Another Very Sad Day for the USA

[gary s]

tom,



i know you have a very important top secret job. i know you an expert in everything. i also know you had a convertAble.

i know it is not as important as yours, but don't worry about me, i am doing just fine with my job :grin:

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Hey Caymen>>dont let the closed minded bother ya brother.



Anti Union sorts forget, or are too ignorant to see that child labor laws were enacted because of Unions.



Unions brought us the weekend, the 8-hour day, paid vacations, holidays, health insurance, and pensions.



Unions are not just for workers on the lower rungs of the wage scale either. Unions can provide every employee with a stronger voice in the workplace, protect workers against unfair practices by employers, and facilitate workers' input into workplace decision making.



Through legislative action, unions are working to reform immigration laws, raise the minimum wage, and improve workplace safety.



Unions are some of the most democratic and diverse organizations in the United States today. They can be avenues of actually realizing the American Dream.

But, of course, in the U.S., workers' rights to organize are frequently violated. If you can somehow discount any of this...well then you might just be Glenn Beck

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Frank,



Funny stuff there with the Glenn Beck comment. You just can't help but call those that you disagree with names it seems.



TJR

 

[gary s]

"Unions brought us the weekend, the 8-hour day, paid vacations, holidays, health insurance, and pensions."

i don't have a pension.

yes unions did good for us a half century ago. they also did bad for us.

exaggerated salaries, buddy system hiring, vendor-supply favoritism forcing companies out of business.

 

[Les]

Unions are some of the most democratic and diverse organizations in the United States today.

Frank, "democratic & diverse", you can't be serious. Unions did provide many benefits for the worker, in the past. However, many workers don't live in "right to work states" and are forced to join the union. This removes their freedom of choice and creates servitude. If every member could choose, were not forced to join the union, and the dues extracted from their paychecks went to the betterment of the membership, not politicians, your argument would have merit. In today's world, with current laws, the items you mentioned are considered customary, not revolutionary.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Once again, Les gets it.



I see no one really wants to discuss the liklihood that all these things that unions have "arguably" provided decades ago would actually go away if unions did.



With that same mentality, the lightbulb would have died when Edison did.



TJR

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Tjr. You agree with Les? How lame. You really think there is "servitude in some states? Dont let yer personal (lame) politics get in the way of facts. (again)

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Frank,



Yes, to a great extent I do agree with Les and in particular his use of the word servitude.



Let's consider one of the Merriam Webster definitions for servitude, which I provide below:

1: a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life

Now, how does that apply? Well, consider the following. The keywords above are "one", and "determining one's course of action." Union membership by its very principle takes away individuality, removing the sense of "one." Likewise, it strips the individual of their ability to determine their own course of action (again, as an individual) when it comes to labor and employment issues.



A union member becomes indebted to the union (pays dues), gives up freedom's in the process, and must follow the rules, regulations and orders of that organization.



Now, of course, you can disagree with these comparisons, as is your right. Are they wrong? Nope. They are comparisons. Agree with them, rate them if you will, discuss them, disagree with them, but they are reasonable comparisons to make, nonetheless.



Oh, and I love the way some of you throw around the F-word (fact); as if labeling your opinions as such somehow makes it so.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Everyone here who is pro-unions are only talking about what the unions did in the past. I agree that they were necessary back then, and perhaps there are some lines of work where unions are still needed.



So, what have the unions done lately??



Here's what I see that they have done: Unions have led to the bankruptcy of the American Auto industry. Put a lot of other viable businesses out of business, And drove too many jobs overseas because companies could not afford the high cost of union labor rates and benefits.



"Collective Bargaining" is just a nicer way of saying "Extortion".



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L,



Exactly. A bunch of nostalgia, and FUD. Nostalgia about what unions have done, and FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) that if they went away tomorrow all that is commonplace in U.S. labor would somehow disappear too. There is no evidence that would be the case, and logic, and an understanding of human nature would give credence to the fact that it would not be the case.



Those that have succled on the very teat that unions provide will probably never be able to look at them objectively.



I've worked union and non-union jobs, skilled and unskilled labor. Does that make me an authority? Nope. But it does add some to my objectivity.



Also, I really, really, really think pro versus anti union comes down to an "individuality" and a "personality" issue. If you are the type of person that WANTS to sell themselves, who looks around and recognizes that you are better, more valuable, and more on the ball than the "average Joe", then I submit that you absolutely will NOT want a union representing you.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Oh, and my question is NOT irrelevant. What a freaking condescending thing to say.

TJR, I honestly meant no disrespect--but I stand by my comment that your question was irrelevant with regard to the discussion of whether these employees should be allowed to unionize. Asking whether unions are in the best interest of taxpayers (i.e. employers) during such a discussion isn't germane, as unions don't exist for the benefit of the employers, but the employees. It's like having someone 100 years ago ask whether women should have the right to vote, and responding by pointing out that having women vote isn't in the best interests of men, as it dilutes the power of each of their votes. That may be true--but it has nothing to do with the question of whether women should have that right, as the question is about rights, not power.

How about you say something like "A more appropriate question is...", or, "A question of arguably equal value to ask is..." See the difference?

