CA Teachers Union Video [Archive]

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 02:47 PM

My favorite populist cry is, "RAISE THE CORPORATE TAXES!"

1) We have the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world: http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm
2) Corporations don't pay taxes, PEOPLE pay taxes.
3) Any "corporate welfare" given to these corporations is due to the mismanagement of federal vs state tax dollars.
4) This is why corporations and the "rich enough" will always move to better locales, leaving the people who vote for someone else's money behind with no money to provide them services.
5) Raising corporate taxes raises the prices of all goods and services for everyone, so when you are really poor or living on the edge, you think you are voting to punish the rich, but in fact, you are voting to punish yourself. The rich will make do paying 10% more for food/fuel, will you??
6) But our educational system won't teach you that, b/c then you'd be educated about their duplicitous behavior and the only duplicitous behavior that exists is that of the evil rich and evil corporations.

Tamara

12-05-2012, 02:50 PM

My favorite populist cry is, "RAISE THE CORPORATE TAXES!"

Corporations literally can't (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/05/follow-money.html) pay taxes. It is an impossibility.

BLR

12-05-2012, 03:14 PM

Corporations literally can't (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/05/follow-money.html) pay taxes. It is an impossibility.

Why must you always interject reality into a discusson? :D

RoyGBiv

12-05-2012, 03:21 PM

can't (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/05/follow-money.html)

the electorate is collectively about as smart as a colony of clams
QFT

The next time someone complains that "Corporations are only paying a 17% tax rate with all their loopholes and exemptions", tell them "Well then, let's reduce the rate from 35% to 20% and close all the loopholes". You should stand well away in case their heads explode while trying to find an intelligible reason object.

Thanks to the most fiscally inept, economically ignorant, intentionally divisive POTUS in my lifetime, we're on the expressway to financial and social armageddon with the accelerator pressed to the floor.

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 03:26 PM

Corporations literally can't (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/05/follow-money.html) pay taxes. It is an impossibility.

Ya did read my whole post right? That statement was facetious and then shown to be a stupid position to take.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Tamara

12-05-2012, 03:32 PM

Ya did read my whole post right? That statement was facetious and then shown to be a stupid position to take.

I know, I just like any excuse to trot out my "Special Tax To Fund Diapers For Needy Babies" model. :)

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 03:49 PM

I know, I just like any excuse to trot out my "Special Tax To Fund Diapers For Needy Babies" model. :)

Lol! Okay. Well played then, well played ;)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 10:44 PM

http://nation.foxnews.com/teachers-union/2012/12/04/california-teachers-union-video-features-rich-urinating-poor

I'm sure everyone has seen this now.

I have to say, I'm dumbfounded by this level of thought.

That video is dead on. Thanks for the link. Hope you guys can watch it with an open mind and let it sink in.
Pat

Chemsoldier

12-06-2012, 08:19 AM

That level of thinking is stunning in its over-simplification of some points and just flat out false on others.

Done by a CA teachers union?

Just when has the state of California cut s**t in their budget? Last I checked the size of the budget of California (and the US) has gone one direction...up. Its so bad now that to merely reduce the rate of increase in the budget is called a cut.

Tamara

12-06-2012, 09:22 AM

That level of thinking is stunning in its over-simplification of some points and just flat out false on others.

The green-eyed monster is a powerful multi-purpose adapter for demagogues and it is only made more potent by the inclusion of stunning innumeracy and economic illiteracy. Mark my words, there are people in this country so driven by envy that they will cheerfully slam up against the wall and blindfold anybody some millionaire rock star or plush-bottom union official tells them is a member of the "One Percent".

Class warfare has been a reliable tool for revolutionaries to install themselves as the head of a New Order for pretty much as long as the human race has had any concept of money or private property.

fuse

12-06-2012, 09:57 AM

That video is dead on. Thanks for the link. Hope you guys can watch it with an open mind and let it sink in.
Pat

I mean.. wow

BaiHu

12-06-2012, 10:00 AM

I mean.. wow

Yup, my sentiments exactly. I think I need to whistle pass this graveyard of a thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Chemsoldier

12-06-2012, 10:54 AM

You know this is about the most regressive flight from reality I have seen produced in the last 20 years.

There is a great deal of debate on the degree of government of interference in the market that is acceptable or for what reasons it should be done. For instance Henry Hazlit allowed that certain protectionism or subsidy of defense critical industries may be warrented as long as no one forgets that it harms ultimate economic productivity of the nation. While this debate exists among people, if you take a work like Henry Hazlit's Economics in One Lesson, the lessons of that work have largely been absorbed by the nation.

This video however is full of ideas that most liberals dont believe in anymore. Its also, as mentioned, full of deliberate class baiting. The idea that everyone lines up and happily pays their taxes except the evil rich people is stupid. EVERYONE pays the least amount of taxes they feel they can get away with. My Unionized family members who are auto mechanics and construction workers work under the table for cash, that is flat out tax evasion. No one percenters there, blue collar workers. The union one relative of mine was a member of had a spread the work program where they worked one week and were off one week. The off week he was doing work under the table untaxed. Not quite the cheerful union member paying his share of taxes.

The image of roads and schools falling apart due to rich people not paying their share...how about NC teacher salaries increasing over 40% in the last 5 years and more money for schools?

Simple minded crap. That video has the educational worth of my daughter's My Little Pony DVD where they beat the bad guy by wishing for it to be so (I am going to scratch that dang DVD to unwatchability one of these days).

fuse

12-06-2012, 05:34 PM

Yup, my sentiments exactly. I think I need to whistle pass this graveyard of a thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

I bet he's actually some hard core libertarian dude currently executing the troll of the decade. This would actually make the most sense

BaiHu

12-07-2012, 09:42 AM

Just a bit more evidence on how the 'rich pee on the poor'....wait a minute, what does this say???

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

RoyGBiv

12-07-2012, 09:58 AM

Just a bit more evidence on how the 'rich pee on the poor'....wait a minute, what does this say???

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

In the name of social and economic "justice" we've taken away any "cost" of government from lower income earners. They get to vote themselves "free stuff". The penalties to them come in the form of lower employment, less opportunity to move up the economic ladder, etc. Until we can either convince these people that the long term loss is worse than the short term gain, the downward spiral will continue until some "shock" event forces the trend to change.

Kyle Reese

12-07-2012, 10:47 AM

In the name of social and economic "justice" we've taken away any "cost" of government from lower income earners. They get to vote themselves "free stuff". The penalties to them come in the form of lower employment, less opportunity to move up the economic ladder, etc. Until we can either convince these people that the long term loss is worse than the short term gain, the downward spiral will continue until some "shock" event forces the trend to change.

If anything, the poor need to pay their fair share as well. We're broke, the party's over and it's time to pay up.

RoyGBiv

12-07-2012, 11:37 AM

If anything, the poor need to pay their fair share as well. We're broke, the party's over and it's time to pay up.

Howard Dean agrees....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO9jnq8pg28

Kyle Reese

12-07-2012, 11:42 AM

I wonder if Mr. Dean's expulsion from the Democrat party is imminent?

Alaskapopo

12-07-2012, 05:39 PM

Howard Dean agrees....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO9jnq8pg28

I can agree everyone is going to have to pay more. Perhaps he is right going over the cliff would force spending cuts and tax hikes. As long as some of those tax hikes is to raise the capital gains tax up to the same level as taxes on wage earnings.
Pat

littlejerry

12-07-2012, 06:59 PM

I can agree everyone is going to have to pay more. Perhaps he is right going over the cliff would force spending cuts and tax hikes. As long as some of those tax hikes is to raise the capital gains tax up to the same level as taxes on wage earnings.
Pat

I really wish everyone would get past the tax issue. Even if the Dem's get all of their tax increases it will at best reduce the annual deficit by about 10%.

Meanwhile the real issue of cutting federal spending by 40-50% is being ignored.

I think some people would find tax increases easier to swallow if Congress and the POTUS were even entertaining the cuts that have to be made.

Alaskapopo

12-07-2012, 07:18 PM

I really wish everyone would get past the tax issue. Even if the Dem's get all of their tax increases it will at best reduce the annual deficit by about 10%.

Meanwhile the real issue of cutting federal spending by 40-50% is being ignored.

I think some people would find tax increases easier to swallow if Congress and the POTUS were even entertaining the cuts that have to be made.

Both have to be done.
Pat

TGS

12-07-2012, 11:37 PM

ZOMG........don't tell me this thread is going down this freakin road too.....

dbateman

12-08-2012, 08:44 AM

Hmm I can't watch the video it's coming up as marked private.

Alaskapopo

12-08-2012, 05:24 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6ZsXrzF8Cc&feature=plcp

dbateman

12-09-2012, 06:53 PM

Thanks Pat.

Ok so I watched the video.

Here is how I feel and I am a long way from being in the 1%

I am however someone who makes a pretty good living but I pay a lot of tax, and I am not happy about that.( why should I be penalised for going and getting an education spending years learning to ply my trade ? )

I sat down and thought about how I can best make money what skills and qualifications I needed to get in order to make a good living wile others
are not doing the same but somehow feel entitled to take from the working people who went and got the skills necessary to make good money.

I think we should all be taxed at an even rate not "oh you earn more so you can pay more tax"

Corporate/business tax well thats a whole other ball game the more money businesses have the more they hire more staff.
More staff = more money going around in the community and more income tax for the government.

Corvus

12-09-2012, 08:05 PM

Both have to be done.
Pat

Both do not have to be done. Never is the history of the world has a nation taxed itself into prosperity.

Alaskapopo

12-10-2012, 03:00 AM

Both do not have to be done. Never is the history of the world has a nation taxed itself into prosperity.

You are entitled to your opinion. But the way I look at it is this. If you personally as an individual are short of money you will generally take 2 steps to address the problem.
1. Cut spending where you can to get things under control.
2. Try to bring in more income by working over time taking a second job etc.
The country needs to do the same thing. We are the least taxed country in the industrialized world. We ran budget surpluses under Clinton with higher tax rates. No country has ever made it to prosperity by not collecting enough taxes to run essential government functions. What is and what is not essential is obviously up to debate.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-10-2012, 03:01 AM

JAD

12-10-2012, 07:45 AM

Tamara

12-10-2012, 08:25 AM

Me too! There are 189 million adults in the US; Mr. Obama says he needs 2.8 trillion to run the federal government. That makes my fair share $20k -- and Buffet's, and Romney's, and a welfare mother of 5. Can't pay it? That's what philanthropy's for, I guess -- go to church.

Anyone who says my, or Romney's, fair share is more than $20k either doesn't understand 'fair' or 'share.'

Further, some super-rich dude is unlikely to be making use of taxpayer-supported stuff like public hospitals, public schools, or public transportation, leaving out such obvious things as public housing and other more direct forms of welfare. When the radio call comes over the speaker in the squad car, they don't say "Drive real fast to this guy's aid; he paid $5 million in taxes last year!"

Basically, all he gets for all that cash is the heathen Chinese Navy kept away from his beachfront cottage and some indifferent pothole repair on his street and the knowledge that he's kicked in for a dozen dozen trailer parks' worth of AFDC.

RoyGBiv

12-10-2012, 08:40 AM

essential government functions. What is and what is not essential is obviously up to debate. Pat
Understatement of the day.

BaiHu

12-10-2012, 10:27 AM

Me too! There are 189 million adults in the US; Mr. Obama says he needs 2.8 trillion to run the federal government. That makes my fair share $20k -- and Buffet's, and Romney's, and a welfare mother of 5. Can't pay it? That's what philanthropy's for, I guess -- go to church.

Anyone who says my, or Romney's, fair share is more than $20k either doesn't understand 'fair' or 'share.'

I agree with you doc, but here's just one facet of this disaster:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm

Fast commentary on this: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=214743

"The last month for which data is available, September, shows over 600,000 people went onto the dole in that month alone, comprised of 290,000 households.........

Note that there are only 143,549,000 people in the workforce -- that is, people earning a wage. There are presently 47,710,324 people mooching off those 143,549,000 people to the tune of $134 a month!

To put this in perspective for every three people working one is collecting food stamps."

Now don't gimme flack for the 'mooching' comment, they are his words, not mine, but given that our leaders in DC seem to be pimping that the economy is doing better and unemployment is going down, this does seem to rub up against this reality, no?

BaiHu

12-10-2012, 10:42 AM

And then there is this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335141/royal-presidency-mark-steyn

I don't think this is just an Obama thing, I'd say we have to watch these costs for any president.

TCinVA

12-10-2012, 11:37 AM

And then there is this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335141/royal-presidency-mark-steyn

I don't think this is just an Obama thing, I'd say we have to watch these costs for any president.

While I'm philosophically inclined to agree with Mr. Steyn's take on many things, he's a bit out in the weeds on this one.

The simple fact is that the security decisions that surround the President aren't being made by the guy in the big chair. They are being made by security professionals who are driven by a zero defect mindset because getting your guy killed one time is kind of a bummer. I don't know whether or not someone in the USSS actually asked Buckingham Palace to install bomb-proof windows, but it wouldn't surprise me because when your primary occupation in life is planning for horrific disaster with world-changing consequences you can ask for some pretty silly things. I've been in meetings where specialists in IT security essentially argued for unhooking some servers from the network as a means of securing the information on them...which totally defeated the point of having the servers in the first place.

A huge chunk of the costs involved in presidential travel has to do with decisions that Obama just isn't making. He doesn't decide logistical details of how his entourage moves from A to B...logistical specialists do. He also isn't flying that 747 just to give the family dog plenty of room to run around: The Press Corps are always in that plane and follow him everywhere. George W. understood this and that's one reason why he didn't travel as much. He appreciated that as POTUS his footprint was so massive that anywhere he went was just stomped flat. That's why he spent much of his time at his ranch.

...for which the press hounded him mercilessly, this despite the fact that he had a press room set up at the ranch for them and still performed all his functions as POTUS because vacation or not, the job didn't stop for George W. Frankly the majority of the press criticism of George W.'s move probably had more to do with them being stuck in what they consider flyover country instead of being at home in Washington DC where they could attend their social functions and discuss the myriad of other reasons why George W. was evil incarnate...but I digress. Is the press going to pony up money to pay for their travel on the big jet? Merely hint at the idea and I guarantee you'd be enemy number 1 of the first amendment. Subsidizing the travel of press weenies making 1%-er money is right there in the Constitution, right after the section about how it's horribly corrupting to have people spend their own money on political causes rather than let the press determine what the correct viewpoint is.

