Support for Unions Plunges to All Time Low

The man is more tone deaf to the mood of the nation then Bush ever was, he belives all he has to do is go back on the campaign trail and all will be rosey again.

When survey data shows that public approval of your plan jumps by 30 points when they're told what is in it, yeah, I'd say it's mostly a sales issue.


Survey Data?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJO0zDdrAUQ]YouTube - Funny Family Feud Clip[/ame]

WTF? Funny, but as I was watching that, I thought maybe it was in Glenn Beck's repertoire of how to fake being overly emotional.
 
If you think they don't hold the whip hand in negotiations right now you're either blind or stupid. granted these days they are mostly negotiating with gutless politicians instead of company management teams but still...

Don't mind him - you are completely correct.

In the late 1990s I was a ranking member of one the largest unions in the country. The corruption within the union power structure is appalling. They are, as you stated, an extension of Big Government...

Good grief, you've been so many things, it's hard to keep track. Last time you mentioned your resume, you were a teacher and something else before that. Have you also been a butcher, a baker and a candle-stick maker?
 
Nope, he is merely informing you that the reality is that any company competing in the world market will quickly find it damn hard to make a profit if they have to pay you ten time what their competition pay their workers, plus deal with all the various federal, state, and local rules and regulations, not a few of which are mutually incompatible and some of which may be all but impossible at current technological capabilities.

In other words, let's hear it for cheap labor and zero benefits but just keep slogging along and filling the pockets of your CEO who makes more money in an hour than some poor schmuck does in a year. And after your whining, don't forget to gimme my bonuses too!! At least you gotta job!!
 
I have a better idea maggie let's do what we can to create as many jobs as possible, make it easier to change jobs when you get a better offer and let the law of supply and demand do for labor what it has done for everything else. We've got a population collapse coming in about 40 years according to a UN fertility study. Those young enough and able to perform skilled labor will be sitting in the cat bird seat if we play our cards right. If we follow the plans of this current administration we will almost certain be still looking at a job shortage except concerning government jobs.
 
I have a better idea maggie let's do what we can to create as many jobs as possible, make it easier to change jobs when you get a better offer and let the law of supply and demand do for labor what it has done for everything else. We've got a population collapse coming in about 40 years according to a UN fertility study. Those young enough and able to perform skilled labor will be sitting in the cat bird seat if we play our cards right. If we follow the plans of this current administration we will almost certain be still looking at a job shortage except concerning government jobs.

You mean like it was in the 90's?? It used to be we had an employER demand for workers, thus competition for the best candidates, thus better pay and benefits at every end of the pay scale, and a huge incentive for people to improve their qualifications. I've really never been able to pinpoint exactly why that all changed. Probably, like everything else, it crept upon us slowly until it was too late to do anything about it.

As for the future of the work force, unskilled labor will continue to be at the bottom rung of service industries. But I don't think a college degree will be a requirement for mid-level management (it shouldn't anyway).

What I worry most about is a whole generation of young people who are not getting basic educations. If they can't spell, they can't read. If they can't even do that, they can't follow basic math or science textbooks which, to my knowledge, are not yet printed in one-letter/one-syllable text-speak. Yet they are passed into the next grade level anyway and go on to graduate high school. With exceptions, of course, that will eventually mean that industry will have to settle for mediocre or below, with a job force elevated to top of the class stature by default.
 
Moving jobs offshore happens here as well. But the jobs that are going offshore are low-skill jobs in the main. This was identified some years ago by a previous federal government here which saw a need to improve job skills in many areas so that the average worker (I know, a malleable concept but it will have to do for now) was more skilled than the average worker in those countries which were attractive to companies who wanted to move production because of lower labour costs.

Now it wasn't unions that forced companies to go offshore. Wage rates had been agreed and set. But companies saw they could increase profit by lowering production costs and moved offshore. As has been pointed out in this thread, one way to stop that would have been to lower wages to par or below those in the competing countries. But that would mean, if it were generalised across the economy, people working for a pittance. It wouldn't work. The minimum wage here is $543.78 per week at the moment and I have no doubt that's higher than many countries that were offering low wage costs to companies deciding whether or not to move.