I fully realize that I could have said something like that, and that there is a difference between those and what I said. That's why I chose not to say it. I don't want to say "a question of arguably equal value to ask is..." when that's not the truth--it's not a question of arguably equal value (in terms of applicability to the main topic being discussed). If you feel I should have added something to indicate that my statement was only confined to the discussion going on--that yours is a good question, but that it doesn't apply to the other question currently being discussed--fine. I thought that was implied, but maybe not. If that's the case, I apologize. But otherwise--the main intent of my response is still valid.

Telling people (me) that their (my) POV, argument, etc., is irrelevant is a pretty sure way to say that you simply do not respect my opinion or what I am saying, or my right to say it.

Couldn't be further from the truth. I hope though all the other posts we've made on this board over the years that it's clear that of the people on this board, you and your opinions are among the ones I respect the most.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



Why is consideration of taxpayers not germane in the Wisconsin debate? Seems to me it is quite germane. Your analogy of the woman vote is okay, but a little apples and oranges. An even better analogy might be emancipation of slaves and the interest that Southern slave-owners had in that potential change in legislation.



Now, I'm not for slavery, obviously, but to say that taxpayers in Wisconsin are not germane to the issue would be like saying southern slave owners are not germane either. Both are, both have a direct, vested interest in the outcome. Sure, we can all agree that women should be able to vote, and blacks should not be slaves, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are germane views and interests "all around" in these examples.



The question isn't whether or not one interest is germane or not. The question is what is in the overall best interest of "we the people?"



Ultimately we get the rights and freedoms we fight for, as well as those that are given to us by the Constitution. A public employee, IMHO, shouldn't have the right to unionize. The way I see it, they are a civil servant. They should be held to a higher standard, and expect through that standard that some of the benefits that a privately employed person might have they will not have, and vice-versa (the "and vice-versa" is pretty powerful).



That is how I feel about it. The Wisconsin voters when polled were split evenly with about half believing as I do.



Country-wide, it seems more people than not support public employee's "right" to unionize. However, as I said, I don't think it is a "right", per se. It may very well be a right we choose to give, but I don't think it is a Constitutionally protected right. Of that, I am sure we will likely find out if the SCOTUS agrees.



If someone wants the protection of a union, seek employment in an industry and in a sector that has unions. If one wants to be a civil servant, then do so, but don't expect that the protection that unions can provide will be a benefit in that situation. Unions and their collective bargaining capabilities hold companies hostage in many cases. I cannot see how it is in our overall best interest to allow them to hold or govt and our taxpayers feet to the fire too. Yes, that is MY OWN FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt...), but it is based on what I have seen in action with unions.



Ultimately this becomes a question of whether or not we should grant (or continue to grant) public employees this specific right to unionize and therefore arguably be more in control of their employment relationship with the government.



Bill V, how do you feel about Obama's proposed cap on executive compensation for Wall St firms that took bailout money? Essentially what that action tells me is that SINCE our taxpayers are paying for them they have to play by the rules and there is no blank check.



I support that action by Obama. If you are going to suckle off the govt teat, then you have to play by the govt rules.



TJR

 

[Les]

You really think there is "servitude in some states?

Yes Frank, servitude. If you can't work unless you are a member of the union, you have lost your freedom of choice. Only 22 states have "right to work" laws.

If you are employed in one of the 22 states that has a Right to Work law, you are probably protected by the state's Right to Work law and cannot be required to join or pay dues or fees to a union.

So it's quite simple Frank, make all states "right to work" and give people the choice.

 

[Bill V]

An even better analogy might be emancipation of slaves and the interest that Southern slave-owners had in that potential change in legislation.



Now, I'm not for slavery, obviously, but to say that taxpayers in Wisconsin are not germane to the issue would be like saying southern slave owners are not germane either.

Great example. You're absolutely right--to say one would be like saying the other. And in both cases, I'd say that that is correct. The effect of the abolition of slavery on slave owners is completely irrelevant when discussing whether slavery should be abolished. It is germane once you reach the point of "slavery should be abolished, now how do we make it happen and what will the effects be"--but until then, bringing it into the discussion only allows the ends to justify the means.

The question is what is in the overall best interest of "we the people?"

Actually, no, it isn't. If that were "the question", we'd still have slavery and only men voting (to use the two examples already brought into the discussion). The "best interest of 'we the people'" is effectively mob rule.



The real "question" is far more simple, yet far more complex--not what is in the best interest of the masses, but what is "right" and what is "wrong". It's obvious from your comments here that you disagree with me on which position is right or wrong here--and I can fully respect that difference in opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that the standards of "right" and "wrong" in this world should not just be the result of opinion polls or whether the effect of doing what is "right" may negatively impact someone else. And when you make arguments regarding the impact on taxpayers of whether unions exist or not, it sounds like that's the route you're taking. If your position of disallowing these unions is strong enough to be considered, it needs to do so on its own merit. You've made many great points supporting just that (not enough to change my mind--but great points nonetheless)--hence my continued respect and value of your opinion on the subject. But among those valid points, this one in particular doesn't hold water.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V said:

The real "question" is far more simple, yet far more complex--

Clear as mud. So, is it simple, or complex?