Now Pres. Obama certainly has plenty of say in how often he travels, where he travels to, and all that lot...but how much it costs? How much it costs and how ridiculous the security precautions are have been decided largely by We The People who have determined that a dead president no es bueno. As a result, when team Obama decides to touch down in an unexpected campaign spot in Virginia there's some Secret Service advance guys screaming down I-81 at 100 MPH to get to the venue and make sure all the manhole covers for almost a mile around are welded shut.

Can the Secret Service just chillax and use a rental car instead of flying a fleet of vehicles out to whatever vacation spot Obama chooses? Does he really need to have an ambulance staffed with top-flight medics in tow everywhere he goes? Does he need as many of the guys who don't wear suits in the SUV's you never see anyone getting into our out of? Do we really need to worry that much about the possibility of someone kidnapping his wife or children?

It comes down to the question of whether or not preserving the citizen-elected command and control of government is actually all that big a deal.

Is there some seriously stupid spending in the executive office? Sure. Why the taxpayers are paying for a dog sitter is beyond me. It's absurd.

...but we're talking about a dude who has run the largest deficits in history, spending in a manner that makes drunken sailors insulted by the comparison, and who was elected to do four more years of the same. The full time dog-sitters, however, aren't what's really expensive.

ford.304

12-10-2012, 12:21 PM

I'd be interested to see how the cost of security for the president has changed over the years. Obviously we need more security than in the late 19th century, when any dude who failed to get a government job could stick a pistol in the president's gut. But there are diminishing returns at some point. Give a bunch of very professionally paranoid guys a near-infinite budget and you'll pass that point in no time.

The real problem isn't the dog sitter, though - it's that we've made this one dude so important. The president is supposed to be more like the shift manager who translates regulations into work assignments, not the owner of the plant.

Chemsoldier

12-10-2012, 01:59 PM

While I'm philosophically inclined to agree with Mr. Steyn's take on many things, he's a bit out in the weeds on this one.

I tend to agree. The presidency, along with most of the government, costs too much. But the comparison between the Royal Family and the president and his family is not really a valid one. The royals are figure heads and very influencial and beloved by most of their subjects...but they have very little real power. POTUS has a lot of very real and immediate power (probably too much IMHO) not the least of which is control over the hundreds of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal. Apples and Oranges. Does the presidency cost too much? Almost certainly. Is the British royal family a good yardstick to compare the cost of the presidency? Not really.

BaiHu

12-10-2012, 02:41 PM

While I'm philosophically inclined to agree with Mr. Steyn's take on many things, he's a bit out in the weeds on this one.

The simple fact is that the security decisions that surround the President aren't being made by the guy in the big chair. They are being made by security professionals who are driven by a zero defect mindset because getting your guy killed one time is kind of a bummer. I don't know whether or not someone in the USSS actually asked Buckingham Palace to install bomb-proof windows, but it wouldn't surprise me because when your primary occupation in life is planning for horrific disaster with world-changing consequences you can ask for some pretty silly things. I've been in meetings where specialists in IT security essentially argued for unhooking some servers from the network as a means of securing the information on them...which totally defeated the point of having the servers in the first place.

REDACTED FOR EASE OF READING...

Is there some seriously stupid spending in the executive office? Sure. Why the taxpayers are paying for a dog sitter is beyond me. It's absurd.

...but we're talking about a dude who has run the largest deficits in history, spending in a manner that makes drunken sailors insulted by the comparison, and who was elected to do four more years of the same. The full time dog-sitters, however, aren't what's really expensive.

TC, I agree with the major tenor of your points regarding Obama doesn't have a say on cost/security. However, and I wish I could find the breakdown, his administration has dwarfed many of the previous administrations as far as staff, handlers, groomers, entourage, etc compared to every other president. That, IMO, is where the real costs come from. I don't have a problem with him or his family bouncing from place to place 'pressing flesh' with the common man, what I have a problem with is the other 20+ stowaways that aren't press related.

Tamara

12-10-2012, 02:50 PM

The real problem isn't the dog sitter, though - it's that we've made this one dude so important. The president is supposed to be more like the shift manager who translates regulations into work assignments, not the owner of the plant.

Quoted For Truth.

We spent much of the 20th Century gradually transmogrifying the job description from "Tribune" to "Imperator".

Alaskapopo

12-10-2012, 05:15 PM

BaiHu

12-10-2012, 05:24 PM

*FACEPALM*
Dejavu all over again....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

MDS

12-10-2012, 05:57 PM

That is a twisted concept of fair. It should be a percentage of your income like tithing in the bible. You don't have to be christian to understand how its fair to pay in an equal amount to the income you got because of this great lands opportunities. So you make 100 bucks you pay 20. You make 100 million you pay 20 mil. Nothing more fair than that.
Pat

Would that be a fair way to pay for a deer lease with your buddies? I make 40k and he makes 60k, so we split the cost 60/40?

RoyGBiv

12-10-2012, 08:25 PM

Would that be a fair way to pay for a deer lease with your buddies? I make 40k and he makes 60k, so we split the cost 60/40?
Agreed.

I worked hard to get straight A's, the other guy partied until dawn and got C's.
I got a good job and he's working food service for minimum wage, with 4 kids, on welfare.
How much of my success do I "owe" to him and those like him?
I'm all for helping those less fortunate through no fault of their own, but we've reached an inflection point of entitlement.
Too many people demanding to be cared for when tough love is what's called for.

When the 48 million on food stamps vs 144 million wage earners (1:3) becomes 64 million to 128 (1:2), how much more of my wage will the government expect me to pay? At what point do I decide to give in to diminishing returns and reduce my effort to match my diminishing reward? What is the economic result? I'll tell you.... F'n disaster, that's what.

Anyone who can't figure out that reduced spending, including social programs (especially social programs) and reduced regulation to create the environment for economic growth is the ONLY answer, won't be invited to dinner any time soon. "General Welfare" is NOT "Social Welfare".

Alaskapopo

12-10-2012, 08:33 PM

Would that be a fair way to pay for a deer lease with your buddies? I make 40k and he makes 60k, so we split the cost 60/40?

No but we are not purchasing a membership at a club we are taxing people according to how much they earn. Like I said the biblical example is the most fair. Everyone pays the same percent of their personal pie. Those who benefit more from the opportunities in this land end up paying more and those who benefit less pay less.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-10-2012, 08:36 PM

Agreed.

I worked hard to get straight A's, the other guy partied until dawn and got C's.
I got a good job and he's working food service for minimum wage, with 4 kids, on welfare.
How much of my success do I "owe" to him and those like him?
I'm all for helping those less fortunate through no fault of their own, but we've reached an inflection point of entitlement.
Too many people demanding to be cared for when tough love is what's called for.

When the 48 million on food stamps vs 144 million wage earners (1:3) becomes 64 million to 128 (1:2), how much more of my wage will the government expect me to pay? At what point do I decide to give in to diminishing returns and reduce my effort to match my diminishing reward? What is the economic result? I'll tell you.... F'n disaster, that's what.

Anyone who can't figure out that reduced spending, including social programs (especially social programs) and reduced regulation to create the environment for economic growth is the ONLY answer, won't be invited to dinner any time soon. "General Welfare" is NOT "Social Welfare".

Not talking about welfare right now we are talking about taxes. There is also the issue of corporate welfare that needs to be addressed. Everyone should pay taxes in my opinion and no one should get more money back then they paid in. (The case with many poor families)
Pat

BaiHu

12-10-2012, 08:46 PM

A) I cannot believe we are going here again.

B) "No but we are not purchasing a membership at a club we are taxing people according to how much they earn. Like I said the biblical example is the most fair. Everyone pays the same percent of their personal pie. Those who benefit more from the opportunities in this land end up paying more and those who benefit less pay less."

I'm cool with that, but you instate a flat tax and anyone making over 50-70ish a year will be fine, and everyone else under that will be crushed. Is that what you want?

C) "Not talking about welfare right now we are talking about taxes. There is also the issue of corporate welfare that needs to be addressed. Everyone should pay taxes in my opinion and no one should get more money back then they paid in. (The case with many poor families)"

What do you think taxes are? Where do you think welfare comes from?

dbateman

12-10-2012, 08:54 PM

Tamara

12-10-2012, 08:58 PM

A) I cannot believe we are going here again.

Really? Really? ;)

Alaskapopo

12-10-2012, 09:09 PM

Tamara

12-10-2012, 09:22 PM

Maybe I'm a bit slow, could you explain how people earning less than 50K would be crushed by paying a set percentage?

The argument against a strictly flat tax is that, if set at a percentage high enough to run the .gov, it would be effectively a regressive tax, in that various expenses necessary to life won't go below a certain floor. To wit, no matter how little someone makes, a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread can only get so cheap, and therefore a $2,000 chunk out of a $10,000 income is a bigger relative pinch than a $20,000 chunk out of a $200,000 one.

To answer this, most flat tax proposals have a certain income floor below which there is no tax. An alternative and creative proposal, which therefore has no chance of passing, is to scrap the income tax altogether and go to a single point-of-sale retail consumption tax, called the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer). In this case, to get around the regressive nature of a consumption tax, every taxpayer would be mailed a fat cost-of-living check at the beginning of the year to offset the increase in the basic price of goods. They could save this and use it for household purchases, or blow it on a new LCD TV every January and just deal with $5/gal milk the rest of the year.

BaiHu

12-10-2012, 09:25 PM

Maybe I'm a bit slow, could you explain how people earning less than 50K would be crushed by paying a set percentage?

Sure. Currently, most people under that threshold, give or take a number of dependents, don't pay income tax. If they have a legal job, they get payroll taxes taken out, but typically they'll get a refund.

One of the things I've been trying to drive home to Alaskapopo is that percentages and dollars are different and here's an example.

If you (we'll keep it to a single person) make 30k in the US now, your effective tax rate is b/w 0-15%, which at the max end is $4,500 in taxes. Chances are, you'll get some of that back.

Let's say we move the rate to a flat tax at just 20%, that means there is no wiggle room, so the guy who makes 30k in 2012, may pay no taxes in the end, but if we move to a 20% flat tax in 2013, he now pays $6,000!! That's an extra $1,500, which is 1/20th of his take home and he has no way to get that back.

Now let's stick the same 20% to the lowest of the 1 percenter, which is $388k. Currently he pays $135,800, which is a 35% tax bracket and he might get some deductions, etc, but let's say he's playing it pretty straight. Now you give him a 20% flat tax and no deductions, and now he pays $77,600, that's almost HALF of what he currently pays, so he's psyched, but Alaskapopo is peeved, so we move everyone's flat tax rate up to 35%!

Okay, now you take your 30k guy now and look at his taxes paid, he pays $10,500!!!! Well how the hell does this guy live? He's now paying the same 1/3rd of his salary as the 1 percenter to the gov't and can barely feed, clothe and shelter himself. Why the hell would anyone take a low skilled job? Why wouldn't anyone getting nailed like this just go on welfare?

Well the way you make that big salary is going into big debt via bachelors, masters, phd, etc. But that just adds to the debt of our nation and there is no guarantee that you'll get that 1 percenter job.

Well, that's what we are now doing to the 50-70k people. We're making them think it might be a better deal living on the dole and taking a side job rather than working for a 60k avg job and taking home 35-40k. This is a recipe for disaster.

That make sense??

BaiHu

12-10-2012, 09:27 PM

The argument against a strictly flat tax is that, if set at a percentage high enough to run the .gov, it would be effectively a regressive tax, in that various expenses necessary to life won't go below a certain floor. To wit, no matter how little someone makes, a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread can only get so cheap, and therefore a $2,000 chunk out of a $10,000 income is a bigger relative pinch than a $20,000 chunk out of a $200,000 one.

To answer this, most flat tax proposals have a certain income floor below which there is no tax. An alternative and creative proposal, which therefore has no chance of passing, is to scrap the income tax altogether and go to a single point-of-sale retail consumption tax, called the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer). In this case, to get around the regressive nature of a consumption tax, every taxpayer would be mailed a fat cost-of-living check at the beginning of the year to offset the increase in the basic price of goods. They could save this and use it for household purchases, or blow it on a new LCD TV every January and just deal with $5/gal milk the rest of the year.

She beat me to it with less words....damn wordsmithing bloggers!!!! You should have an efficiency tax so that other people who aren't as skillful, such as myself, can make it in this world!!!!! :mad:

dbateman

12-10-2012, 10:33 PM

Sure. Currently, most people under that threshold, give or take a number of dependents, don't pay income tax. If they have a legal job, they get payroll taxes taken out, but typically they'll get a refund.

One of the things I've been trying to drive home to Alaskapopo is that percentages and dollars are different and here's an example.

If you (we'll keep it to a single person) make 30k in the US now, your effective tax rate is b/w 0-15%, which at the max end is $4,500 in taxes. Chances are, you'll get some of that back.

Let's say we move the rate to a flat tax at just 20%, that means there is no wiggle room, so the guy who makes 30k in 2012, may pay no taxes in the end, but if we move to a 20% flat tax in 2013, he now pays $6,000!! That's an extra $1,500, which is 1/20th of his take home and he has no way to get that back.

Now let's stick the same 20% to the lowest of the 1 percenter, which is $388k. Currently he pays $135,800, which is a 35% tax bracket and he might get some deductions, etc, but let's say he's playing it pretty straight. Now you give him a 20% flat tax and no deductions, and now he pays $77,600, that's almost HALF of what he currently pays, so he's psyched, but Alaskapopo is peeved, so we move everyone's flat tax rate up to 35%!

Okay, now you take your 30k guy now and look at his taxes paid, he pays $10,500!!!! Well how the hell does this guy live? He's now paying the same 1/3rd of his salary as the 1 percenter to the gov't and can barely feed, clothe and shelter himself. Why the hell would anyone take a low skilled job? Why wouldn't anyone getting nailed like this just go on welfare?

