Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I really wish I could say the same about you. I'm just glad you're not arguing for my side.
this us v them bit is a union shtick whipped out when they face any competition for non-members or businesses which employ non-members. am i wrong?because unions =/= the american worker. the evolution of their labor rights and wages have been independent from the rest of ours, and have been achieved at the expense of the cost-benefit of american workers on average. by boxing out our labor market from some of the industries suffering the most in a deindustrializing developed economy, unions have been overrepresented in the extent which they can be implicated in the failure of american labor to compete with foreign labor markets.
i dont buy the labor union co-opt of wider-american worker's rights. i see it more as a hijack.
It's too bad you see it as an "us versus them" point of view. You stated a lot in your short reply but I'll try and address a couple of your points.
this is precisely where history and your understanding of american labor dont line up. union provisions to their labor are afforded by union's rights and protections (legislated independently) and in turn by the unions taking industrial action though those protections to reinforce their position in contract negotiations.The evolution of labor rights have been enjoyed by union and non-union alike. Things like minimum wage, overtime, worker comp laws, social security, unemployment, etc. are all products of union support. And if you enjoy any or all of those things you can thank a union.
The question is...should workers have the right to negotiate collectively rather than as individuals? Unions, or the threat of unions keep management from singling out individual workers.
Unions have been instrumental in obtaining fair labor practices, safety and fair wages. In booming economic times, unions have too much power......in a recession, they do not have enough
Workers should always have the right to negotiate collectively. After all, management does by default. The best negotiations producing the best outcome for both sides are those where the two sides have relatively equal power.
The problem with unions is not the idea behind them, it's the leadership and the nationalized institution. They hit the point a lot of movements do, where most of their initial goals were satisfied and they were left with the choice of where to go next. Some movements at that point fade, which to some extent has happened with the labor movement as membership declines. Some start playing defense of their existing gains. Some find new avenues to promote their cause, which to some extent unions have done but this has also often translated into overreach. But their biggest problem IMO is that the leadership has looked for ways to justify their continued status rather than ways to continue the goals of the movement. There's an institutional disconnect between leadership and membership, and that's where the problems come in.
Going back to smaller, networked local groups rather than a nationalized umbrella would be a start to correcting the institutionalized problems, as well as a back to basics approach with getting the members more involved in actual negotiations. A better defensive game plan is in order too, there are still abuses that happen out there and many go unaddressed by the labor movement in general if they aren't paying members. If they are serious about regaining credibility, it can't be pay to play.
The reason they had to combine resources is to fight the compaies in the political arena that are trying to turn back the clock on workers rights.
Union workers aren't overpaid unless you accept the premise that America is a nation in decline and one of the aspects of that decline is that Americans will now generally have to work harder and longer for less than previous generations did.
Union workers aren't overpaid unless you believe that they were always overpaid. If you believe that the union factory and mill and plant and transportation workers of 1950's were overpaid, then you believe that a workingman's wage of that era that was able to support a family, buy a home, buy the necessities and some degree of luxury, without BOTH spouses working,
was too high a wage. Well, I guess the anti-union people can be happy now, because the ability to raise a family on one paycheck is a far rarer privilege in this country than it was in the past.
The question is, why are you happy about that?
I don't have to accept your premise to know that a union worker with a 10th grade education who put the same bolt in the same spot on the same general frame for 30 years isn't worth $75K in salary and benefits and that person certainly isn't worth $40K per year for the rest of his life when he stops working. But that's what we've got down here, millions of workers who still get paid for jobs they don't even do anymore. And I'm not talking about annuities where they contributed their whole lives and now draw on it, I'm talking about pension benefits that were negotiated after they left but in exchange for their support they got their own windfalls.
My neighbor retired from his assembly line job in 1984 at 46. He immediately began drawing a pension of $20K per year (40% of his last salary). Since then he has received every cost of living increase, every increase from renegotiated benefit calculations and now draws over $50K per year. This guy worked the same job for 30 years, a job he got when he dropped out of high school when he was 16. He was never a supervisor, never had to learn anything new, never had to do anything different - he put the engine mounts on the frame. He has been compensated over $1.5 Million for that one role that took no education and no special skills.
