[NGTM-1R]

True. But they are the ones who actually do so, whereas the unions do not.

[aldo_14]

Because the unions use stuff like strike ballots or go slow days?

[Thorn]

God damnit. I thought you were talking about the NHL CBA.

[SadisticSid]

Unions have always represented this romanticised notion of the under-represented working classes against their faceless fat cat masters, but as ngtm1r points out they've long outlived their usefulness in today's labour market. The fact that so many jobs are on offer - to the point of abject stupidity through subsidisation under Labour in the UK - makes them even more redundant than in the days of their inception.

If a job doesn't satisfy you, and you're not getting a good enough return on the time you put in, then quit and do something else rather than make a loss. It's a market, after all; there're no ties to hold you down.

[Rictor]

Yeah, it's a pity hockey's back. Canada was getting to be such a nice place lately.

*runs*

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Frankly, it's about time.

Unions have for a long time now served no discernible purpose; the actual workers-rights things have been upheld or expanded by litigation by small groups or individuals.

The basic problem with unions (and a few civil rights organizations) is that they were created for a specific purpose, and they have long since outlived it. Once they secured what was intially sought, they had to keep getting more wages, more benefits, more vacation time, whatever, to justify their existence. But it can't go on forever. There has to be a limit. That limit has been arrived at and perhaps passed.

Well, why shouldn't wages continuallly increase? Quality of life is meant to improve or stay the same over time, and as I understand it that's hasn't been the case lately.

Whatever problems the unions may have, and I fully admit they do have problems, reform is the answer. The reason why unions originally came into existance is still in play, it will be in play for a long time yet. If unions are gotten rid of, it will almost certainly trigger a backslide in worker's right. The AFL-CIO is too big and too corrupt, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of unions.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


And reduced worker rights.......

You are making an assumption that the two are mutually exclusive. The absence of unions make it easier for businesses to cope with change and react in such ways as layoffs. But at the same time they can turn around and hire different workers with greater ease as well. It is also easy to fire workers for incompetence without unions as well. Do I see these as infractions of workers rights, in a word: no.  Now you might ask me what do I consider workers rights? well alright in short

• The right not to be discriminated against on grounds of race or sex. Of course this swings both ways and means you shouldn't recieve favoritism because of your race or sex.
• The Right to a safe and hospitable work enviroment
• The Right to not be sexually harassed both in terms of a hostile work enviroment and a Quid Quo Pro. And this isn't limited to just women, men can be sexually harased and so can homosexuals. And this includes harasment from customers.
• The Right to a fair wage and paid overtime according to the federal standard or the standard in the respective state.
• Your employer is required to allow you to leave the premises to vote in elections.
• There are more right not mentioned here

This is a condensed list basically. Currently there are laws inplace to prevent workers abuse and the fines and punitive damages are quite severe.

Now I should also mention that there are Employers right and the employee has obligation and requirements as well.

As per litigation, it is expensive but, the gov't sometimes will do it for you. Also the jury rewards sometimes are up in the millions of dollars so they can easily cover the costs of a class action lawsuit.

@ Kosh - There is not way that I want conditions in a work place to degrade to the point of say Atlanta, George Textile Mills or conditions in Industrialized Cities in Russian prior to the Revolutions there. However, the loss of unions I don't think will cause a relapse in "workers rights."

[Ford Prefect]

Gotta love that good old-fashioned American egalitarianism: "Strikes are bad because they hurt the bottom line. Be happy with your minimum wage pay."

[redmenace]

Don't like it work some where else, or better yet get an education.

[Kosh]

This is a condensed list basically. Currently there are laws inplace to prevent workers abuse and the fines and punitive damages are quite severe.

Laws can be changed by politicians and politicians can be bought.

Don't like it work some where else, or better yet get an education.

Maybe they work there because they can't work somewhere else and can't afford a college education.

[redmenace]

in this day and age most can get an education at state run school. Only time when this might be impossible, is if they have to support a family.

and as for politicians, they can bought off by unions as well. And if they are, as I said before, people can unionize again.

[Kosh]

in this day and age most can get an education at state run school. Only time when this might be impossible, is if they have to support a family.

Considering how few job opportunities there are for people who have a high school diploma, I don't see how getting one will help much.

and as for politicians, they can bought off by unions as well. And if they are, as I said before, people can unionize again

Better than a corperation like Enron buying off the politicians.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Kosh


Considering how few job opportunities there are for people who have a high school diploma, I don't see how getting one will help much.
I meant College diploma.