Well the way you make that big salary is going into big debt via bachelors, masters, phd, etc. But that just adds to the debt of our nation and there is no guarantee that you'll get that 1 percenter job.

Well, that's what we are now doing to the 50-70k people. We're making them think it might be a better deal living on the dole and taking a side job rather than working for a 60k avg job and taking home 35-40k. This is a recipe for disaster.

That make sense??

Thanks

Yes I see what you are saying and I agree that there should be a tax free threshold, I don't know what it should be but low income earners are typically old, sick or disabled and if they have the drive to go out and get a job that pays very little I don't think we should be taking from them...slight contradiction to what I said before regarding everyone paying an equal tax.

I feel that we need to have a fairer tax system which is why I like the idea of everyone paying a set percentage, not oh you earn more so you can pay more and oh yeah you also lose benefits.

I guess my problem is. I spent around ten years learning my trade, I did a four year apprenticeship then I went and worked for not grate money in a pretty hard environment because I could learn a lot in a short length of time, during the time I was an apprentice I did not own a car I could not afford it for the first three years in my fourth year I bought a motorbike. I wasn't living at home I was renting a room in a house with a guy that made his income from "horticultural products" now nothing really happened at the house I lived in but well it's complicated and this isn't the place to talk about it.
My room coast me $75 a fortnight and I got a room and my cloths washed for that.

I used to walk run or ride my pushbike 5.5miles to work every day because we started work before the busses were running.

I struggled thru my apprenticeship not with the work but the fact of you earn very little money and life is expensive.

I sat down and I set goals.

I worked out what I would need to know what skills I would need to posses in order to make good money, then I went and looked for opportunities to learn. I found the best people in my industry to learn off and I went and worked for them.
One guy dind't have enough work for another man so I worked for him for free as a second job for two years and I am glad that I did because he taught me a lot of stuff.

Ok so you get the point.

So why is it that I am being penalised for being successful? I worked so hard to get where I am and now and people are just like oh yeah you can pay more tax than me, you've got money you can pay for this or that.

I feel that we need a fairer system and to me a set tax percentage looks to be an answer, I was thinking say 10% but maybe thats not enough.
I'm not sure what the answer is.

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 12:08 AM

dbateman,

I appreciate the time you took to get there, I've gone through 2 apprenticeships for the 2 jobs I have.

I also appreciate your point about taxes and feeling penalized. We live in a nation where the richest and poorest pay the smallest percentage of their income in taxes. Approximately 0-15% for the ultra top earners and lowest wage earners. Yes, the rich pay HUGE piles of cash and no, the poor don't live very well, but both of these extremes are incorrectly motivated IMO.

If I were king, I would encourage society to build a family and support them and I'd do it with a different tax system.

All of the below would be inflation adjusted each year.

Single person:
Up to 50k in cities you pay 0% in taxes and 5% in suburbs.

51-75k 5% in cities and 10% in suburbs.

76-100k 10% in cities and 15% in suburbs.

101-125k 15% and 20%

126-175k 20% and 25%

176-250k 25% and 30%

251-325k 30% and 35%

326-Google 35% no matter where you live.

Using the above scale, if you're married, then you move one lower % bracket from your income. If you have 1 child or more, then you drop 2. Example married and 75k combined is 0% and 5%. 150k with kids is 10% and 15%.

All investments held within 1 day (day traders and HFT computers) taxed at 50%.

2-355 days 25%

1 year or more 15%

All dividends 10%

The tax code does not reward modest, honest, hardworking success or safe investments, it rewards sloth or massive debt and risk taking (many forms of all 3).

The guy who wants to get a good education, make a good wage, but be there for his family so he doesn't have demon spawn is the type of behavior we want more of and we don't get enough of this in our tax code.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

MDS

12-11-2012, 12:19 AM

If I were king, I would encourage society to build a family and support them and I'd do it with a different tax system.

I was surprised by this post. My take is that taxes should be for funding some of the stuff needed by society - specifically, that stuff that can only be achieved through the use of force. Once you start to use government (even via taxation) to "encourage" a certain lifestyle choice, you step onto a slippery slope...a slope that, based on your previous posts, I think you'd rather avoid. Would you agree to some or all of that?

Not that it really matters. Takers take until there's nothing left to take; makers make until it's not worth their while anymore; and plenty of both will waste a lot of time talking about it on forums. ;)

dbateman

12-11-2012, 12:24 AM

I appreciate the time you took to get there, I've gone through 2 apprenticeships for the 2 jobs I have.

I don't know about you but I hated the apprentice wages.

The guy who wants to get a good education, make a good wage, but be there for his family so he doesn't have demon spawn is the type of behavior we want more of and we don't get enough of this in our tax code.

This is pretty much me thats the whole reason I do what I do, I also don't want to be working full time when I'm 60 unless I want to.

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 12:41 AM

The argument against a strictly flat tax is that, if set at a percentage high enough to run the .gov, it would be effectively a regressive tax, in that various expenses necessary to life won't go below a certain floor. To wit, no matter how little someone makes, a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread can only get so cheap, and therefore a $2,000 chunk out of a $10,000 income is a bigger relative pinch than a $20,000 chunk out of a $200,000 one.

To answer this, most flat tax proposals have a certain income floor below which there is no tax. An alternative and creative proposal, which therefore has no chance of passing, is to scrap the income tax altogether and go to a single point-of-sale retail consumption tax, called the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer). In this case, to get around the regressive nature of a consumption tax, every taxpayer would be mailed a fat cost-of-living check at the beginning of the year to offset the increase in the basic price of goods. They could save this and use it for household purchases, or blow it on a new LCD TV every January and just deal with $5/gal milk the rest of the year.

I like the Fair tax quite a bit as well. Another advantage of the Fair tax is it taps into the undreground economy. No more work under the table as you pay the tax when you buy stuff. Drug dealers also pay tax this way.
Pat

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 12:43 AM

I was surprised by this post. My take is that taxes should be for funding some of the stuff needed by society - specifically, that stuff that can only be achieved through the use of force. Once you start to use government (even via taxation) to "encourage" a certain lifestyle choice, you step onto a slippery slope...a slope that, based on your previous posts, I think you'd rather avoid. Would you agree to some or all of that?

Not that it really matters. Takers take until there's nothing left to take; makers make until it's not worth their while anymore; and plenty of both will waste a lot of time talking about it on forums. ;)

Totally agree with your response. Sad part is, the govt already encourages/discourages our behavior, so I'd rather them encourage good behavior with my options rather than theirs.

I don't know about you but I hated the apprentice wages.

This is pretty much me thats the whole reason I do what I do, I also don't want to be working full time when I'm 60 unless I want to.

In both cases I received no wage other than what I found in side jobs that my mentor couldn't do in one case and I got a great bonus after my first year of salaried work with my friend doing financial work.

I worked for free for at least 1 year in each of these professions and poorly for more years than I care to count, over 60 hr work weeks for more than I'd like to count, and 7 days straight for 50/52 weeks for more years than I'd like to count. Now I try to work smart-lol!

In the end I made awesome connections to both of my mentors, learned a ton and networked quite a web.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 12:44 AM

dbateman,

The guy who wants to get a good education, make a good wage, but be there for his family so he doesn't have demon spawn is the type of behavior we want more of and we don't get enough of this in our tax code.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Oh the guy who is single without many deductions. I have a home and that helps but not kids no wife. One of my guys working for me takes home as much as I do because he has a wife and two kids despite the fact I make about $5 more an hour than him. Single folks basically subsidize families with our current tax code.
Pat

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 12:51 AM

Its us single guys that cause all the trouble Alaskapopo, dontcha know??

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 12:57 AM

Speaking of encouraging bad behavior or discouraging the keeping of funds in the US:

http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/100297256/1

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

MDS

12-11-2012, 01:12 AM

Totally agree with your response. Sad part is, the govt already encourages/discourages our behavior, so I'd rather them encourage good behavior with my options rather than theirs.

Fair enough! :)

Since we're going down this familiar road again, how about some words from William Boetcker:

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Cheers!

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 08:27 AM

Seen that before.

Now if only Congress read it, understood it and implemented it, we'd be golden.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

RoyGBiv

12-11-2012, 08:48 AM

I agree that there should be a tax free threshold, I don't know what it should be but low income earners are typically old, sick or disabled
I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly, but be careful not to build it on such a shaky premise. If the above was true, I think you'd find much less of an argument from "the rich" about contributing more to the growing social welfare state. In fact, I believe there would not be a social welfare state if the above was true.

RoyGBiv

12-11-2012, 08:50 AM

Dinesh D'Souza & Michael Shermer in plain language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEM4NKXK-iA

MDS

12-11-2012, 08:57 AM

Seen that before.

Now if only Congress read it, understood it and implemented it, we'd be golden.

+1, though I'd rephrase: if only We the People read it, understood it, and voted accordingly, we'd be golden.

Tamara

12-11-2012, 09:11 AM

+1, though I'd rephrase: if only We the People read it, understood it, and voted accordingly, we'd be golden.

This exactly. It's not like this leviathan has been imposed on us by outsiders, no matter what the Birchers claim.

RoyGBiv

12-11-2012, 09:31 AM

Maybe this is a good place to share some lesser known Benjamin Franklin quotes..

Idleness and Pride Tax with a heavier Hand than Kings and Parliaments; If we can get rid of the former we may easily bear the Latter.
.............. Letter to Charles Thomson, 11 July 1765

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
............... On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor (29 November 1766).

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
................ Benjamin Franklin, Speech to the Constitutional Convention (September 17, 1787)

I find myself looking to Ben these days for what to do next. He seems to have so clearly foreseen the behaviors that would lead to the demise of the Republic, I keep hoping to find some grains of his wisdom that teach us how to save it.

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 12:19 PM

RoyGBiv

12-11-2012, 12:25 PM

The shame of all of this is that we are so far from the founding fathers original intentions, that we have to argue over toxic ground.

If I represented one side of the argument and Alaskapopo the other, I'd think we could actually have a fair and constitutionally sound tax plan (obviously my kingly one was just that, kingly :D)

A flat tax on any and all income no matter how it comes to you at 20%, but it starts around 40k and anything under that would go untaxed. Just adjust it all for inflation every year and we're done. The KISS principle would keep it completely free of loopholes, lawyers, accountants and lobbyists from messing around.

Sadly, we can't just have an intellectual revolution, b/c neither party has a clue.
I'd keep a deduction for charitable contributions.
Charities should handle most of the social welfare issues we now rely on government to provide. I'm in favor of cutting my own throat on mortgages, child tax credits, etc, but believe we'd be poorly served to cut charities off at the knees... Slippery slope, I know.. Maybe a temporary deduction during some transition period.

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 12:31 PM

I'd keep a deduction for charitable contributions.
Charities should handle most of the social welfare issues we now rely on government to provide. I'm in favor of cutting my own throat on mortgages, child tax credits, etc, but believe we'd be poorly served to cut charities off at the knees... Slippery slope, I know.. Maybe a temporary deduction during some transition period.

Good point. Perhaps you leave that in there along with the flat tax.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Chemsoldier

12-11-2012, 12:59 PM

I'd keep a deduction for charitable contributions.
Charities should handle most of the social welfare issues we now rely on government to provide. I'm in favor of cutting my own throat on mortgages, child tax credits, etc, but believe we'd be poorly served to cut charities off at the knees... Slippery slope, I know.. Maybe a temporary deduction during some transition period.
I wouldnt cry about leaving a deduction for charitable giving in place, but charitable giving existed before income tax. I think the practice would survive. I think your idea of a transition period would work, phase out the deduction over time.

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 02:02 PM

In case I didn't share this through another link earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hzyRjX_pX5c

RoyGBiv

12-11-2012, 02:19 PM

In case I didn't share this through another link earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hzyRjX_pX5c

You forgot to include the updated news from yesterday.

Chrysler ordered to rehire workers caught drinking, smoking pot during lunch
By Patrick Rall on Mon, 12/10/2012 - 22:00 (http://www.torquenews.com/106/chrysler-ordered-rehire-workers-caught-drinking-smoking-pot-during-lunch)

RoyGBiv

12-11-2012, 02:24 PM

And then, of course.. today's union news from MI..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/teachers-call-out-as-protests-rev-up-against-michigan-union-bill/

The Michigan Legislature on Tuesday gave final approval to contentious "right-to-work" legislation, in the face of raucous protests in the capital and stern warnings from Democratic lawmakers.

"There will be blood, there will be repercussions," State Democratic Rep. Douglas Geiss, speaking on the House floor on Tuesday, warned ahead of the votes.
Civility be damned. Imagine a Republican making such a statement.
At least Liberty is making forward progress in some respects at the State level.

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 02:50 PM

And then, of course.. today's union news from MI..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/teachers-call-out-as-protests-rev-up-against-michigan-union-bill/

Civility be damned. Imagine a Republican making such a statement.
At least Liberty is making forward progress in some respects at the State level.

Perfect timing, Roy, I got their version of 'there will be blood' right here:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/12/11/Union-Mob-Destroys-Tent-With-People-Inside

Perfectly illegal, unless you're in a union....nice :mad:

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 03:37 PM

And this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&list=SP85933DBA7E52B5B6

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 04:04 PM

And then, of course.. today's union news from MI..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/teachers-call-out-as-protests-rev-up-against-michigan-union-bill/

Civility be damned. Imagine a Republican making such a statement.
At least Liberty is making forward progress in some respects at the State level.

Yea liberty hardly. Obama had this one right. Right to work just means your employer has a right to pay you less for your work. I hope the courts stop this attempt at killing the middle class. Decisions like this make it easier to consider voting all democrate in the future.
Pat

ToddG

12-11-2012, 04:16 PM

Yea liberty hard. Obama had this one right. Right to work just means your employer has a right to pay you less for your work. I hope the courts stop this attempt at killing the middle class.

How is it "killing the middle class" to protect non-union employees from paying unions for the right to work? Put another way, how does forcing someone into a union -- and forcing them to pay for the "privilege" -- help the middle class?

Are there really people so oblivious to reality that they cannot see the monstrous irony of a union forcing people to do what it wants even if they don't want to participate? I mean, wasn't that sort of what unions were originally created to protect against?

