Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

WI teachers unions cont...Follow

#27 Jul 01 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
bsphil wrote:
lol do you really believe that unions prevent innovation? I mean, honestly?



Yes, of course I believe that. Where do you think innovation comes from? Anything that increases the cost of labor required to produce existing products will reduce the amount a company has to invest into R&D efforts. And they have the secondary effect of normalizing pay among the workers, which further reduces the likelihood or rate of individual innovation occurring. Combine that further with a tendency to protect jobs, and the reality that many innovations involve labor saving which would reduce the number of jobs needed to do the same work, and unions are essentially a triple attack on innovation.


What I find bizarre is your attempt to laugh the very suggestion off like that. It's about as jarring as if you'd said something like: "Do you really believe that dropping out of high school will have a negative effect on your employment future? I mean, honestly?". Yeah. Pretty much exactly that strange a response.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Jul 01 2011 at 4:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
shintasama wrote:
gbaji wrote:
nonwto wrote:
Anyway, what's your point? You prefer corporate profit over human rights? I'm sure everyone will be shocked.


nonwto wrote:
Yet it's quite possible to turn a substantial profit while treating your employees fairly.


Er? Which is it?
Maximizing profits at all costs != profiting while still taking care of your people


Yes. But he's the one who created this false dilemma that we had to choose between "corporate profits" and "human rights". But then he says it's possible to turn a substantial profit while treating your employees fairly. So... Which is it? Is it all or nothing, or can there be a balance? And if there's a balance, then shouldn't we discuss the issue as a matter of degrees instead of just blanketly assuming that any profit made comes at the cost of human rights?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Jul 01 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
So it is your opinion that companies should ***** over their employees so that they have more money for R&D? Seriously? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#30 Jul 01 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nilatai wrote:
So it is your opinion that companies should ***** over their employees so that they have more money for R&D? Seriously? Smiley: dubious


No. It is my opinion that most companies can and do balance both of those, but that far too many people blindly support labor policies which ***** over the companies (and the R&D process) out of some apparently unwillingness or inability to see that there is harm to what they are doing. When someone broadly declares that "corporate profits" come at the expense of "human rights", we're seeing exactly this sort of blind follower mindset.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jul 01 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Do you know why people react like that? Because big corporations do think profit is more important than human rights. Why do you think so many of them relocate their factories to Asia where these things are much more lax? If trade unions didn't have the power they currently hold, it would happen in the West too. You know, like Thatcher in the '80s. In before "That wouldn't happen in America".
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#32 Jul 01 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
lol do you really believe that unions prevent innovation? I mean, honestly?
Yes, of course I believe that. Where do you think innovation comes from? Anything that increases the cost of labor required to produce existing products will reduce the amount a company has to invest into R&D efforts.
The problem here is that you're assuming that GM (for example) really wanted to innovate, but were tied down by their unions. What I'm suggesting is that they didn't care to innovate.

gbaji wrote:
and the reality that many innovations involve labor saving which would reduce the number of jobs needed to do the same work
Innovations involve labor saving? How? Buying a robot to do a task previously done by an employee removes the need for that employee (ignoring the fact that the new robot will need to be monitored/serviced by someone), but that's not innovation. That's investing in equipment. You'd have to be an idiot to trumpet a more automated production line as innovative, and a bigger idiot to buy into it as a customer.

Innovation would be releasing a new line of engines (say the shockwave model combustion engine). That would require plenty of new jobs, not just for the company itself, but for the businesses it has to work with to accommodate production.

gbaji wrote:
What I find bizarre is your attempt to laugh the very suggestion off like that. It's about as jarring as if you'd said something like: "Do you really believe that dropping out of high school will have a negative effect on your employment future? I mean, honestly?". Yeah. Pretty much exactly that strange a response.
What I find not remotely bizarre is that you'd finish your post with a lengthy "it's obvious!"



Edited, Jul 1st 2011 6:51pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#33 Jul 01 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
I'm an Electrical Engineer working in the automotive industry. I specialize in automation, robotics, etc. The factory I work for is non-Union. I do not have to jump through hoops (other than approval from management and accounting) to automate a line. I don't have to go through hoops to make small changes to existing machinery. I just go up to the plant supervisor, tell him I'm going to change something, he says "ok" and I'm off.

Automating a line increases productivity, but decreases jobs. Every robot I've added to a production line has eliminated 2-3 operators from that line. Taking lines which need 4-5 operators to run, and letting them run with as little as 1 or 2. Things like this would have to go through the Union if one existed. I talk with and have worked with Controls guys from other shops and factories that have been Unionized. They have to explain that sure, they are sacrificing 3 jobs here, but they are saving 100s by staying competitive. Some still don't get it though.

While I don't agree with everything gbaji says, and may not agree with extent he demonizes the Unions, I do know that unions do hold back productivity in the industry.