My point is that lowering wages to those of other countries with a generally lower standard of living would damage our country after a time. So the solution of lowering wages was rejected. The alternative approach was to "upskill" our workforce and create better-paying, more highly skilled jobs that could stay here.

There's more than one solution to a problem, you just have to think about it a while.
 
If you think they don't hold the whip hand in negotiations right now you're either blind or stupid. granted these days they are mostly negotiating with gutless politicians instead of company management teams but still...

Don't mind him - you are completely correct.

In the late 1990s I was a ranking member of one the largest unions in the country. The corruption within the union power structure is appalling. They are, as you stated, an extension of Big Government...

Good grief, you've been so many things, it's hard to keep track. Last time you mentioned your resume, you were a teacher and something else before that. Have you also been a butcher, a baker and a candle-stick maker?


Yes, I have been a professor - among other things.

I guess that is one thing the president and I have in common....
 
Don't mind him - you are completely correct.

In the late 1990s I was a ranking member of one the largest unions in the country. The corruption within the union power structure is appalling. They are, as you stated, an extension of Big Government...

Good grief, you've been so many things, it's hard to keep track. Last time you mentioned your resume, you were a teacher and something else before that. Have you also been a butcher, a baker and a candle-stick maker?


Yes, I have been a professor - among other things.

I guess that is one thing the president and I have in common....

Jack of all trades--nothing wrong with that. I have a female friend who is an accountant by day and a car mechanic by night. She'll never be without a job, but she was once on welfare. Someday I'll tell the story.
 
Moving jobs offshore happens here as well. But the jobs that are going offshore are low-skill jobs in the main. This was identified some years ago by a previous federal government here which saw a need to improve job skills in many areas so that the average worker (I know, a malleable concept but it will have to do for now) was more skilled than the average worker in those countries which were attractive to companies who wanted to move production because of lower labour costs.

Now it wasn't unions that forced companies to go offshore. Wage rates had been agreed and set. But companies saw they could increase profit by lowering production costs and moved offshore. As has been pointed out in this thread, one way to stop that would have been to lower wages to par or below those in the competing countries. But that would mean, if it were generalised across the economy, people working for a pittance. It wouldn't work. The minimum wage here is $543.78 per week at the moment and I have no doubt that's higher than many countries that were offering low wage costs to companies deciding whether or not to move.

My point is that lowering wages to those of other countries with a generally lower standard of living would damage our country after a time. So the solution of lowering wages was rejected. The alternative approach was to "upskill" our workforce and create better-paying, more highly skilled jobs that could stay here.

There's more than one solution to a problem, you just have to think about it a while.

Who paid for the upskill? The companies or the government?
 
If the demand is there the companies will willing provide the training. I became a machinist through on the job training after I gave up being a school teacher.
 
He was all fired up before a friendly audience, just as BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH used to be when he was out promoting his stay the course crap to an all-military audience. But I can understand why you could only take a few minutes if you hate Obama in the first place; many couldn't stand to listen to George W. Bush mangle the English language either.

You can always tell when an Obama supporter is worried, they attempt to bring Bush into it.

Bush isn't president sweethart, and unlike you and your Dem friends, i opposed his dumb ass for 8 years, not gave in to his stupid shit as they did time and time again.

Care to try again princess?
 
On Labor Day, support for unions plunges to all-time low
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/07/09 8:42 AM EDT


This Labor Day brings word of a new Gallup poll showing that American public support for labor unions has taken a sharp dive in the last year and is at its lowest point since Gallup began polling in 1936.

In response to the question, "Do you approve or disapprove of labor unions?" just 48 percent of respondents said they approve, while 45 percent said they disapprove. That's a steep fall from August 2008, when the numbers were 59 percent approve, 31 percent disapprove, and it's the first time approval of unions has ever fallen below 50 percent.