In the private sector, unions operate on an untenable principle: companies will always be able to make enough money to support union members' wages and benefits no matter how big the wages and benefits are. But we've seen first hand, and on multiple occasions, what union demands have meant for big business in the United States: jobs that can be sent overseas get sent overseas. How much does a union worker get paid when his company closes its doors forever?

Joe in PNG

12-11-2012, 04:25 PM

And being forced to give money to political parties, candidates, and positions I am dead set against? Or I don't get to work? That is pure wrong.

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 04:27 PM

How is it "killing the middle class" to protect non-union employees from paying unions for the right to work? Put another way, how does forcing someone into a union -- and forcing them to pay for the "privilege" -- help the middle class?

Are there really people so oblivious to reality that they cannot see the monstrous irony of a union forcing people to do what it wants even if they don't want to participate? I mean, wasn't that sort of what unions were originally created to protect against?

In the private sector, unions operate on an untenable principle: companies will always be able to make enough money to support union members' wages and benefits no matter how big the wages and benefits are. But we've seen first hand, and on multiple occasions, what union demands have meant for big business in the United States: jobs that can be sent overseas get sent overseas. How much does a union worker get paid when his company closes its doors forever?

The problems the unions are forced to represent nonunion workers in that work at the same employer. They get the same wages the union fought hard for. Basically this law allows freeloaders to benefit for something they are not paying for. The union loses money because these people are not paying dues despite getting the benefits. This eventually kills the union. Then the employer lowers pay and benefits. Nationally employees in right to work states make 35% less than employees in other states. Its just another way the republicans are screwing over the working class and they wonder why they can't win a national presidential election against someone like Obama. I used to vote republican until I saw how they are trying at the party level at least to screw over workers. Thankfully on the local level there are pro labor republicans here and there.

The rich can demonize unions all they want and I understand why they don't like them because they want to pay as little as possible to their employees. However all unions do is allow workers to negotiate with their employers on equal footing at the table. If you don't have them you are just once voice and easily replaced. Its much harder to replace the entire work force. Some on here don't understand this because they work in professional positions where they are able to write their own ticket. My brother is an electrical engineer and he gets paid very well and he can negotiate his pay because his skill is harder to replace where he works. Take a lower skilled worker and they don't have that luxury. That is where unions come in. They allow all the employees to act as a unit. The effort to crush unions is another attempt by the 1% to get even richer.

Pat

TAZ

12-11-2012, 04:29 PM

Never mind. I give up.

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 04:32 PM

And being forced to give money to political parties, candidates, and positions I am dead set against? Or I don't get to work? That is pure wrong.

Not really because the union is there to represent the whole of the workers and frankly republicans typically (not always) are down right hostile to workers rights. So yes unions are going to support pro labor canidates. This does cause some heart burn for many due to the 2nd amendment issue at least it has me. Do I sacrifice my employement rights or my gun rights. Fortunately the democratic party is becoming less hostile towards gun owners but the republican party seems to becoming even more polarizing against the workers. Voting for a republican as middle class employee in this day and age is cutting your own throat.
Pat

Kyle Reese

12-11-2012, 04:33 PM

Workers of the world unite!

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Joe in PNG

12-11-2012, 04:36 PM

Not really because the union is there to represent the whole of the workers and frankly republicans typically (not always) are down right hostile to workers rights. So yes unions are going to support pro labor canidates. This does cause some heart burn for many due to the 2nd amendment issue at least it has me. Do I sacrifice my employement rights or my gun rights. Fortunately the democratic party is becoming less hostile towards gun owners but the republican party seems to becoming even more polarizing against the workers. Voting for a republican as middle class employee in this day and age is cutting your own throat.
Pat

I'll say this simply. I. Don't. Need. A. &^%$&. Union. To. Negotiate. My. Employment.
I don't want a Damn union either. I also hate and despise the whole "don't touch that power cord! That's a union job, and you've got to wait for the electrician to get back from his lunchbreak tomorrow before you can do your job!" mindset that the modern labor movement has given us.

People can get jobs and good wages without a union, believe it or not!

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 04:36 PM

Really!? Please enlighten us as to how the middle class in right to work states has been abused and killed by those absolute evil employers. I'm obviously missing something.

In right to work states you can be fired without cause. Employers often fire people for reasons that are simple wrong. A sherrifis deputy got fired for clicking the like button on another sherriff canidate in one right to work state on his personal face book account while off duty. The mayor does not like the fact you pulled his kid over and gave him a ticket your gone fired with no recourse. Oh and I did mention that in right to work states the pay is less and so are benefits.
http://www.epi.org/publication/datazone_rtw_index/

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 04:46 PM

I'll say this simply. I. Don't. Need. A. &^%$&. Union. To. Negotiate. My. Employment.
I don't want a Damn union either. I also hate and despise the whole "don't touch that power cord! That's a union job, and you've got to wait for the electrician to get back from his lunchbreak tomorrow before you can do your job!" mindset that the modern labor movement has given us.

People can get jobs and good wages without a union, believe it or not!

You can't argue with facts. Fact is national wide union employees make more and receive far better benefits than non union workers in the same job.
http://www.seiu.org/a/ourunion/research/union-advantage-facts-and-figures.php

I have worked in both non union and union departments and I can tell you that being in a union even a bad one is far better than not. In a non union department you get raises only when so many people leave that training costs start to out weigh the costs of simply paying the employees a little better. With a union department we negotiate a new contract at set intervals generally every 3 years. The union and the department come to the table and a deal is hashed out. The employees are always better off in my experience in a union department. Now as for firing people who screw up. You can fire people in a union to you just have to have followed the due process rules and documented what that employee has done. Working as a supervisor in both types of departments I was involved in the termination process for employees and frankly it was not any harder in the union departments to get rid of bad people.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 04:50 PM

what union demands have meant for big business in the United States: jobs that can be sent overseas get sent overseas. How much does a union worker get paid when his company closes its doors forever?

The solution is not to lower the working standard in the US to the levels of Chinese Sweet shop but rather to raise the rest of the world up to our level by putting pressure on big companies not to use companies in countries where their are human rights abuses. Also the wage in China are going up exponentially. As workers over there get a taste of what its like to have money they want more. They will also demand better working conditions better pay and benefits etc as time goes on. Right now we have rich companies taking advantage of the very poor in economically depressed parts of the world.
Pat

Joe in PNG

12-11-2012, 04:54 PM

Dude, I live in an economically depressed part of the 3rd world. A sweatshop at pennies per hour is a big, supermassive monster step up for these folks.

NickA

12-11-2012, 04:54 PM

RoyGBiv

12-11-2012, 04:55 PM

Yea liberty hardly. Obama had this one right. Right to work just means your employer has a right to pay you less for your work. I hope the courts stop this attempt at killing the middle class. Decisions like this make it easier to consider voting all democrate in the future.
Pat

Right.... That's what it's all about.
Couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the fact that forcing me to pay union dues to keep my job translates to me having to pay for union political lobbying for laws and lawmakers that I abhor.

JV_

12-11-2012, 04:57 PM

I'm going to hate myself for getting involved in thisMore than once I've typed out a reply to this thread, only to not use the "Submit Reply" button. I have to keep reminding myself that it's a wasted effort because no one's mind is going to be changed.

ToddG

12-11-2012, 04:59 PM

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 05:08 PM

I'm going to hate myself for getting involved in this, but unless I'm reading it wrong this link shows the pay difference to be more like 6.5%, not the 35% you posted earlier.
Some more numbers here, showing that while wages might be lower job creation is much higher in RTW states:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/11/news/economy/michigan-right-to-work-vote/index.html?iid=Lead

FWIW note that the article cites the same study linked above, and even CNN calls it a "left-leaning organization".

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

$917 = Median weekly earnings in 2010 of union members.

$717 = Median weekly earnings in 2010 of non-union workers.

That is a 22% increase we were both wrong.

Source
http://www.seiu.org/a/ourunion/research/union-advantage-facts-and-figures.phpa

Leave benefits.
•Union workers get 28 percent more days of paid vacation, on average, than non-union workers.

•82 percent of union workers have paid sick leave, compared to 63 percent of nonunion workers.

•46 percent of unionized workers receive full pay while on sick leave, versus only 29 percent of non-union workers.

Medical
The union advantage is even greater when you compare the percentages of union vs. non-union workers receiving specific benefits:
•Dental Care: Union, 70% | Non-union: 44%
•Vision care: Union, 53% | Non-union: 24%
•Prescription drug benefits: Union, 90% | Non-union, 68%

Union workers nationwide are 28.2 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance

No matter how you slice it its better to be a union employee than a non union one when it comes to pay and benefits.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 05:09 PM

Right.... That's what it's all about.
Couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the fact that forcing me to pay union dues to keep my job translates to me having to pay for union political lobbying for laws and lawmakers that I abhor.

It is a necessary evil. Like I said earlier I went through some of the same inner conflict. Gun rights vs employment rights. In the end of the day if I get screwed over by my employier so bad I can't afford to buy guns it is just as bad.
Pat

ToddG

12-11-2012, 05:10 PM

When did you get a job? :cool:

When I was fifteen.

Source
http://www.seiu.org/a/ourunion/research/union-advantage-facts-and-figures.phpa

That's like using the Brady Bunch's figures to prove guns are bad.

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 05:13 PM

I get it. We should just make all the other countries do what we want. How could I have been so naive as to have missed that easy solution?

And your comment about unions not being hurt by "freeloaders" still misses the cosmic irony... Unions are supposed to be about protecting workers, but instead they are about protecting the union itself. You want to bargain collectively with my employer? Knock yourself out. But don't demand that I participate. Don't demand that I contribute financially to an organization I don't want a part of. And don't tell me what I will or won't accept as terms of employment. When the union can dictate to employees against their will, they're no different than the companies they crusade against.

Again if we allow freeloaders to not pay yet still get the same wages and benefits we bargained for we would be cutting our own throat. So if you want to let people not join the union fine don't allow them to benefit from the wages and benefits the union negotiated. As for jobs leaving the country they are actually predicting they will start coming back thanks to the Natural Gas Boom as the cost of energy out weighs higher labor costs.
Again I have worked for both and know first hand that a union department is better.
Pat

TCinVA

12-11-2012, 05:14 PM

When I was fifteen.

That's like using the Brady Bunch's figures to prove guns are bad.

...and doesn't account for a whole host of contributing factors like costs of living in RTW vs. forced collective bargaining states, skilled vs. unskilled positions, etc.

But when one is hell-bent on making the argument of how forcing people into a union whether they want to contribute to one or not is for their own good, pesky little details like that aren't going to get much consideration.

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 05:15 PM

When I was fifteen.

That's like using the Brady Bunch's figures to prove guns are bad.

Not hardly. What is like the Brady bunch is the republicans even trying to use the term Right to Work. It should be right to scew employees over law.
Pat

TCinVA

12-11-2012, 05:19 PM

Again if we allow freeloaders to not pay yet still get the same wages and benefits we bargained for we would be cutting our own throat.

The depth of the irony in that statement is staggering.

RoyGBiv

12-11-2012, 05:19 PM

In right to work states you can be fired without cause. Employers often fire people for reasons that are simple wrong. A sherrifis deputy got fired for clicking the like button on another sherriff canidate in one right to work state on his personal face book account while off duty. The mayor does not like the fact you pulled his kid over and gave him a ticket your gone fired with no recourse. Oh and I did mention that in right to work states the pay is less and so are benefits.
http://www.epi.org/publication/datazone_rtw_index/

In a good economy, where jobs are growing, I too have choices.
As an employee, I can walk my ass down to the next factory or the next office that will treat me better and/or pay me more. Employers don't have a monopoly on paychecks. I LOVE the idea that I can get fired "without cause". You know why? Because that keeps workers working towards the best interests of their employer, rather than the best interests of themselves. Employers will compete for the best workers, and that's me.... Every company I've ever worked for went out of their way to earn my continued employment. I never once took my job for granted, and they treated me similarly. THAT's the way it should be.

I'll give you one example, then I'm going to look for the ignore list to put you on.

I was working a union job, way back when. On a freight dock, cross loading freight for a major transportation company. On my third night (graveyard) I'm deep inside a trailer with a hand truck full of goods and an old guy driving a forklift comes flying in, pulls the (empty) forks up to me, chest high, and says "you oughta slow down kid, or you might get hurt." I got the message. Wasn't any surprise for me, I grew up in a union neighborhood and had many friends that went from HS straight to the trades (a lot of carpenters and electricians). They would all have approved of that forklift driver's attitude too... I don't have any of those HS friends any longer.

It was my last night on that job. The shift manager begged me not to quit. Told me I moved more freight the previous night than the next 2 guys combined. I was barely breaking a sweat, just trying to find my way around a 100-door dock. Took another job 3 days later making more money, working during the daylight.

That was my second and last union job.

I have nothing against union members. I think unions have done a ton of good for this country, but, unions have gone beyond sanity. They are protecting Amercan workers at the expense of American jobs and the American economy. Unions are certainly not solely to blame. America is no longer a virtuous society. We are reaping what we have sewn. Unions are only a part of the problem.

Peace.

TCinVA

12-11-2012, 05:22 PM

Not hardly. What is like the Brady bunch is the republicans even trying to use the term Right to Work. It should be right to scew employees over law.
Pat

Sure. Because the idea that people should be free to select whether or not they hand over a chunk of their paycheck to a political organization to "represent" them to their employer and in politics is Snidely Whiplash level evil conspiracy.

Insisting that the government forces people to do what's good for them because they can't be trusted to do so is nonsense.

ToddG

12-11-2012, 05:23 PM

Not hardly. What is like the Brady bunch is the republicans even trying to use the term Right to Work. It should be right to scew employees over law.
Pat

I know I should let this go but can't.

You say "right to screw employees over." What you mean, though, is "right to screw unions over." Because by definition, what the law in question does is protect employees who have made a choice not to be part of the union process. That is protecting the individual employee. Forcing them to be part of an organization against their will is the antithesis of liberty. It galls me to think there are people who'd even support such a thing.