My neighbor doesn't get paid now for value he adds to the company, but he is still a cost to the company. Paying people for anything but the value they provide the company is unsustainable.
The only thing your neighbor did was take advantage of a benefit that was bargained for him. If it is "unsustainable" from a company point of view they should never had agreed to it.
I will say that the old "30 and out" retirement plans are becoming dinosaurs. Most (if not nearly all) are either an 85 point plan or 60 years old (with reduced pensions at 55) with at least 10 years of service.
Workers should always have the right to negotiate collectively. After all, management does by default. The best negotiations producing the best outcome for both sides are those where the two sides have relatively equal power.
The problem with unions is not the idea behind them, it's the leadership and the nationalized institution. They hit the point a lot of movements do, where most of their initial goals were satisfied and they were left with the choice of where to go next. Some movements at that point fade, which to some extent has happened with the labor movement as membership declines. Some start playing defense of their existing gains. Some find new avenues to promote their cause, which to some extent unions have done but this has also often translated into overreach. But their biggest problem IMO is that the leadership has looked for ways to justify their continued status rather than ways to continue the goals of the movement. There's an institutional disconnect between leadership and membership, and that's where the problems come in.
Going back to smaller, networked local groups rather than a nationalized umbrella would be a start to correcting the institutionalized problems, as well as a back to basics approach with getting the members more involved in actual negotiations. A better defensive game plan is in order too, there are still abuses that happen out there and many go unaddressed by the labor movement in general if they aren't paying members. If they are serious about regaining credibility, it can't be pay to play.
First a cause, then a business, then a racket.
No....it's still a cause.
With 22 states being "Right To Work" why is it a "racket"?
Let's explore this a bit.....
I really wish I could say the same about you. I'm just glad you're not arguing for my side.
So you condemn corporate exploitation, but gladly line up for union exploitation.
Remind me again...why is it you think you're intelligent?
I really wish I could say the same about you. I'm just glad you're not arguing for my side.
So you condemn corporate exploitation, but gladly line up for union exploitation.
Remind me again...why is it you think you're intelligent?
this us v them bit is a union shtick whipped out when they face any competition for non-members or businesses which employ non-members. am i wrong?because unions =/= the american worker. the evolution of their labor rights and wages have been independent from the rest of ours, and have been achieved at the expense of the cost-benefit of american workers on average. by boxing out our labor market from some of the industries suffering the most in a deindustrializing developed economy, unions have been overrepresented in the extent which they can be implicated in the failure of american labor to compete with foreign labor markets.
i dont buy the labor union co-opt of wider-american worker's rights. i see it more as a hijack.
It's too bad you see it as an "us versus them" point of view. You stated a lot in your short reply but I'll try and address a couple of your points.
this is precisely where history and your understanding of american labor dont line up. union provisions to their labor are afforded by union's rights and protections (legislated independently) and in turn by the unions taking industrial action though those protections to reinforce their position in contract negotiations.The evolution of labor rights have been enjoyed by union and non-union alike. Things like minimum wage, overtime, worker comp laws, social security, unemployment, etc. are all products of union support. And if you enjoy any or all of those things you can thank a union.
the history of american labor is established by requirements legislated severally and independently from any of those which empowered unions. around the turn of the 20th century, legislators at the state and federal level began to pursue labor standards limiting work weeks and curtailing child labor. by the progressive era, the FLSA, which has nothing to do with unions whatsoever, established the minimum wage and overtime. unions which had the capacity to force employers to pay certain rates through strikes or the threat thereof had no interest to be gleaned through supporting such laws which actually worked against the competitive advantage of org. labor.
social security was just the same; unions were often able to negotiate pensions from the employers contracting their staff, whereas SS was such a pension for all americans and was made law independent of unions.
no thanks is due to unions for any of these legislations. that is the disingenuous argument raised by union folks which does not jive with american history. this is the co-opting i'm talking about.
where, o where is the link between unions, SS and the FLSA?