Better than a corperation like Enron buying off the politicians.
Corruption is corruption regaurdless who it involves. just because one group decides to buy off politicians for their purposes doesn't make them any more right than the other. Enron was just looking after its shareholders and interests. Soooo really, who is any better. Unless you have this over glorified and romantic idea of the Blue Collar Worker. Or are we just highlighting class warfare? See I am convinced that some people that want to speak so glowingly of unions have an ingrained bais against the upper class or Corporations. As for enron, of good it did them huh?

[Kosh]

I meant College diploma.

College is hideously expensive, and it is getting worse. With the federal government cutting back Pell Grants and Perkins loans, a lot of poor people are getting screwed over.

Corruption is corruption regaurdless who it involves. just because one group decides to buy off politicians for their purposes doesn't make them any more right than the other.

True. I suppose it is the lesser of 2 evils (it just depends on who is more evil to you). Still, whoever wins, we lose.

See I am convinced that some people that want to speak so glowingly of unions have an ingrained bais against the upper class or Corporations.

Maybe because the upper class or corperations have a LONG history of ****ing everyone else over. "some people" have good historical reasons not to trust the upper class or corperations.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Kosh
College is hideously expensive, and it is getting worse. With the federal government cutting back Pell Grants and Perkins loans, a lot of poor people are getting screwed over.
depends of your state. GMU in virginia is 3500 a semester. A economy apartment on campus is 2500. Stafford loans and grants can cover that. I also recieve $5000 from the great state of virginia. So it all depends. There are resources for poorer individual to go to college.
True. I suppose it is the lesser of 2 evils (it just depends on who is more evil to you). Still, whoever wins, we lose.

Maybe because the upper class or corperations have a LONG history of ****ing everyone else over. "some people" have good historical reasons not to trust the upper class or corperations.
Corporation bring us many goods and services that make the quality of life better. Now in response we use a progressive tax system to then punish success? There is class warfare and each side has totally ingrained into their heads that they are right. Each side pretty much looks after its self using one means or another. When everything is said and done is any of this real progress? but for the record there are bad rich people and there are bad proletariat. The French Revolution is the primary example. In reality it is a historical viscious cycle.

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Rictor

Well, why shouldn't wages continuallly increase? Quality of life is meant to improve or stay the same over time, and as I understand it that's hasn't been the case lately.

Whatever problems the unions may have, and I fully admit they do have problems, reform is the answer. The reason why unions originally came into existance is still in play, it will be in play for a long time yet. If unions are gotten rid of, it will almost certainly trigger a backslide in worker's right. The AFL-CIO is too big and too corrupt, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of unions.

There is continual increase, and then there is continual increase. Non-unionized workers get pay increases too, you realize. To justify their existence the unions must do better. But better is not always sane. The steel industry is ****ed because the unions pushed them too far and they could no longer stay competitive. So the steelworkers are out of their jobs now thanks to the people who are supposed to protect them.

The reason unions came into existence is NOT in play. They were formed to obtain legal protections for the workers; those protections were obtained. To allow backslide as you seem to think would happen would be tantamount to political suicide. Politicians can be bought. But you can't spend money if you're dead. Perhaps that's pitching it a bit high, but few people willingly toss their careers into the toilet and then pull the handle. Somebody in the media would notice. Word would get out. People would vote for the guy with the platform of getting workers' rights back. It just sounds good, doesn't it?

The unions no longer fight for workers' rights. The fight for benefits. They have been fighting for them so long that they have ultimately pushed business to the wall. There's not much more left to give, if anything. That's what happened to the US steel industry. That's why the automotive industry teeters on the edge. And that's what happened to the airlines' safety net.

[Zarax]

Progressive taxation is a staple of the micro and macro economical theory, what you do is not punishing the success since you still have more money than who is paid less to you but this way it ensures that the surplus is actually used instead of being piled in inefficent uses.

This thing that progressive taxation is unfair to the rich (oh, the irony) and the successful (how unfair to pile up money) is pure propaganda.

Go on, put back proportional taxatation, sooner or later you'll get to inverse progressiveness because "you have to encourage the success" meanwhile those at the bottom gets screwed more and more...

Just hope that it won't be too late when you rediscover that accumulation is the worst way to use money by far, otherwise next thing you will get is a communist government brought by social unrest.