Just take your own statements above. You're in agreement that unions are, by and large, pro-Democrat, correct? So what you're saying is that the unions should be able to force Americans to support an organization that uses their mandated dues to campaign in favor of the Democratic party even if they don't personally support that party. Do you honestly think that's ok? What if someone told you that in order to own a gun, you had to be a member of the NRA? It doesn't matter if they spend millions trying to get certain politicians elected, politicians perhaps you don't want to vote for. You want a gun? You have to pay your $35 a year or whatever. Do you think that would be right?

ToddG

12-11-2012, 05:26 PM

... then I'm going to look for the ignore list to put you on.

Directed at everyone: keep personal comments out of the discussion. You want to ignore someone, go ahead. But keep it to yourself or send the offender a PM. There's no need to let the world know you don't personally find someone's comments worthwhile, especially if you're taking the time to respond to them in the first place.

That is all.

TGS

12-11-2012, 05:44 PM

They will also demand better working conditions better pay and benefits etc as time goes on. Right now we have rich companies taking advantage of the very poor in economically depressed parts of the world.
Pat

Demand something from the Chinese government or corporations? Whoa, holy crap dude.

Demand, and:

China will just shoot you. It's happened.

Or run over you with a tank. It's happened.

Or imprison you and your family for reeducation. It's happened.

Or rape your daughter in front of you, then shove a sharpened 6 foot pole from vagina through to the collarbone. It's happened.

Or electrocute you by putting probes through your rectum. It's happened.

What a glorious nation for the worker!

BTW, the rising Chinese wages are not due to workers......at all. They're part of the party's plan to create a consumer economy within China. If you would actually do any research instead of constantly spouting punch lines from your favorite pundit, you'd find this plan publicly discussed about by Chinese leaders last month.

As to how a US company giving jobs overseas is exploiting them, man, that's news to me! From what I understood the Chinese employees working at the Apple factory are making almost twice the going wage for a similar job in China. Damn you, Apple, exploiting those employees by paying them twice the going rate! And damn you for giving them jobs too! Because if you weren't employing them, they'd be doing so much better as beggars, criminals and prostitutes instead!

Yeah, dude. Totally.

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 05:45 PM

The problems the unions are forced to represent nonunion workers in that work at the same employer. They get the same wages the union fought hard for. Basically this law allows freeloaders to benefit for something they are not paying for. The union loses money because these people are not paying dues despite getting the benefits. This eventually kills the union. Then the employer lowers pay and benefits.

Pat

This is exactly the problem we are all talking about, except replace unions with responsible/productive people and non-union members with irresponsible/unproductive people. Ergo, you've proven my point with your own personal gripe.

Reads like this now:

The problem is the productive members are forced to support unproductive members. They get the same wages the productive member fought hard for. Basically this law allows freeloaders to benefit for something they are not paying for. The productive class loses money because these people are not paying dues despite getting the benefits. This eventually kills the nation. Then the productive class comes home with lower pay and benefits, but higher taxes.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 05:48 PM

Joe in PNG

12-11-2012, 05:52 PM

TCinVA

12-11-2012, 05:53 PM

As to how a US company giving jobs overseas is exploiting them, man, that's news to me! From what I understood the Chinese employees working at the Apple factory are making almost twice the going wage for a similar job in China.

Use of actual Chinese history and sociology is patently unfair. It's unfair to point out how the country still has lots of peasants who live at subsistence level...which is a considerable improvement over 30 years ago where they were dying of starvation in such numbers under Mao's leadership that it actually slowed the rate of world population growth.

It's unfair to posit the idea that somebody working for FoxConn under less than OSHA/SEIU/UAW approved conditions might still be far better off than somebody who is working themselves ragged trying to scrape enough of a rice crop out of the mud to avoid starving to death.

TCinVA

12-11-2012, 05:55 PM

Security means you have less risk... however, you also have less freedom.

"Security" is largely a fiction.

It's a promise politicians make to con scared people out of their money. The purpose is to get them to hand over the money and the power for the promise that they'll have security.

...and if you want to know how well that works out, just look at California's pension situation.

Promises of tomorrow for money and power handed over today rarely work out as hoped. Some political philosophies understand this and try to accommodate it. Others stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it and claim that substandard results are a success rather than asking the hard questions which might lead to actual improvements.

...and that's how you end up starving tens of millions of Chinese peasants to death. Not that anyone who did it actually cared.

MDS

12-11-2012, 06:07 PM

The depth of the irony in that statement is staggering.

Deep and wide, deep and wide, there's a river of irony flowing deep and wide...

I love a good verbal brawl as much as the next Cuban, but all fun aside, the hard question is how to prepare for a biblical-sized flood of this irony. Most of us will drown in it. Maybe I should gather two of each kind of gun so I can repopulate the world when freedom emerges again...

To get a little more on topic, I hope i find a school system that's acceptable to me. If there's nothing better than what I'm familiar with (in nocal, dfw, mia) then the boys will go to private school. If I can't afford it, they'll get home schooled, even though I think that's suboptimal.

How about the following deal for teachers: they get what they're asking for in direct proportion to how well their students do in college, teacher by teacher.

TCinVA

12-11-2012, 06:15 PM

Deep and wide, deep and wide, there's a river of irony flowing deep and wide...

I love a good verbal brawl as much as the next Cuban, but all fun aside, the hard question is how to prepare for a biblical-sized flood of this irony. Most of us will drown in it. Maybe I should gather two of each kind of gun so I can repopulate the world when freedom emerges again...

To get a little more on topic, I hope i find a school system that's acceptable to me. If there's nothing better than what I'm familiar with (in nocal, dfw, mia) then the boys will go to private school. If I can't afford it, they'll get home schooled, even though I think that's suboptimal.

How about the following deal for teachers: they get what they're asking for in direct proportion to how well their students do in college, teacher by teacher.

I've seen little to convince me so far that teachers alone will fix things.

You're willing to sacrifice to get your kids a good education...and along with that probably goes enough parental fortitude to actually try and see that they do something more than flunk out. That is more likely to predict their success than anything else.

There's plenty that's wrong in the American education system and I'm a firm believer that the incentives are all fouled up and it needs reform, but teacher accountability isn't the panacea to fix it. I think the only thing that can really fix it is school choice. Where it's been tried it seems to produce superior results at lower cost...but it does so because, at least in my view, it's assisting those parents who actually care by getting them out of dead-end schools and into ones where they can have an impact.

In modern America we're trying to force a "good" education down the throat of kids who have no discernible family structure and who live in an environment where perpetual dependency is an aspiration and anti-social behavior is the norm. Parachuting in awesome teachers won't fix that.

I don't know of anything short of a radical shifting in incentives for all involved that would, frankly. We're always going to have dead end pupils because of their own poor choices...and so we will always have dead end schools and dead end staff for those schools. I'd just like to see the dead enders all grouped in one neat pile without imprisoning the people who want better for themselves and demand better of themselves along with those who have made the decision to be worthless.

School choice is a good first step to that, IMO.

MDS

12-11-2012, 06:20 PM

Parachuting in awesome teachers won't fix that.

What if you parachute in all the CA union-champion teachers? Except without the parachutes?

Chemsoldier

12-11-2012, 06:33 PM

Small story:

When I was a college student I attended school out of state. When home over the summer I needed a job for two months to make a little extra money. The closest grocery store to my home was a Union store. I had to pay my Union dues up front to work my 8 weeks. I would have had to pay 3/4 of 2 months salary up front to work there. I worked as a janitor at a mall food court instead. My salary was very slightly less and I got to take every cent home with me (except the part that was taxed of course). The grocery store's loss. Incidental post script: when my home state finally got CCW that union store is the only chain in the city to have a no CCW policy. I have no reason to think those two facts are connected, but it definitely makes my grocery shopping decisions easy when visiting home.

Joe in PNG

12-11-2012, 06:35 PM

"Security" is largely a fiction.

It's a promise politicians make to con scared people out of their money. The purpose is to get them to hand over the money and the power for the promise that they'll have security.

...and if you want to know how well that works out, just look at California's pension situation.

Promises of tomorrow for money and power handed over today rarely work out as hoped. Some political philosophies understand this and try to accommodate it. Others stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it and claim that substandard results are a success rather than asking the hard questions which might lead to actual improvements.

...and that's how you end up starving tens of millions of Chinese peasants to death. Not that anyone who did it actually cared.

Agreed. The history of the 20th century is largely people exchanging Freedom for "security" and "equality", then getting gulags, shortages, and oppression instead.

Take the case of WW2 England. They wanted post war job security for their fully engaged work force, and went for socialism. Look how well that turned out. Ponder also the English auto industry- pretty much nonexistent* at the moment, and ponder the role that high union negotiated wages had in that downfall.

*Almost every mainstream English automaker is owned by Germans. Irony!

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 06:40 PM

I know I should let this go but can't.

You say "right to screw employees over." What you mean, though, is "right to screw unions over." Because by definition, what the law in question does is protect employees who have made a choice not to be part of the union process. That is protecting the individual employee. Forcing them to be part of an organization against their will is the antithesis of liberty. It galls me to think there are people who'd even support such a thing.

Just take your own statements above. You're in agreement that unions are, by and large, pro-Democrat, correct? So what you're saying is that the unions should be able to force Americans to support an organization that uses their mandated dues to campaign in favor of the Democratic party even if they don't personally support that party. Do you honestly think that's ok? What if someone told you that in order to own a gun, you had to be a member of the NRA? It doesn't matter if they spend millions trying to get certain politicians elected, politicians perhaps you don't want to vote for. You want a gun? You have to pay your $35 a year or whatever. Do you think that would be right?

Todd the Unions are the workers. I know you understand the concept. The union is made up of members who are the workers. When unions negotate for better pay the workers get better pay. In fact many non union people also benefit because wages in the region are higher because of the unions so to get people even non union shops are forced to offer higher wages to stay somewhat competative.

The real irony here is on one hand half of you republican drones are saying unions are getting too much money and causing companies to fail and governments to go bankrupt and on the other hand your also saying unions don't get better pay and you don't need to be in a union to get good benefits. You can't have it both ways. The truth is union employees make more money but they are not the cause of companies failing or governments going under.
Pat

TGS

12-11-2012, 06:43 PM

The real irony here is on one hand half of you republican drones are saying

Not all of us are republicans.

Oh, god! You're wrong again! Hahahahaha! I love this game.

Agreed. The history of the 20th century is largely people exchanging Freedom for "security" and "equality", then getting gulags, shortages, and oppression instead.

I think some dude who wrote radio programs about alien invasions predicted that!

PS, my new sig line!

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 06:43 PM

What it comes down to is the old freedom vs security.

Freedom means you have more choices, but with those choices comes risk.

Security means you have less risk... however, you also have less freedom.

But doing away with risk is not always a good thing. Sometimes reducing risk in the name of security means that the few risk that remain are catastrophic if things go wrong.

Industries that have moved overseas and left American workers with good, union negotiated contracts but no jobs is a demonstration. Hell, notice how "rust belt" states are heavily unionized?

Personally, I want risk and freedom.

I am all for freedom and to have real freedom you need to be able to make a good living. If the republicans have their way we will see what we saw in the midst of the industrial revolution, lots of abuses like child labor just above starvation level wages, long work weeks no over time pay unsafe working conditions for 99% of us and the 1% will live high on the hog. (that is the way it was before unions got involved and gave us the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, safer working conditions, better pay etc)
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 06:45 PM

Not all of us are republicans.

Oh, god! You're wrong again! Hahahahaha! I love this game.

Wrong again? I have not been wrong yet in this thread. I did not say all of the other posters were republican. Sounds like you need to learn to read.
pat

TGS

12-11-2012, 06:49 PM

Wrong again? I have not been wrong yet in this thread. I did not say all of the other posters were republican. Sounds like you need to learn to read.
pat

Please, tell me more!

Kyle Reese

12-11-2012, 06:50 PM

ALCON;

Knock off the personal attacks. Any further violations will result in the appropriate infraction(s) being issued.

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 06:57 PM

I've seen little to convince me so far that teachers alone will fix things.

You're willing to sacrifice to get your kids a good education...and along with that probably goes enough parental fortitude to actually try and see that they do something more than flunk out. That is more likely to predict their success than anything else.

There's plenty that's wrong in the American education system and I'm a firm believer that the incentives are all fouled up and it needs reform, but teacher accountability isn't the panacea to fix it. I think the only thing that can really fix it is school choice. Where it's been tried it seems to produce superior results at lower cost...but it does so because, at least in my view, it's assisting those parents who actually care by getting them out of dead-end schools and into ones where they can have an impact.

In modern America we're trying to force a "good" education down the throat of kids who have no discernible family structure and who live in an environment where perpetual dependency is an aspiration and anti-social behavior is the norm. Parachuting in awesome teachers won't fix that.

I don't know of anything short of a radical shifting in incentives for all involved that would, frankly. We're always going to have dead end pupils because of their own poor choices...and so we will always have dead end schools and dead end staff for those schools. I'd just like to see the dead enders all grouped in one neat pile without imprisoning the people who want better for themselves and demand better of themselves along with those who have made the decision to be worthless.

School choice is a good first step to that, IMO.

You also can't blame teachers for screwed up kids. The real fault lies back with the parents. You can't fix what has been broken at home.
Pat

MDS

12-11-2012, 07:54 PM

Todd the Unions are the workers. I know you understand the concept. The union is made up of members who are the workers. When unions negotate for better pay the workers get better pay. In fact many non union people also benefit because wages in the region are higher because of the unions so to get people even non union shops are forced to offer higher wages to stay somewhat competative.

The real irony here is on one hand half of you republican drones are saying unions are getting too much money and causing companies to fail and governments to go bankrupt and on the other hand your also saying unions don't get better pay and you don't need to be in a union to get good benefits. You can't have it both ways. The truth is union employees make more money but they are not the cause of companies failing or governments going under.
Pat

Dude, let me put it to you this way. What if I don't want better pay? What if I'm perfectly happy with my reduced salary? You're free to think that I'm crazy for not wanting better pay - I just choose to work for less pay so that my company can stay healthy and keep me employed for a long time. It's totally cool for you to disagree, and if you do then I encourage to act in accordance with your beliefs! In exchange, all I ask is that you let me act in accordance with mine. And if you need my participation to make your Union Plan work, then too bad so sad. Not my problem.

Except, wait, it is my problem because I have to be in a Union because you think I should, and so you rig it so there's not much choice? I've organized my life so that isn't likely to happen, thanks.