I really wish I could say the same about you. I'm just glad you're not arguing for my side.
So you condemn corporate exploitation, but gladly line up for union exploitation.
Remind me again...why is it you think you're intelligent?
Union exploitation?
What, you mean better pay, benefits, and working conditions?
If that's exploitation, I'll take all they can give out.
So you condemn corporate exploitation, but gladly line up for union exploitation.
Remind me again...why is it you think you're intelligent?
Union exploitation?
What, you mean better pay, benefits, and working conditions?
If that's exploitation, I'll take all they can give out.
I honestly believe that many non-union workers are jealous of the wages and benefits that union represented workers get. All they want to do is drag others down to their level.
Workers should always have the right to negotiate collectively. After all, management does by default. The best negotiations producing the best outcome for both sides are those where the two sides have relatively equal power.
The problem with unions is not the idea behind them, it's the leadership and the nationalized institution. They hit the point a lot of movements do, where most of their initial goals were satisfied and they were left with the choice of where to go next. Some movements at that point fade, which to some extent has happened with the labor movement as membership declines. Some start playing defense of their existing gains. Some find new avenues to promote their cause, which to some extent unions have done but this has also often translated into overreach. But their biggest problem IMO is that the leadership has looked for ways to justify their continued status rather than ways to continue the goals of the movement. There's an institutional disconnect between leadership and membership, and that's where the problems come in.
Going back to smaller, networked local groups rather than a nationalized umbrella would be a start to correcting the institutionalized problems, as well as a back to basics approach with getting the members more involved in actual negotiations. A better defensive game plan is in order too, there are still abuses that happen out there and many go unaddressed by the labor movement in general if they aren't paying members. If they are serious about regaining credibility, it can't be pay to play.
The reason they had to combine resources is to fight the compaies in the political arena that are trying to turn back the clock on workers rights.
I don't have to accept your premise to know that a union worker with a 10th grade education who put the same bolt in the same spot on the same general frame for 30 years isn't worth $75K in salary and benefits and that person certainly isn't worth $40K per year for the rest of his life when he stops working. But that's what we've got down here, millions of workers who still get paid for jobs they don't even do anymore. And I'm not talking about annuities where they contributed their whole lives and now draw on it, I'm talking about pension benefits that were negotiated after they left but in exchange for their support they got their own windfalls.
My neighbor retired from his assembly line job in 1984 at 46. He immediately began drawing a pension of $20K per year (40% of his last salary). Since then he has received every cost of living increase, every increase from renegotiated benefit calculations and now draws over $50K per year. This guy worked the same job for 30 years, a job he got when he dropped out of high school when he was 16. He was never a supervisor, never had to learn anything new, never had to do anything different - he put the engine mounts on the frame. He has been compensated over $1.5 Million for that one role that took no education and no special skills.
My neighbor doesn't get paid now for value he adds to the company, but he is still a cost to the company. Paying people for anything but the value they provide the company is unsustainable.
The only thing your neighbor did was take advantage of a benefit that was bargained for him. If it is "unsustainable" from a company point of view they should never had agreed to it.
I will say that the old "30 and out" retirement plans are becoming dinosaurs. Most (if not nearly all) are either an 85 point plan or 60 years old (with reduced pensions at 55) with at least 10 years of service.
While I agree that the company never should have agreed to it, it was also grossly dishonest for the union to even put such a situation on the table in the first place. I have always been told unions were there to protect workers and not just do whatever they could get away with. See, that's the problem.
Now stay out of my shop.
Union exploitation?
What, you mean better pay, benefits, and working conditions?
If that's exploitation, I'll take all they can give out.
I honestly believe that many non-union workers are jealous of the wages and benefits that union represented workers get. All they want to do is drag others down to their level.