Seriously, though...bottom line, time:



I don't think this debate is about right and wrong. You do. To be about "right" and "wrong", it would have to be about "rights."



I think we have a major difference of opinion here for one simple reason. You seem to think that is the right of civil servants to unionize, whereas I don't think that civil servants have the same free labor rights as private sector employees. I don't think they should. I believe that their rights should be considered differently, on a case by case basis, and that is a-okay with me...the guy that signs their paycheck.



That's how I feel. I don't think it is a matter of right or wrong.



Also, you never answered my question:



Do you SUPPORT Obama's capping of CEO wages for the financial firms that were bailed out? Yes or No?



I'm not trying to paint you into a corner...I just see some simalarities here and am wondering if your belief in the rights for those funded by the taxpayers is consistent, or not.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Do you SUPPORT Obama's capping of CEO wages for the financial firms that were bailed out? Yes or No?

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the question--just honestly forgot it as I was answering the other.



I support the Obama administration requiring companies that accept bailout money to also accept the terms under which that money is being offered, including pay to executives and other employees, with regard to compensation for future services. However, I do not support companies unilaterally violating the terms of contracts with their employees for past services based on those bailout requirements. If the companies want to accept the bailout money, and they need to reduce those salaries/bonuses/etc. (future and/or past) to comply with the bailout requirements, then they need to renegotiate those contracts. It's wrong for the companies to sign a contract with the employee saying, "If you achieve X, Y, and Z this year, you will be paid $X", and then after the employee has achieved X, Y, and Z, to come back and say, "Sorry, because of the bailout requirements, you're only getting a small percentage of $X, regardless of what our contract says." The company has to either fulfill their end of the contract (if necessary, declining bailout money to do so), or renegotiate the contract. If a renegotiation isn't possible, the company is free to terminate that employee--after paying that employee, per contract, for past services. The only way I can see that the company shouldn't be required to pay for past services per contract (other than a contract renegotiation) is if the employer is in bankruptcy protection or the like--and my understanding is that even that typically requires at least partial future compensation for past payment delinquency.



It's kind of like an NFL team trying to meet a salary cap, with some player having a large contract which makes that difficult. They can either renegotiate the contract with the player, cut the player (but still pay them for any previously-earned contract money), or drop out of the league to avoid the salary cap. Regardless of which they choose, they can't simply declare that "because of the salary cap, we're going to pay you less for last year than we contracted to do, and that's that."



And on top of that--if the employees of these bailed out companies don't like the terms of what is offered to them for future services, and feel they can negotiate better deals by doing so, then I fully support their right to form/join a union if they so desire. I'm not saying that in their position, it's likely to do them a whole lot of good--but if they want to do it, they should be allowed to do so.

 

[Kevin Lang]

I'm not saying that in their position, it's likely to do them a whole lot of good--but if they want to do it, they should be allowed to do so.

Bill V, would not those employees of bailed out businesses have a beaucoup of clout were they to unionize?



While it might look like Big Government is the master of these companies, Obama's administration repeatedly said that the bailouts were to companies that were "too big to fail". If one of those bailed out companies were to suddely get a unionized workforce, and that union threatened strike, the government would have to capitulate as, in their own words, the company cannot fail. Is not a large-scale strike tantamout to going out of business(i.e. failing) ?

 

[Les]

While it might look like Big Government is the master of these companies, Obama's administration repeatedly said that the bailouts were to companies that were "too big to fail". If one of those bailed out companies were to suddely get a unionized workforce, and that union threatened strike, the government would have to capitulate as, in their own words, the company cannot fail. Is not a large-scale strike tantamout to going out of business(i.e. failing) ?

The bailed out companies were the auto makers with a long history of a union workforce. Isn't that why they needed to be bailed out.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



I see the Obama cap and what the Wisconsin gov is doing as essentially the same thing. In both it is the government placing restrictions on workers that are benefited by taxpayer funds. Fundamentally, as I see it, they are the same.



As a concerned taxpayer, I support both.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

TJR, I see similarities as well--but there are important differences. The biggest of which is the fact that the federal bailout money is optional. Companies are not required to take it--and therefore are not required to abide by the compensation restrictions. Another big difference is the fact that some provisions of the bailout requirements were done retroactively, which I think is fundamentally wrong. If the company and the employee signed a contract regarding compensation, then both parties are obliged to abide by that contract unless/until that contract is terminated. And even once it is terminated, any compensation owed based on the previous contract should still be owed.

In both it is the government placing restrictions on workers that are benefited by taxpayer funds.

Again, I agree with that, and I agree with the objectives of that. I've said many times--I'm all in favor of the government playing hardball with the unions to reduce the cost to the taxpayers. In that regard, way to go Scott Walker. But to me, that in no way is any reason to block the unions or strip them of their negotiating ability. Same goes for the bailed-out companies. I'm all for putting compensation restrictions in as part of the requirements for accepting bailout money. But that should in no way affect compensation for work done prior to the bailouts, and it should in no way prohibit affected employees from joining together for bargaining leverage if they so desire.