The bottom line, I think - the underlying yes/no question on which you and I vehemently disagree - is that I'm totally OK with living in a free country with people starving in the street. It's a moral position, where I'm OK with something and you're not. No hard feelings, though, right? We can still have a beer even though we disagree? I wish! I really do! But I can't. Because what sucks is when you vote to have the government ruin my life so that your vision of a better world - a vision with which I vehemently disagree! - can be implemented. How is that cool?

MDS

12-11-2012, 07:55 PM

You also can't blame teachers for screwed up kids. The real fault lies back with the parents. You can't fix what has been broken at home.
Pat

Circles: who do we blame for screwed up parents?

Tamara

12-11-2012, 08:06 PM

*Almost every mainstream English automaker is owned by Germans. Irony!

Actually, the only two really "mainstream" ones, Jaguar and Land Rover, were bought from non-bailout-taking Ford by the distinctly non-union Indian manufacturer, Tata Motors, headquartered in Mumbai. There is a delicious sort of irony in the thought of the Savile Row types in Croydon getting their marching orders from a succession of former colonials... :)

TGS

12-11-2012, 08:07 PM

Circles: who do we blame for screwed up parents?

George Bush!

Tamara

12-11-2012, 08:11 PM

George Bush!

Well, duh. I am told by the highest sources that he is the root of all evil in this country.

Corvus

12-11-2012, 09:00 PM

I am all for freedom and to have real freedom you need to be able to make a good living. If the republicans have their way we will see what we saw in the midst of the industrial revolution, lots of abuses like child labor just above starvation level wages, long work weeks no over time pay unsafe working conditions for 99% of us and the 1% will live high on the hog. (that is the way it was before unions got involved and gave us the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, safer working conditions, better pay etc)
Pat

Henry Ford is where the 40 hour work week came from along with the better pay and conditions he also started before the unions became involved.

...and you have been wrong in this thread several times.

Corvus

12-11-2012, 09:10 PM

Corvus

12-11-2012, 09:12 PM

Oh the guy who is single without many deductions. I have a home and that helps but not kids no wife. One of my guys working for me takes home as much as I do because he has a wife and two kids despite the fact I make about $5 more an hour than him. Single folks basically subsidize families with our current tax code.
Pat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 09:16 PM

People are fired for the same stupid reasons in non right to work states . Unemployment can be drawn if they do not have "cause" but you are fired just the same.

Unemployment is not the same as not being fired for a stupid reason in the first place. And its much easier to fire someone in a so called right to work state since they are all at will employees unless they have a contract stating otherwise.

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 09:21 PM

Henry Ford is where the 40 hour work week came from along with the better pay and conditions he also started before the unions became involved.

...and you have been wrong in this thread several times.

Ford was a great man who knew that treating employees well was good in the long run. But he was not the origin of the 40 hour work week.
He was the first in the US to do so voluntariliy. You have a right to believe I am wrong but it does not make it so.

Origins below of the 40 hour work week 8 hour day.

[CONTENT REMOVED - Again]
-JV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
Ok here is the link.
Basically the 8 hour work day and 40 hour work week originated with the labor movement in europe during the industrial revolution. Follow the link.

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 09:23 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg

Let me guess you have a wife and multiple children. No I am not going to get over it. Its easy to say get over it when you benefit from it.(it being the messed up tax code we have)
Pat

JV_

12-11-2012, 09:28 PM

Alaskapopo: Please see our rule about copyrighted material:
http://pistol-forum.com/announcement.php?f=27

I'll assume you edited your post at the same time I removed your copyrighted content the first time, from 2 sources, and just left the text from Wikipedia (without citing it as the source). I removed the Wikipedia content the second time.

-JV

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 09:32 PM

Dude, let me put it to you this way. What if I don't want better pay? What if I'm perfectly happy with my reduced salary? You're free to think that I'm crazy for not wanting better pay - I just choose to work for less pay so that my company can stay healthy and keep me employed for a long time. It's totally cool for you to disagree, and if you do then I encourage to act in accordance with your beliefs! In exchange, all I ask is that you let me act in accordance with mine. And if you need my participation to make your Union Plan work, then too bad so sad. Not my problem.

Except, wait, it is my problem because I have to be in a Union because you think I should, and so you rig it so there's not much choice? I've organized my life so that isn't likely to happen, thanks.

The bottom line, I think - the underlying yes/no question on which you and I vehemently disagree - is that I'm totally OK with living in a free country with people starving in the street. It's a moral position, where I'm OK with something and you're not. No hard feelings, though, right? We can still have a beer even though we disagree? I wish! I really do! But I can't. Because what sucks is when you vote to have the government ruin my life so that your vision of a better world - a vision with which I vehemently disagree! - can be implemented. How is that cool?

It would be great if the greedy CEO's that give themselves Golden parachutes felt the same as you do. Just follow the money on these right to work supporters. It is not working people it is big buisness dumping money into right wing anti labor politicians. Its an investment on their part so they can pay their workers less and keep more for themselves. Just pure and simple greed. If you want to get paid less join a non union buisness.

It seems the republican party is declaring war on the working class while trying to protect the super rich from any tax increases. Only the pro labor exceptions to the rule in the republican party will be getting my vote.

Pat

Joe in PNG

12-11-2012, 09:43 PM

Actually, the only two really "mainstream" ones, Jaguar and Land Rover, were bought from non-bailout-taking Ford by the distinctly non-union Indian manufacturer, Tata Motors, headquartered in Mumbai. There is a delicious sort of irony in the thought of the Savile Row types in Croydon getting their marching orders from a succession of former colonials... :)

I remembered BMW owns Mini, and somehow they and VW fought over the corpses of Rolls and Bentley, but it's been a while since I followed the game of "Who Owns Which Revered British Marque Now". When Jag started selling Lincolns with a sorta Mk II bodywork on them, I died a little inside, as only someone that's de-coked a BMC Mini's valves can.

Joe in PNG

12-11-2012, 09:48 PM

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 10:02 PM

It would be great if the greedy CEO's that give themselves Golden parachutes felt the same as you do. Just follow the money on these right to work supporters. It is not working people it is big buisness dumping money into right wing anti labor politicians. Its an investment on their part so they can pay their workers less and keep more for themselves. Just pure and simple greed. If you want to get paid less join a non union buisness.

It seems the republican party is declaring war on the working class while trying to protect the super rich from any tax increases. Only the pro labor exceptions to the rule in the republican party will be getting my vote.

Pat

THE GRAND CANYON OF IRONY IS RIGHT BETWEEN THESE TWO QUOTES!! Why do you think we've had auto bailouts?? B/c of the evil executives or the over bloated healthcare and retirement funds that were guaranteed to former employees by greedy-say-what-you-need-to-stay-in-power-union-thug-representatives??

Let us then bring up the greedy Union executive with their golden parachutes, et al dumping money into political parties to force laborers into unions to increase their wealth and influence. Just pure and simple greed, but with added hypocrisy.

Pat,
You somehow believe that you can control someone you've given the reins to, a la the Unions. We all believe that you cannot control someone you've given the reins to, therefore we have learned not to trust anyone in a position of power and therefore, we choose to give them limited power!!

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 10:02 PM

Let us then bring up the greedy Union executive with their golden parachutes, et al dumping money into political parties to force laborers into unions to increase their wealth and influence. Just pure and simple greed, but with added hypocrisy.

Do you have any examples of this. Golden parachutes is pretty much a big buisness CEO game. Union executives typically don't make anywhere near the salary of the big time CEO's nor do they have huge bonus. For quite a while now big buisness has been spending a lot of money to do everything they can to kill unions so they can pay their workers as little as posible.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 10:08 PM

THE GRAND CANYON OF IRONY IS RIGHT BETWEEN THESE TWO QUOTES!!

Pat,
You somehow believe that you can control someone you've given the reins to, a la the Unions. We all believe that you cannot control someone you've given the reins to, therefore we have learned not to trust anyone in a position of power and therefore, we choose to give them limited power!!

I trust union leaders who are there to represent me a lot more than employers who are trying to pay as little as possible. I don't fault employers for trying to get the most for their money but unions need to be there to make sure someone represents the workers so they can bargain effectively to get as much as possible. It is an advasarial relationship to a degree just like when your buying or selling a car. The buyer wants to pay as little as possible while the seller wants as much as possible.

I don't think you fully appreciate this. I believe you are in a position where you work as an engeneer. People in your field are better able to write their own ticket with their employer because their skills are more scarce. For less skilled workers this is not an option and to have the ability to bargain effectively they need to act as one group with their employer. They only reason to be against unions is if your simply against the idea of lower skilled workers having a good wage. As for bailing out the auto industry. Do you know how many workers retirement could be covered in full from just the CEO's annual bonus? So I don't buy the statement they were paying their workers too much. Cuts need to happen at the top not the bottom.

Pat

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 10:39 PM

I trust union leaders who are there to represent me a lot more than employers who are trying to pay as little as possible. I don't fault employers for trying to get the most for their money but unions need to be there to make sure someone represents the workers so they can bargain effectively to get as much as possible. It is an advasarial relationship to a degree just like when your buying or selling a car. The buyer wants to pay as little as possible while the seller wants as much as possible.

I don't think you fully appreciate this. I believe you are in a position where you work as an engeneer. People in your field are better able to write their own ticket with their employer because their skills are more scarce. For less skilled workers this is not an option and to have the ability to bargain effectively they need to act as one group with their employer. They only reason to be against unions is if your simply against the idea of lower skilled workers having a good wage. As for bailing out the auto industry. Do you know how many workers retirement could be covered in full from just the CEO's annual bonus? So I don't buy the statement they were paying their workers too much. Cuts need to happen at the top not the bottom.

Pat

For one, I teach martial arts and I do research for a small private wealth fund (me and my boss). I've never had a resume, I've only had 1 job interview and I've apprenticed for free for one year each at these jobs. I never had healthcare until 3 years ago-I was 35. I paid for everything out of pocket and I never relied on anyone but me. Both of my jobs are show up or don't get paid. Both of my jobs require constant customer service. Both of my jobs provide me with the freedom and lifestyle that I want and yet both of my jobs require approximately 60+ hours of work over the course of 6 days. In the end, I will make my own pension, I will make my own retirement plans, I will pay for my own healthcare, all the while, I will pay my taxes to fund the ironclad deal that some scumbag politician and some union head made where I didn't even get to vote or know what was going on.

It's the average taxpayer that suffers when these b.s. deals are made and then they squeeze the taxpayer by saying, "we'll cut cops, ems, fire and education!!" What about the children? What about the effin a-holes that made promises that they couldn't keep even if they knew or had the money when they made the promises??? Fire those guys and leave the cops, ems, fire and children alone. But NO, the cops, ems, fire and educators all need a union in order to even work in half the states, so the good guy, who is forced into a union, votes to screw his community even if he pulls a different lever on election day, b/c his dues go to fund this mind numbing circle jerk.

Now, onto the magic of unions. Read this in its entirety, it gives you a very clear view as to what it is like when unions become so strong that they destroy companies. This is from 2007, the peak of the super boom economy where we had magical fairy tale unemployment and magical unicorn fart blessed housing sky rocketing to the moon and this is what GM/Ford looked like:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/26/news/companies/pluggedin_taylor_ford.fortune/index.htm

"For anyone who makes a living from the domestic auto industry, it is depressing reading. An enormous and persistent gap separates the home team from the import companies - large enough to question the continued survival of the U.S. companies."

"According to the latest calculations, the gap between Japanese and American carmakers' profits average out to about $2900 per vehicle, and the home team does not have the advantage."

"A big reason is the cost of labor. As analyzed by Harbour-Felax, labor costs the Detroit Three substantially more per vehicle than it does the Japanese."

"Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (Charts), for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota (Charts) pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones."

"When everything is added up, the average Japanese automaker reports revenue of $24,289 per vehicle - $2,692 more than the average domestic manufacturer."

See what I'm driving at? The golden parachute works both ways, except that unions destroy more companies than any golden parachute 1 percenter ever has and I can prove it, b/c the unions have been bankrupting the auto industry since the 70's on into this past decade and yet they get a pass and more ownership!!

Joe in PNG

12-11-2012, 10:50 PM

Do you have any examples of this. Golden parachutes is pretty much a big buisness CEO game. Union executives typically don't make anywhere near the salary of the big time CEO's nor do they have huge bonus. For quite a while now big buisness has been spending a lot of money to do everything they can to kill unions so they can pay their workers as little as posible.
Pat

Yep. Saw an example from the City of Chicago where union guys work a year or so for the city so they can get a nice, fat pension from the city while hanging onto their six figured union jobs. Nice work if you can get it.

And, regarding an earlier point, there's a lot of words and ideas for a thing that was good once, but has outlived it's usefulness and actually become harmful. Rotten, malignant, corrupt, cancerous... same concept applies.

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 10:58 PM

For one, I teach martial arts and I do research for a small private wealth fund (me and my boss). I've never had a resume, I've only had 1 job interview and I've apprenticed for free for one year each at these jobs. I never had healthcare until 3 years ago-I was 35. I paid for everything out of pocket and I never relied on anyone but me. Both of my jobs are show up or don't get paid. Both of my jobs require constant customer service. Both of my jobs provide me with the freedom and lifestyle that I want and yet both of my jobs require approximately 60+ hours of work over the course of 6 days. In the end, I will make my own pension, I will make my own retirement plans, I will pay for my own healthcare, all the while, I will pay my taxes to fund the ironclad deal that some scumbag politician and some union head made where I didn't even get to vote or know what was going on.

It's the average taxpayer that suffers when these b.s. deals are made and then they squeeze the taxpayer by saying, "we'll cut cops, ems, fire and education!!" What about the children? What about the effin a-holes that made promises that they couldn't keep even if they knew or had the money when they made the promises??? Fire those guys and leave the cops, ems, fire and children alone. But NO, the cops, ems, fire and educators all need a union in order to even work in half the states, so the good guy, who is forced into a union, votes to screw his community even if he pulls a different lever on election day, b/c his dues go to fund this mind numbing circle jerk.