Either that, or they're too stupid to figure out that the Labor Movement raised everyone's standard of living and virtually created the middle class as we know it.
this is precisely where history and your understanding of american labor dont line up. union provisions to their labor are afforded by union's rights and protections (legislated independently) and in turn by the unions taking industrial action though those protections to reinforce their position in contract negotiations.
the history of american labor is established by requirements legislated severally and independently from any of those which empowered unions. around the turn of the 20th century, legislators at the state and federal level began to pursue labor standards limiting work weeks and curtailing child labor. by the progressive era, the FLSA, which has nothing to do with unions whatsoever, established the minimum wage and overtime. unions which had the capacity to force employers to pay certain rates through strikes or the threat thereof had no interest to be gleaned through supporting such laws which actually worked against the competitive advantage of org. labor.
social security was just the same; unions were often able to negotiate pensions from the employers contracting their staff, whereas SS was such a pension for all americans and was made law independent of unions.
no thanks is due to unions for any of these legislations. that is the disingenuous argument raised by union folks which does not jive with american history. this is the co-opting i'm talking about.
where, o where is the link between unions, SS and the FLSA?
Here is your link. This has to be the 3rd or 4th time I posted it.
American Rights at Work
this is precisely where history and your understanding of american labor dont line up. union provisions to their labor are afforded by union's rights and protections (legislated independently) and in turn by the unions taking industrial action though those protections to reinforce their position in contract negotiations.
the history of american labor is established by requirements legislated severally and independently from any of those which empowered unions. around the turn of the 20th century, legislators at the state and federal level began to pursue labor standards limiting work weeks and curtailing child labor. by the progressive era, the FLSA, which has nothing to do with unions whatsoever, established the minimum wage and overtime. unions which had the capacity to force employers to pay certain rates through strikes or the threat thereof had no interest to be gleaned through supporting such laws which actually worked against the competitive advantage of org. labor.
social security was just the same; unions were often able to negotiate pensions from the employers contracting their staff, whereas SS was such a pension for all americans and was made law independent of unions.
no thanks is due to unions for any of these legislations. that is the disingenuous argument raised by union folks which does not jive with american history. this is the co-opting i'm talking about.
where, o where is the link between unions, SS and the FLSA?
Here is your link. This has to be the 3rd or 4th time I posted it.
American Rights at Work
what an immense fail this response is. you've put forward a website which strokes unions on how well they treat their members. the claim that unions were 'crucial' in the passage of legislation is not supported. that's been my point this whole time: that unions have claimed credit for actions they are not directly implicated in.
So you condemn corporate exploitation, but gladly line up for union exploitation.
Remind me again...why is it you think you're intelligent?
Union exploitation?
What, you mean better pay, benefits, and working conditions?
If that's exploitation, I'll take all they can give out.
I honestly believe that many non-union workers are jealous of the wages and benefits that union represented workers get. All they want to do is drag others down to their level.
Union exploitation?
What, you mean better pay, benefits, and working conditions?
If that's exploitation, I'll take all they can give out.
I honestly believe that many non-union workers are jealous of the wages and benefits that union represented workers get. All they want to do is drag others down to their level.
Either that, or they're too stupid to figure out that the Labor Movement raised everyone's standard of living and virtually created the middle class as we know it.
Union workers aren't overpaid unless you accept the premise that America is a nation in decline and one of the aspects of that decline is that Americans will now generally have to work harder and longer for less than previous generations did.
Union workers aren't overpaid unless you believe that they were always overpaid. If you believe that the union factory and mill and plant and transportation workers of 1950's were overpaid, then you believe that a workingman's wage of that era that was able to support a family, buy a home, buy the necessities and some degree of luxury, without BOTH spouses working,
was too high a wage. Well, I guess the anti-union people can be happy now, because the ability to raise a family on one paycheck is a far rarer privilege in this country than it was in the past.
The question is, why are you happy about that?
because unions =/= the american worker. the evolution of their labor rights and wages have been independent from the rest of ours, and have been achieved at the expense of the cost-benefit of american workers on average. by boxing out our labor market from some of the industries suffering the most in a deindustrializing developed economy, unions have been overrepresented in the extent which they can be implicated in the failure of american labor to compete with foreign labor markets.
i dont buy the labor union co-opt of wider-american worker's rights. i see it more as a hijack.