Like all economical theories capitalism produces monsters when someone tries to use it at the purest form and you are already welcoming social darwinism.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by ngtm1r


There is continual increase, and then there is continual increase. Non-unionized workers get pay increases too, you realize. To justify their existence the unions must do better. But better is not always sane. The steel industry is ****ed because the unions pushed them too far and they could no longer stay competitive. So the steelworkers are out of their jobs now thanks to the people who are supposed to protect them.

The reason unions came into existence is NOT in play. They were formed to obtain legal protections for the workers; those protections were obtained. To allow backslide as you seem to think would happen would be tantamount to political suicide. Politicians can be bought. But you can't spend money if you're dead. Perhaps that's pitching it a bit high, but few people willingly toss their careers into the toilet and then pull the handle. Somebody in the media would notice. Word would get out. People would vote for the guy with the platform of getting workers' rights back. It just sounds good, doesn't it?

The unions no longer fight for workers' rights. The fight for benefits. They have been fighting for them so long that they have ultimately pushed business to the wall. There's not much more left to give, if anything. That's what happened to the US steel industry. That's why the automotive industry teeters on the edge. And that's what happened to the airlines' safety net.

Sure, I'll just remember you that the most cost efficent way is to get to the same salary of the lowest paid globally plus the cost of transport. This way you reach maximum competitive efficency because you cannot be undercut through costs.

Anyways in the US the legal system can replace the unions without problems, you can start a lawsuit if you don't like something, no matter how futile your motives are.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
You are making an assumption that the two are mutually exclusive. The absence of unions make it easier for businesses to cope with change and react in such ways as layoffs. But at the same time they can turn around and hire different workers with greater ease as well. It is also easy to fire workers for incompetence without unions as well. Do I see these as infractions of workers rights, in a word: no.  Now you might ask me what do I consider workers rights? well alright in short

• The right not to be discriminated against on grounds of race or sex. Of course this swings both ways and means you shouldn't recieve favoritism because of your race or sex.
• The Right to a safe and hospitable work enviroment
• The Right to not be sexually harassed both in terms of a hostile work enviroment and a Quid Quo Pro. And this isn't limited to just women, men can be sexually harased and so can homosexuals. And this includes harasment from customers.
• The Right to a fair wage and paid overtime according to the federal standard or the standard in the respective state.
• Your employer is required to allow you to leave the premises to vote in elections.
• There are more right not mentioned here

This is a condensed list basically. Currently there are laws inplace to prevent workers abuse and the fines and punitive damages are quite severe.

Now I should also mention that there are Employers right and the employee has obligation and requirements as well.

As per litigation, it is expensive but, the gov't sometimes will do it for you. Also the jury rewards sometimes are up in the millions of dollars so they can easily cover the costs of a class action lawsuit.

@ Kosh - There is not way that I want conditions in a work place to degrade to the point of say Atlanta, George Textile Mills or conditions in Industrialized Cities in Russian prior to the Revolutions there. However, the loss of unions I don't think will cause a relapse in "workers rights." [/B]

Workets rights cost money.  Businesses aim to reduce losses and increase gains.  Thus, businesses have a vested interest in reducing workers rights where possible; something which is easier in unskilled professions where there is a large pool of labour and not much training expenditure.

Specifically; [q]The Right to a fair wage and paid overtime according to the federal standard or the standard in the respective state.[/q]

Now, I'm not saying you don't get unions asking for stupid money, because you do.  But you also get companies offering a different kind of stupid money, if they can get away with it (again coming back to unskilled labour in particular).  Which is fair?

[Kosh]

Corporation bring us many goods and services that make the quality of life better

How does dumping PCB's, mercury, lead, and a bunch of other toxic crap into the water system make quality of life better? Granted not all corperations do that, but more than enough have done that in my state to make the Willamete (the main river, however the hell it is spelled) a nice Superfund site.

Now in response we use a progressive tax system to then punish success?

Progressive tax systems do not punish their success, it makes sure that they give something back to the system that permitted them to be successful. Besides, there are so many loopholes in the tax code that corperations hardly pay taxes anyway. Here is my favorite example: Portland General Electric. A couple of years ago it paid a whopping $5 for a full years worth of income taxes, despite making millions of dollars in revenues.

There is class warfare

Your right, and the middle class and the poor are losing badly.

[vyper]

The difference is the middle class rarely understand the real reasons why.