Now, onto the magic of unions. Read this in its entirety, it gives you a very clear view as to what it is like when unions become so strong that they destroy companies. This is from 2007, the peak of the super boom economy where we had magical fairy tale unemployment and magical unicorn fart blessed housing sky rocketing to the moon and this is what GM/Ford looked like:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/26/news/companies/pluggedin_taylor_ford.fortune/index.htm

"For anyone who makes a living from the domestic auto industry, it is depressing reading. An enormous and persistent gap separates the home team from the import companies - large enough to question the continued survival of the U.S. companies."

"According to the latest calculations, the gap between Japanese and American carmakers' profits average out to about $2900 per vehicle, and the home team does not have the advantage."

"A big reason is the cost of labor. As analyzed by Harbour-Felax, labor costs the Detroit Three substantially more per vehicle than it does the Japanese."

"Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (Charts), for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota (Charts) pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones."

"When everything is added up, the average Japanese automaker reports revenue of $24,289 per vehicle - $2,692 more than the average domestic manufacturer."

See what I'm driving at? The golden parachute works both ways, except that unions destroy more companies than any golden parachute 1 percenter ever has and I can prove it, b/c the unions have been bankrupting the auto industry since the 70's on into this past decade and yet they get a pass and more ownership!!

US cars and japanese cars are so intertwined its really hard to buy a US made car or a totally foreign made car these days. I am a Toyota fan personally but my truck was made in the USA being a Tundra. You do have valuable skill sets and it sounds like you can negotiate a fair price for your services. Unions can not destroy companies. Like I said its a negotiation. The company has to agree to any changes made. The union does not automatically get what it wants its a back and forth exchange. In these bad ecomomic times unions have made concessions in many areas like pay cuts.

The real problem is greed. CEO's used to make 20 times what a line worker did and now they make 230 times what a line worker makes. That is where the money is going not pension funds. We need to make a law tieing a CEO's top pay to what his employees get paid. So if he wants a raise he needs to give everyone else a raise too. Does anyone really need to make $300,000,000 anyway.
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-the-99/100-Highest-Paid-CEOs

I wish more of todays CEO's were like Henry Ford.

Alaskapopo

12-11-2012, 11:03 PM

Yep. Saw an example from the City of Chicago where union guys work a year or so for the city so they can get a nice, fat pension from the city while hanging onto their six figured union jobs. Nice work if you can get it.

And, regarding an earlier point, there's a lot of words and ideas for a thing that was good once, but has outlived it's usefulness and actually become harmful. Rotten, malignant, corrupt, cancerous... same concept applies.

Some have made that argument but even with the few minor flaws unions have had it we got rid of them things would revert almost over night to what things were like back in the early 1900's. Its heading that way now that unions have lost strength. FLSA has been weakened by Bush making it easier for employiers not to pay workers over time pay. Republicans have refused to put people on the labor board so they in effect have no power to enforce the laws that are out there.
Pat

BaiHu

12-11-2012, 11:15 PM

US cars and japanese cars are so intertwined its really hard to buy a US made car or a totally foreign made car these days. I am a Toyota fan personally but my truck was made in the USA being a Tundra. You do have valuable skill sets and it sounds like you can negotiate a fair price for your services. Unions can not destroy companies. Like I said its a negotiation. The company has to agree to any changes made. The union does not automatically get what it wants its a back and forth exchange. In these bad ecomomic times unions have made concessions in many areas like pay cuts.

The real problem is greed. CEO's used to make 20 times what a line worker did and now they make 230 times what a line worker makes. That is where the money is going not pension funds. We need to make a law tieing a CEO's top pay to what his employees get paid. So if he wants a raise he needs to give everyone else a raise too. Does anyone really need to make $300,000,000 anyway.
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-the-99/100-Highest-Paid-CEOs

I wish more of todays CEO's were like Henry Ford.

My point is that their are bad or irrational actors in every sector and I agree that the balance b/w CEOs and Unions is a tenuous one and both sides organize to pull political strings. However, I've never heard of a CEO running a product, concept or company into the ground to the point that no one else was able to fix it up, dust it off and run it back into a successful company again. On the other hand, steel, auto, education, air traffic controllers, construction and public works are just a few of the examples of industries that have held profits and success hostage in exchange for long term promises that could barely be paid out in good times, let alone bad. These sectors are permanent structures that shun any and all private interference; a true monopoly in many states.

Alaskapopo

12-12-2012, 12:54 AM

My point is that their are bad or irrational actors in every sector and I agree that the balance b/w CEOs and Unions is a tenuous one and both sides organize to pull political strings. However, I've never heard of a CEO running a product, concept or company into the ground to the point that no one else was able to fix it up, dust it off and run it back into a successful company again. On the other hand, steel, auto, education, air traffic controllers, construction and public works are just a few of the examples of industries that have held profits and success hostage in exchange for long term promises that could barely be paid out in good times, let alone bad. These sectors are permanent structures that shun any and all private interference; a true monopoly in many states.

I have to disagree. No union can make a company do anything. No one is holding a gun to anyones head. If the demands are too much don't give in while your at the table. Part of the problem is management does not want to show the true picture of how things are. There is a saying when times are bad they won't give you raises well because times are bad, when times are good they won't give raises because well times could get bad again. I have found that management is quick to say we don't have enough money for X,Y or Z but they will find the money for something they want. Example patrol could use some weapon lights for their guns, Admin sorry their is no money. Then the administrator finds a project he wants like say a management level training class in Vegas and their is money for that because they wanted it.
Pat

Tamara

12-12-2012, 06:05 AM

Does anyone really need to make $300,000,000 anyway.

"Does anyone really need..."

Hmmm. Where else do I hear that line all the time?

littlejerry

12-12-2012, 06:30 AM

Ions I'm one of those engineers who apparently doesn't understand the working class.

But before I became an engineer I spent about 6 years working at a grocery store and another 2 years as a delivery truck driver.

I realize this may fall on deaf ears but I had a choice of working at a grocery store with a union and one without. I took the non union job and my friend took the union one. From the start I was offered a better wage by $2 per hour, offered health care, and given stock options. He got minimum wage and union dues. By the time we left the wage gap grew to $5 per hour.

As an engineer I've been exposed to unions in the auto and aerospace industry. I've witnessed strikes, watched union bullying, and seen the poisonous sense of entitlement that these organizations cultivate. These unions structure themselves to reward laziness, punish initiative, and breed inneficiency. The rules and games that the auto/aerospace unions have reach the level of full retard and DO kill companies from the inside out. Skilled engineers and managers leave these places so they don't get reprimanded for moving a palette, fixing a tool, or just being too damned productive.

Tamara

12-12-2012, 06:52 AM

As an engineer I've been exposed to unions in the auto and aerospace industry. I've witnessed strikes, watched union bullying, and seen the poisonous sense of entitlement that these organizations cultivate. These unions structure themselves to reward laziness, punish initiative, and breed inneficiency. The rules and games that the auto/aerospace unions have reach the level of full retard and DO kill companies from the inside out. Skilled engineers and managers leave these places so they don't get reprimanded for moving a palette, fixing a tool, or just being too damned productive.

One of my regular customers at the last shop at which I worked was a retired engineer who worked for Winchester (Olin) when the unions pretty much destroyed the place in the '70s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Repeating_Arms_Company#Decline_and_fall ) and forced its closure and eventual sale to the Belgians.

The tales he'd tell about the ballistics section being idled for a day or more waiting for a guy to come change a light bulb would curl your hair. If you wanted to get him all red-faced and cussing through his handlebar mustache, you just had to say the word "union".

The unions have improved the conditions of the American work force right out of a flippin' job.

TCinVA

12-12-2012, 07:17 AM

We need to make a law tieing a CEO's top pay to what his employees get paid. So if he wants a raise he needs to give everyone else a raise too. Does anyone really need to make $300,000,000 anyway.

Planned economies work so well.

Kyle Reese

12-12-2012, 07:46 AM

Planned economies work so well.

Yes they do, Comrade. After all, aren't people trying to smuggle themselves into Cuba, North Korea and the PRC?

Heck, during the Cold War, weren't West Germans trying to sneak into the DDR because of how great their workers had it? No?

BaiHu

12-12-2012, 08:18 AM

I have to disagree. No union can make a company do anything. No one is holding a gun to anyones head. If the demands are too much don't give in while your at the table. Part of the problem is management does not want to show the true picture of how things are. There is a saying when times are bad they won't give you raises well because times are bad, when times are good they won't give raises because well times could get bad again. I have found that management is quick to say we don't have enough money for X,Y or Z but they will find the money for something they want. Example patrol could use some weapon lights for their guns, Admin sorry their is no money. Then the administrator finds a project he wants like say a management level training class in Vegas and their is money for that because they wanted it.
Pat

What you seem to not understand is that upper management CAN'T STRIKE! Otherwise......the business goes under. The govt backed strength of the union is that it can strike en masse and there is absolutely no reason for this type of strong arming of a company, public school system, etc anymore. Yes, there once was a time where it accomplished something good, but then it became a time where it was regularly INVESTIGATED and now it seems to be a time where its power/dues are used to regularly investigate those who aren't pro union.

How can I can stand for freedom when I'd ask people not to strike? Because, as I posted in the Twinkie thread, there are MANY TAX FUNDED entities that protect every shape, color, creed, sexist, environmental, safety and religious related firings amongst a host of other improper work place behaviors, and often times they WILL DO IT PRO BONO!

That's why unions kill jobs and job creators.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

littlejerry

12-12-2012, 08:20 AM

One of my regular customers at the last shop at which I worked was a retired engineer who worked for Winchester (Olin) when the unions pretty much destroyed the place in the '70s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Repeating_Arms_Company#Decline_and_fall ) and forced its closure and eventual sale to the Belgians.

The tales he'd tell about the ballistics section being idled for a day or more waiting for a guy to come change a light bulb would curl your hair. If you wanted to get him all red-faced and cussing through his handlebar mustache, you just had to say the word "union".

The unions have improved the conditions of the American work force right out of a flippin' job.

The worst I have seen is intentional destruction of production equipment in order to get paid leave. In a normal setting anyone who accidently caused this kind of damage would be let go. In the union shop high fives are exchanged and no one is held responsible for the 'accident'

BaiHu

12-12-2012, 09:42 AM

Well, looky what we have here:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/12/11/californias-pampered-public-employees/

"Increasing pay for prison guards and psychiatrists who deal with the mentally ill seems like a cause worthy of our sympathy and support, but politicians are more likely responding to the threat that union leaders could muscle them out of office if they don’t keep the funds flowing."

Nope, you're right, unions are benevolent girl scouts just looking for some chump change in exchange for delicious cookies :p

Tamara

12-12-2012, 09:52 AM

BaiHu

12-12-2012, 10:03 AM

Let us not forget that even FDR was opposed to unions for public employees.

A public employees' union isn't across the negotiating table from some hypothetical political cartoon fat guy sitting on a bag of money with a cigar wearing a top hat and a little banner that says "Management"; no, they're extorting their raises and phat bennies from a poor schmuck with turned-out pockets labeled "Taxpayer".

For realzies Tameezies, well stated.

Just going back to the entitlements that are also destroying CA, here's a look down the road in case you haven't quite gotten the picture here in the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246104/Unemployed-single-mother-benefits-spends-2-000-Christmas-20-presents-children.html

ToddG

12-12-2012, 10:34 AM

Tamara

12-12-2012, 10:39 AM

No, personally I see this whole pension thing as a giant wake up call to the country about exactly what happens when politicians and unions conspire to help one another without worrying about the longer term impact on society as a whole. Of course, like all the other political crap in the country, only the people who pay the price will reflect on it. The pro-union people will see it as another victory of "protecting the collective!" and will just continue to buy & sell votes for pro-union politicians so we can go through it all again in another couple of decades.

Tipping point... we're past it.

No, I absolutely agree with this, and I'm not calling for stripping a pension from Joe Sixpack for which he has worked in good faith.

However, that is what is going to be the effective end result of this mess before this is all said and done. Whether an agreement is broken, or whether it is honored, but honored with rubber checks and Monopoly™ money, the end result is the same. (And I speak as someone who largely depends on a fixed income. The coming inflation is going to ruin me; the checks that were supposed to pay the rent on an apartment in my dotage won't buy a case of canned dog food by the time this has run its course.)

LittleLebowski

12-12-2012, 10:41 AM

While I appreciate the huge problem that back room negotiated public union employee benefit packages have caused, it saddens me that so many people think the solution is to punish the people who earned those benefits.

Joe Sixpack takes a job and is told that part of his compensation is a fat pension. He works for 20 years planning for and depending on that pension. He earned it regardless of whether anyone thinks the compensation is fair or extraordinary. (it's worth noting that the pro-union people love this thought process when it comes to union people, but hate it when it comes to "fat cat executives")

Now suddenly "the people" are upset at how much better off he is than they are, and how much they have to pay in taxes to support his employment agreement, so they want to take it away from him. But what about the 19 years of work he put toward earning it? Can you give him those 20 years back?

Think about it this way. Instead of the $100,000 per year pension that might last 20 years, what if instead Joe Sixpack had said he didn't want a pension and instead wanted his salary to be $100,000 per year more. Would "the people" demand he refund them $2M now? A pension is no different. It's something that was negotiated and earned. The fact that it's a benefit that got banked rather than paid out in cash doesn't change that.

No, personally I see this whole pension thing as a giant wake up call to the country about exactly what happens when politicians and unions conspire to help one another without worrying about the longer term impact on society as a whole. Of course, like all the other political crap in the country, only the people who pay the price will reflect on it. The pro-union people will see it as another victory of "protecting the collective!" and will just continue to buy & sell votes for pro-union politicians so we can go through it all again in another couple of decades.

Tipping point... we're past it.

I don't disagree with your sentiments regarding working for years and planning for X amount of pensions but I'd be remiss in not pointing out abuses like Pension Spiking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_spiking) are self inflicted (by the employees) wounds to their own cause. Abuses like these hurt the other unionized employees, depending on a funded pension.

I think your second paragraph is dead on and highlights the problem of elected officials pandering to the political organizations that are unions who spend their member's dues with very little to no member input. Excellent example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/29/AR2010052903132.html) locally of pandering to union demands.

http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_22148782/public-pension-spiking-overtime-hours-soar-st-paul

http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_22095394/brown-must-act-against-pension-spiking

TCinVA

12-12-2012, 10:44 AM

Lots of promises have been made. There just isn't enough money to cover them all.