I've worked with many service technicians from large companies. Many have stated how they like being in our shop. If they need something, they don't need to go through 10 different people to get the right person who is allowed to do something. The Unions added a lot of red-tape to the simple act of getting someone to take a cover off of a machine they had locked out and were servicing. Red-tape beyond the standard OSHA-LockOut/TagOut system, stuff dealing with who is allowed to do what work, when, and how, because of the Union rules about taking jobs, etc.

Yes, Unions do hold back the industry. It's more noticeable at the lower levels, the people who provide parts to the companies that create parts for the big guys. Remember, there are factories all over making small components that go into the vehicles. The big guys get nearly fully assembled pieces just waiting to be attached to the vehicle, they don't make everything themselves.

We aren't Union. I'm not a member of the IBEW. Our shop takes decent care of its employees, even when having a monopoly on work available in the area, and no union forcing them to. Operators may ***** about their wages, but who doesn't...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#34 Jul 01 2011 at 10:54 PM Rating: Good
Arguing this with Gbaji is pointless. Capitalism is his religion, and corporate America is his holy church, and they can do no wrong. Give me an "Amen" with that tax break!
#35 Jul 01 2011 at 11:23 PM Rating: Good
*
240 posts
Varu is a Democrat-troll. He makes Republicans look like him so that swing voters will not want to be like him and switch over to the Democratic party. These tax cuts for the richest 5% went into effect after American Hero's were about to lose their funding for health care. Should the Firefighters and Police who would be willing to die to save your life not have a union too? Should they get paid worse than they already are and not have money when their health takes a turn for the worse in order to save you money?
#36 Jul 02 2011 at 12:02 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
shintasama wrote:
gbaji wrote:
nonwto wrote:
Anyway, what's your point? You prefer corporate profit over human rights? I'm sure everyone will be shocked.


nonwto wrote:
Yet it's quite possible to turn a substantial profit while treating your employees fairly.


Er? Which is it?
Maximizing profits at all costs != profiting while still taking care of your people


Yes. But he's the one who created this false dilemma that we had to choose between "corporate profits" and "human rights". But then he says it's possible to turn a substantial profit while treating your employees fairly. So... Which is it? Is it all or nothing, or can there be a balance? And if there's a balance, then shouldn't we discuss the issue as a matter of degrees instead of just blanketly assuming that any profit made comes at the cost of human rights?
You're confusing (or perhaps more accurately, trying to confuse) what he actually said and the straw man you're attempting to build. "Yet it's [...] employees fairly" is a middle ground, but that doesn't exclude the fact that there are also an extreme in either direction with a spectrum of "profit vs employee well being" trade offs, and that Var is pretty heavily in support of one end of that spectrum.


ie- If you eat nothing but ice cream you'll be unhealthy, but it's possible to eat ice cream and still be healthy.



sidenote- Implemented poorly, Unions do add a large amount of inherent inefficiency, but are often necessary to combat the abuses of concentrated power against diffuse populations. Union leadership is also sometimes guilty of doing what's best for them/their position instead of the employees they represent. The best Unions are ones with as light as touch as possible to protect their members from abuse without becoming a burden. This is a difficult line to walk, but the "no regulation/representation" alternative has historically been horrific.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2011 2:06am by shintasama
#37 Jul 02 2011 at 9:08 PM Rating: Excellent
**
670 posts
#38 Jul 05 2011 at 1:00 AM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
As of August 28, my monthly premium goes from $35/month to $85/month. But gee, cutting those union dues sure is saving me a lot of money. Smiley: rolleyes
#39 Jul 05 2011 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
varusword75 wrote:

Unions are not good for american business. Companies run from them like the plague. Unfortunately el presidente barry is in bed with the them, and he's not the one doing the f*cking.

Yes, if the working stiff doesn't deserve the freedom to get together with their co-workers in hopes of fair treatment.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#40 Jul 05 2011 at 7:07 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Elinda wrote:
varusword75 wrote:

Unions are not good for american business. Companies run from them like the plague. Unfortunately el presidente barry is in bed with the them, and he's not the one doing the f*cking.

Yes, if the working stiff doesn't deserve the freedom to get together with their co-workers in hopes of fair treatment.
That's a load of ********* I'd argue the details with you, but it's pointless as you're convinced that unions are some sort of godsend.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#41 Jul 05 2011 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Elinda wrote:
varusword75 wrote:

Unions are not good for american business. Companies run from them like the plague. Unfortunately el presidente barry is in bed with the them, and he's not the one doing the f*cking.

Yes, if the working stiff doesn't deserve the freedom to get together with their co-workers in hopes of fair treatment.
That's a load of bullsh*t. I'd argue the details with you, but it's pointless as you're convinced that unions are some sort of godsend.
And you're convinced they're some sort of evil-worship.

