA is well over 8 TRILLION dollars, approximatly $8,128,207,427,249 and RISING. But don't take my word for it, check out the constantly updated and award winning USA Debt Clock.

So, with the current USA population at about 295,734,134, a quick division tells me this works out to $27,484 USD for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Of course, by the time you read this it'll probably be over $27,500 per capita...

In comparison, Canada's national debt is a "mere" $805 billionish (or $690,726,990,157 USD), AND FALLING. Keep in mind that we have a much smaller population, sitting at around 32,805,041, so our per capita debt load, coverted at today's exchange rate of $1 CAD = $0.863408 USD is around $21,055 USD/Canadian, and, thankfully, falling.

Holy crap am i ever happy we Canadians decided not to throw hundreds of billions of dollars into this latest war...
 

Forum List

Back
Top