Broken down by political party, Gallup found support for unions has fallen the most among critically-important independent voters. Last year, 63 percent of independents said they approved of unions. Now, just 44 percent say the same thing. Among Republicans, 29 percent support unions, versus 38 percent last year. Only among Democrats does union support remain strong, although it, too, has fallen: 66 percent support today, versus 72 percent support a year ago.


On Labor Day, support for unions plunges to all-time low | Washington Examiner

Funny. So we're supposed to distrust the government that's supposedly accountable to the people, yet more and more, Americans are willing to throw their faith to management that will only answer to the dollar.
 
Moving jobs offshore happens here as well. But the jobs that are going offshore are low-skill jobs in the main. This was identified some years ago by a previous federal government here which saw a need to improve job skills in many areas so that the average worker (I know, a malleable concept but it will have to do for now) was more skilled than the average worker in those countries which were attractive to companies who wanted to move production because of lower labour costs.

Now it wasn't unions that forced companies to go offshore. Wage rates had been agreed and set. But companies saw they could increase profit by lowering production costs and moved offshore. As has been pointed out in this thread, one way to stop that would have been to lower wages to par or below those in the competing countries. But that would mean, if it were generalised across the economy, people working for a pittance. It wouldn't work. The minimum wage here is $543.78 per week at the moment and I have no doubt that's higher than many countries that were offering low wage costs to companies deciding whether or not to move.

My point is that lowering wages to those of other countries with a generally lower standard of living would damage our country after a time. So the solution of lowering wages was rejected. The alternative approach was to "upskill" our workforce and create better-paying, more highly skilled jobs that could stay here.

There's more than one solution to a problem, you just have to think about it a while.

Who paid for the upskill? The companies or the government?

Government provided funding, the companies provided personnel off the shop floor, it was pretty much a joint effort and the unions gave it strong support even though some might have lost members due to coverage issues. I don't know if you have the same in the US but here we have strong demarcations between trades unions, coverage is very much a legal issue (I know some cops are represented by the Teamsters in the US for example, that sort of thing cannot happen here due to the laws.)
 
He was all fired up before a friendly audience, just as BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH used to be when he was out promoting his stay the course crap to an all-military audience. But I can understand why you could only take a few minutes if you hate Obama in the first place; many couldn't stand to listen to George W. Bush mangle the English language either.

You can always tell when an Obama supporter is worried, they attempt to bring Bush into it.

Bush isn't president sweethart, and unlike you and your Dem friends, i opposed his dumb ass for 8 years, not gave in to his stupid shit as they did time and time again.

Care to try again princess?

However you people attempt to ignore it, the Bush Administration set many policies that will exist for decades. To suggest that nobody should mention those last 8 years is ignorant of present day reality. Plus, I don't believe you weren't a supporter. If that were true, you wouldn't go to his defense by saying that his name should never be mentioned.
 
Name one, maggie.

Di get back to me when the government especially the bureaucracy truly is accountable to the people.
 
gary - from my observations at least your (federal) government is far more open, transparent and accountable than is our federal government and that observation is without partisan shading. But as long as the party running the show steps down when they're elected out of office and don't try to hold on by cheating or force I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest they are in fact accountable. I'd trust a democratically elected government over a corporation any day.
 
Trouble I the people running things on a day to day basis are the bureaucrats not the Pols. And I trust bureaucrats, of which this country has far too many both in the private and in the public sector, about as far as I can throw your whole durn country.
 
Given our country is about the same size as the continental United States but only has about 21m as opposed to 310m or going up (and we have about the same proportion of over-proportioned individuals) then you can probably throw ours further than yours.

But anyway. Bureaucrats are interesting people. I've found them to be be principled and rule-driven rather than unprincipled and driven by greed. I've also found them to be people of good conscience rather than corporate sociopaths. I've dealt with many over the years, from the heads of department, ministerial advisers and other bigwigs right down to the person in the front office and on the whole found I could trust them. I've even known them to expose corrupt politicians, sometimes at the expense of their own interests.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top