Unions, like anything else, are only as good as the people that run them. They can be crooked, inefficient and unethical. But to simply declare that a group of people don't have the right to bargain collectively is, as far as I'm concerned, debasing liberties and unconstitutional.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#42 Jul 05 2011 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Elinda wrote:
But to simply declare that a group of people don't have the right to bargain collectively is, as far as I'm concerned, debasing liberties and unconstitutional.
Agreed, but that's not what you're arguing. Or at least, not how you're presenting it. Unions rarely truly strive for fair treatment.

While my experience with unions is limited as I avoided working in them when I was entry level and now we avoid them as a management group, what experience I've had with them is horrible. They are to business, what communism is to governing. A nice concept, but horrible in practice due to the insistence of humans in ******** it up.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#43 Jul 05 2011 at 7:54 AM Rating: Decent
Ugly wrote:
While my experience with unions is limited as I avoided working in them when I was entry level and now we avoid them as a management group, what experience I've had with them is horrible.
Because you've had a bad experience, no one should be allowed to work together to bargain collectively or protest unfair conditions? What ********* There are plenty of good unions, people just don't normally notice them because they're not in the way of things.
#44REDACTED, Posted: Jul 05 2011 at 7:55 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nat,
#45 Jul 05 2011 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
lol...what's the unemployment rate again you twit?
In June it was 9.7 in Tennessee, and 7.9 in New York.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Jul 05 2011 at 8:38 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
shintasama wrote:
Ugly wrote:
While my experience with unions is limited as I avoided working in them when I was entry level and now we avoid them as a management group, what experience I've had with them is horrible.
Because you've had a bad experience, no one should be allowed to work together to bargain collectively or protest unfair conditions? What bullsh*t.
Did I say that? No, didn't think so. Try understanding what you're reading. I clearly stated that I agreed with not removing bargaining rights, fuckwit. I disagree with this magically view that unions are there to to make sure people get treated fairly. That's ******** when taken beyond theory.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#47 Jul 05 2011 at 10:50 AM Rating: Decent
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
shintasama wrote:
Ugly wrote:
While my experience with unions is limited as I avoided working in them when I was entry level and now we avoid them as a management group, what experience I've had with them is horrible.
Because you've had a bad experience, no one should be allowed to work together to bargain collectively or protest unfair conditions? What bullsh*t.
Did I say that? No, didn't think so. Try understanding what you're reading. I clearly stated that I agreed with not removing bargaining rights, fuckwit. I disagree with this magically view that unions are there to to make sure people get treated fairly. That's bullsh*t when taken beyond theory.
What the fuck do you think they're bargaining for?
Var wrote:
I guess companies should just work for the goodwill and benefit of humanity in your opinion.
I guess humanity should just work for the goodwill and benefit of companies in your opinion?
#48 Jul 05 2011 at 12:50 PM Rating: Decent
Dwight D. Eisenhower, last of the sane Republicans wrote:
You of organized labor and those who have gone before you in the union movement have helped make a unique contribution to the general welfare of the Republic--the development of the American philosophy of labor. This philosophy, if adopted globally, could bring about a world, prosperous, at peace, sharing the fruits of the earth with justice to all men. It would raise to freedom and prosperity hundreds of millions of men and women--and their children--who toil in slavery behind the Curtain.

One principle of this philosophy is: the ultimate values of mankind are spiritual; these values include liberty, human dignity, opportunity and equal rights and justice.

Workers want recognition as human beings and as individuals-before everything else. They want a job that gives them a feeling of satisfaction and self-expression. Good wages, respectable working conditions, reasonable hours, protection of status and security; these constitute the necessary foundations on which you build to reach your higher aims.

Moreover, we cannot be satisfied with welfare in the aggregate; if any group or section of citizens is denied its fair place in the common prosperity, all others among us are thereby endangered.

The second principle of this American labor philosophy is this: the economic interest of employer and employee is a mutual prosperity.

Their economic future is inseparable. Together they must advance in mutual respect, in mutual understanding, toward mutual prosperity. Of course, there will be contest over the sharing of the benefits of production; and so we have the right to strike and to argue all night, when necessary, in collective bargaining sessions. But in a deeper sense, this surface struggle is subordinate to the overwhelming common interest in greater production and a better life for all to share.

The American worker strives for betterment not by destroying his employer and his employer's business, but by understanding his employer's problems of competition, prices, markets. And the American employer can never forget that, since mass production assumes a mass market, good wages and progressive employment practices for his employee are good business.

The Class Struggle Doctrine of Marx was the invention of a lonely refugee scribbling in a dark recess of the British Museum. He abhorred and detested the middle class. He did not foresee that, in America, labor, respected and prosperous, would constitute--with the farmer and businessman--his hated middle class. But our second principle--that mutual interest of employer and employee--is the natural outgrowth of teamwork for progress, characteristic of the American economy where the barriers of class do not exist.

The third principle is this: labor relations will be managed best when worked out in honest negotiation between employers and unions, without Government's unwarranted interference.

This principle requires maturity in the private handling of labor matters within a framework of law, for the protection of the public interest and the rights of both labor and management. The splendid record of labor peace and unparalleled prosperity during the last 3 years demonstrates our industrial maturity.

Some of the most difficult and unprecedented negotiations in the history of collective bargaining took place during this period, against the backdrop of non-interference by Government except only to protect the public interest, in the rare cases of genuine national emergency. This third principle, relying as it does on collective bargaining, assumes that labor organizations and management will both observe the highest standards of integrity, responsibility, and concern for the national welfare.

You are more than union members bound together by a common goal of better wages, better working conditions, and protection of your security. You are American citizens.

The roads you travel, the schools your children attend, the taxes you pay, the standards of integrity in Government, the conduct of the public business is your business as Americans. And while all of you, as to the public business, have a common goal--a stronger and better America--your views as to the best means of reaching that goal vary widely, just as they do in any other group of American citizens.

So in your new national organization, as well as in your many constituent organizations, you have a great opportunity of making your meetings the world's most effective exhibit of democratic processes. In those meetings the rights of minorities holding differing social, economic, and political views must be scrupulously protected and their views accurately reflected. In this way, as American citizens you will help the Republic correct the faulty, fortify the good, build stoutly for the future, and reinforce the most cherished freedoms of each individual citizen.

This country has long understood that by helping other peoples to a better understanding and practice of representative government, we strengthen both them and ourselves. The same truth applies to the economic field. We strengthen other peoples and ourselves when we help them to understand the workings of a free economy, to improve their own standards of living, and to join with us in world trade that serves to unite us all.

In the world struggle, some of the finest weapons for all Americans are these simple tenets of free labor. They are again: mart is created in the Divine image and has spiritual aspirations that transcend the material; second, the real interests of employers and employees are mutual; third, unions and employers can and should work out their own destinies. As we preach and practice that message without cease, we will wage a triumphant crusade for prosperity, freedom, and peace among men.

To close, it is fitting that we let our hearts be filled with the earnest prayer that, with the help of a kind Providence, the world may be led out of bitterness and materialism and force into a new era of harmony and spiritual growth and self-realization for all men.
#49 Jul 05 2011 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
shintasama wrote:
What the fuck do you think they're bargaining for?
More than what they're owed. They're owed a competitive wage in relation to the work done and safe working conditions. Anything beyond that goes beyond fair treatment.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#50 Jul 05 2011 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
shintasama wrote:
What the fuck do you think they're bargaining for?
More than what they're owed. They're owed a competitive wage in relation to the work done and safe working conditions. Anything beyond that goes beyond fair treatment.


The issue goes beyond that though. Within a union structure the "right to bargain" isn't held by the individual worker, but by the union on behalf of all the workers. Which is wonderful if we assume that all workers want the exact same thing and are identically skilled. But that's not the case. It's *never* the case. Once a shop is run by a union, the workers themselves lose their right to bargain for themselves. But no one ever talks about that. What tends to happen is that the most skilled and motivated workers who feel that they could bargain for themselves and get a better deal than the union wage they're sharing with Joe-slackoff in the next work station will tend to avoid working in union run shops. As a result of this, the unions tend to have a higher percentage of less skilled and/or motivated workers.


This effect is even worse in public sector unions (like teachers, but certainly not limited to them), where the entire workforce is mandated to be run by a given union. The issue isn't about the right to choose to bargain (collectively or otherwise) since anyone seeking employment anywhere these systems are in place has no choice about it at all. In the case of WI, they even took this a step further, not just requiring all public school teachers to be a member of a union, but legislatively mandating that all those local unions had to give up their bargaining power to a single state run organization.


This is more or less the same point I was trying to make earlier. It's unfair to present this as an "all or nothing" situation. As though you either accept laws like those in WI or you are somehow crushing the rights of the workers. Or, companies cannot obtain profits without violating people's human rights. It's ridiculous rhetoric. There's a whole huge range in between. And even if you're a fan of unions, you should at least accept that lots of people don't work in unions and yet somehow still manage to earn good wages and benefits. It's a gross misstatement of the facts to claim that the absence of a union to represent workers automatically means their rights are being violated.


If you support the rights of workers, then the first right you should respect is the right to choose whether to be in a union in the first place. It's just amazing to me how many people just don't see this though.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Jul 05 2011 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil,

What makes you say that? Me and every other small businessman are getting f*cked regularly by barry.



Really? The owner of my company just bought a lake house, and my manager has half-joked about one-upping him and buying a small island.

Our office has 12 people in it. So sorry your small business is getting ****** regularly by "Barry."
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 201 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (201)