Now personally I'd much rather see .gov revenue spent on employing useful people for a useful purpose than being handed out to the deliberately worthless...but something tells me that the useful people who gave useful service don't have the ability to out-vote the deliberately worthless.

And so they'll be at the front of the line when the time comes to pay the piper.

Chemsoldier

12-12-2012, 10:52 AM

No, personally I see this whole pension thing as a giant wake up call to the country about exactly what happens when politicians and unions conspire to help one another without worrying about the longer term impact on society as a whole. Of course, like all the other political crap in the country, only the people who pay the price will reflect on it. The pro-union people will see it as another victory of "protecting the collective!" and will just continue to buy & sell votes for pro-union politicians so we can go through it all again in another couple of decades.

Tipping point... we're past it.

Indeed. Promises have been made by people, union and not, who made promises in times of plenty. They made those promises based on the idea that times would always be that good. It is 100% unfair to cut promised benefits to people who planned based on those benefits. Especially in the case of the public sector employees though, there can come a time where the government would face the choice of cutting those benefits or cutting vital government capability or infrastructure. As a career soldier it scares the crud out of me and I am trying to set conditions where I dont HAVE to have all the benefits I am currently promised.

Also, in the end is there a fundamental difference for the retired employee between cutting promised benefits and simply printing money until the currency they get isnt worth the paper its printed on? Unfortunately reality can dictate unfair action, we are not there yet, but it could happen.

ToddG

12-12-2012, 10:57 AM

Whether an agreement is broken, or whether it is honored, but honored with rubber checks and monopoly money, the end result is the same.

That's a great point, but one I doubt the unions will acknowledge. For decades they've buried their heads in the sand pretending that they did something good for the (now nearly defunct) steel industry, (now nearly defunct) textile industry, (now defunct if not for even more public money) auto industry, etc.

I've never been in a union. Every job I've ever held, I've needed to earn my right to get my next paycheck. I could be fired at will -- and have been -- and I was held accountable for what I did. Working harder earned me more, and slacking off earned me less or got me in trouble. The people who owned the companies I worked for didn't owe me some huge debt of gratitude. They owed me the paycheck and benefits I was promised. And if the relationship became such that they felt they were losing money because of me, they were free to boot me out the door.

The idea the somehow a for-profit company -- and its owners -- are bad because they want to make more money is ridiculous especially when the accusation comes from union reps who... wait for it... want to make more money.

If the kid next door mows your lawn for $20 a week and then says, hey, you need to put in $500 worth of shrubbery so I can charge you an additional $20 a week to trim your shrubs, wouldn't you think he was an idiot? And if all the kids in the neighborhood teamed up and agreed none of them would mow your lawn until you capitulated to the demand, wouldn't you lose your mind if the government stepped in and told you (a) you can't hire a kid from another neighborhood and (b) you can't mow your own lawn?

If 1% of the people in this country had a certain skin color, it would be unacceptable to treat them differently. If 1% of the people in this country believed in a certain religion, belonged to a certain political party, had a certain disability, or anything of that sort they'd be protected and defended. But it's ok to pick on the 1% minority that's affluent. Because, uh, that's different.

Tamara

12-12-2012, 10:57 AM

Also, in the end is there a fundamental difference for the retired employee between cutting promised benefits and simply printing money until the currency they get isnt worth the paper its printed on? Unfortunately reality can dictate unfair action, we are not there yet, but it could happen.

I would be surprised if we didn't see hyperinflation sometime sooner rather than later. Governments have historically rarely resisted the temptation to print their way out from under their obligations.

TCinVA

12-12-2012, 11:04 AM

I would be surprised if we didn't see hyperinflation sometime sooner rather than later. Governments have historically rarely resisted the temptation to print their way out from under their obligations.

We're already in an inflationary spiral. The fed is buying US bonds with the fiat currency they manufacture, so we're financing deficit spending with newly invented money and then we wonder why commodities cost so much.

Duh.

The simple reality that stuff does not just fall from the skies is as true today as it was 2,000 years ago...but our modern politics is based on the idea that you get something for nothing and the effort to try and desperately cover up where we're actually paying.

The spectacle of people demanding more government goodies while complaining about how expensive everything is would be hilarious if it wasn't such a sad commentary on the stupidity of our species.

Kyle Reese

12-12-2012, 11:08 AM

Does anyone really need to make $300,000,000 anyway.
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-the-99/100-Highest-Paid-CEOs

Sure. Union bosses (http://www.unionfacts.com/employees/afl-cio), party apparatchiks and many other functionaries earn close to $300k per year or more, all while representin' the workin man! Do they get a special dispensation for their earnings?

TCinVA

12-12-2012, 11:14 AM

Sure. Union bosses (http://www.unionfacts.com/employees/afl-cio), party apparatchiks and many other functionaries earn close to $300k per year or more, all while representin' the workin man! Do they get a special dispensation for their earnings?

No, no, when it's paid to those sorts of people it's not bad because it's coming from money forced out of the hands of individuals by government action. It's only bad to pay someone a 300 grand salary when they're in a private organization selling a product or service to willing customers.

ToddG

12-12-2012, 11:14 AM

BaiHu

12-12-2012, 11:17 AM

If 1% of the people in this country had a certain skin color, it would be unacceptable to treat them differently. If 1% of the people in this country believed in a certain religion, belonged to a certain political party, had a certain disability, or anything of that sort they'd be protected and defended. But it's ok to pick on the 1% minority that's affluent. Because, uh, that's different.

This encapsulates the hypocrisy of the pro union stance. I'm not saying that abuses don't occur in the private sector, but at least the pain inflicted is more localized.

Regarding "promises", these are defined benefits and are guaranteed; this should not be allowed specifically when these defined benefits are levied on the backs of taxpayers via a faceless union head and politician before I was freaking born.

Meaning, defined benefits for all public employees should be illegal. Because when times are good, they get promises towards 110% of what is available at that moment and impossible if something goes wrong tomorrow. And when times are tough, they ask for more or strike until everyone is hurting (like California and New York ports recently). No intelligent person plans for their future based on their one time lottery win.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

LittleLebowski

12-12-2012, 01:15 PM

Kyle Reese

12-12-2012, 01:39 PM

The American teachers union boss gets $400k a year.

Who needs to make that kind of money? Spread the wealth around!

peterb

12-12-2012, 02:37 PM

I worked in the automotive industry for many years, and saw firsthand the productivity-killing work rules that have helped make unions despised by so many. Engineers couldn't actually work on vehicles because the shop steward would file a grievance if they so much as touched a wrench. Nobody could flip a switch unless they were an electrician. It was ridiculous.

I agree that in the past, unions did do important work towards improving working conditions. There were some horrific abuses in the early part of the 20th century. But the pendulum swung too far, and that kind of work-rule nonsense is what drove the huge labor-cost disadvantage that almost killed the US auto industry.

Being in a supplier plant that the Teamsters were trying to organize was also an eye-opener. During the talks it became clear that the union fought hardest for things that would benefit the union organization instead of for benefits for the workers. And the attempted physical intimidation was real and scary for many employees.

I always thought that union membership should be voluntary. If you think the benefits you get from membership are worth the dues, you can join. If not, you don't. Wages & benefits are whatever you negotiate.

fuse

12-12-2012, 03:26 PM

"Does anyone really need..."

Hmmm. Where else do I hear that line all the time?

Getting acute irony sickness in this thread

BaiHu

12-12-2012, 03:54 PM

But the pendulum swung too far, and that kind of work-rule nonsense is what drove the huge labor-cost disadvantage that almost killed the US auto industry.

I'd argue that the unions have consistently destroyed the auto industry, while we, as tax payers, are just forced to bail them out on a regular, clock like basis. GM's losses were 51 billion going into 2008 after the 2004-07 super boom of an economy.

Meanwhile, Chrysler was bankrupt back in 1979 and then bailed out buy Daimler with billions of dollars infused into a company that was failing no matter what money you brought to the table. And then, in 2008, (remember that was after the economic boom time and Daimler infusing them with billions) Daimler gave up on Chrysler and valued them at $0!!

Yup, unions once were a useful group in a rough time and now are a bunch of legalized thugs destroying one industry at a time. They should go the way of the dodo.

Tamara

12-12-2012, 04:00 PM

Meanwhile, Chrysler was bankrupt back in 1979 and then bailed out buy Daimler with billions of dollars infused into a company that was failing no matter what money you brought to the table. And then, in 2008, (remember that was after the economic boom time and Daimler infusing them with billions) Daimler gave up on Chrysler and valued them at $0!!

Actually, between Chrysler's bailout in '79 and the "Merger of Equals" in '98, Chrysler fought its way back to profitability and then merged with Daimler-Benz only to have the Jerries loot the Pentastar's carefully-hoarded foul-weather-fund after a quiet boardroom coup d'etat and then bail on the marriage.

BaiHu

12-12-2012, 04:19 PM

Actually, between Chrysler's bailout in '79 and the "Merger of Equals" in '98, Chrysler fought its way back to profitability and then merged with Daimler-Benz only to have the Jerries loot the Pentastar's carefully-hoarded foul-weather-fund after a quiet boardroom coup d'etat and then bail on the marriage.

I don't disagree with your point, but I believe Daimler put more money into Chrysler than it got back in the Cerberus deal, no?? I have to take off to job #2, so I can't confirm that fact.

Joe in PNG

12-12-2012, 04:30 PM

Yup, unions once were a useful group in a rough time and now are a bunch of legalized thugs destroying one industry at a time. They should go the way of the dodo.

Sadly, much of the union mindset is still based on the business environment of the 1950's. Back then, America was pretty much the only nation with a manufacturing capability, so overseas competition and offshore outsourcing were not factors. Most manufacturing was done by a handful of large businesses, thus a large amount of stability and predictability (and thus bloat and complacency). And thus you had lifetime employment with very generous benefits for a good many workers.

However, this environment was the result of a particular set of circumstances. Eventually, Japan and Europe recovered and were able to start making their own stuff again. This competition meant that companies had to get lean and agile to be able to keep up, or get undercut.

What happened next in the intervening decades is pretty self evident. The manufacturing unions refused to budge, and pretty much killed their industries.

BaiHu

12-12-2012, 04:53 PM

Bingo!! Well stated Joe!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Alaskapopo

12-12-2012, 05:17 PM

Sure. Union bosses (http://www.unionfacts.com/employees/afl-cio), party apparatchiks and many other functionaries earn close to $300k per year or more, all while representin' the workin man! Do they get a special dispensation for their earnings?

300k vs 300mil no comparison. The reasons companies are going under is not that we paid guys $20 bucks an hour instead of $16 but rather the CEO's who are making millions while their companies go in the hole. That video was pretty much stop on. "look over there" I pointed out earlier that the CEO's used to make 20 times what their lowest paid line worker made. Now they make 240 times that. Something is wrong when we blame the assembly line guy for an industry failing when the boss makes more money than he could ever spend.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-12-2012, 05:29 PM

Let us not forget that even FDR was opposed to unions for public employees.

A public employees' union isn't across the negotiating table from some hypothetical political cartoon fat guy sitting on a bag of money with a cigar wearing a top hat and a little banner that says "Management"; no, they're extorting their raises and phat bennies from a poor schmuck with turned-out pockets labeled "Taxpayer".

So public employees don't deserve to get good pay or benefits in your opinion. I don't agree. I don't care who the employer is the employees have a fundamental right to negotiate a good wage and benefits for themselves. Public employees should have the same rights as those in the private sector. Just because they are paid by tax payers does not mean they should be short changed and given less benefits or more dangerous working conditions etc.
Pat

BaiHu

12-12-2012, 05:31 PM

Kyle Reese

12-12-2012, 05:36 PM

300k vs 300mil no comparison. The reasons companies are going under is not that we paid guys $20 bucks an hour instead of $16 but rather the CEO's who are making millions while their companies go in the hole. That video was pretty much stop on. "look over there" I pointed out earlier that the CEO's used to make 20 times what their lowest paid line worker made. Now they make 240 times that. Something is wrong when we blame the assembly line guy for an industry failing when the boss makes more money than he could ever spend.
Pat

Simple question, Sir;

Do union bosses deserve their $300,000 salaries? There's a bit of ambiguity in what you're saying.

Per your earlier statement;

Does anyone really need to make $300,000,000 anyway.
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-the-99/100-Highest-Paid-CEOs

Alaskapopo

12-12-2012, 05:44 PM

What you seem to not understand is that upper management CAN'T STRIKE! Otherwise......the business goes under. The govt backed strength of the union is that it can strike en masse and there is absolutely no reason for this type of strong arming of a company, public school system, etc anymore. Yes, there once was a time where it accomplished something good, but then it became a time where it was regularly INVESTIGATED and now it seems to be a time where its power/dues are used to regularly investigate those who aren't pro union.

How can I can stand for freedom when I'd ask people not to strike? Because, as I posted in the Twinkie thread, there are MANY TAX FUNDED entities that protect every shape, color, creed, sexist, environmental, safety and religious related firings amongst a host of other improper work place behaviors, and often times they WILL DO IT PRO BONO!

That's why unions kill jobs and job creators.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

No upper management just gives themselves 300% raises before the company goes under so they are taken care of. The right to strike needs to remain if not the employees have little to no way to fight back. As a LEO I can't strike because we are emergency service personal and not allowed to strike under the law. Generally LEO unions have provisions for arbitration where an impartial arbitrator decided what happens.

The part in red is great in theory but in reality it is not that simple. 1. You are not getting paid while you are fighting in court. 2. Attorneys seldom work pro bono, they will do it based on a portion of the settlement. 3. Companies and governments will stall and wait you out hoping to bleed you dry so you give up or hope to get you to settle for a much smaller amount. I know people who have been through this process and it was not an easy process and they were never really made whole. With the union the rules are in black and white and when the employer breaks the contract its fairly simple to get things ironed out in arbitration at no cost to the employee.

Alaskapopo

12-12-2012, 05:46 PM

Simple question, Sir;

Do union bosses deserve their $300,000 salaries? There's a bit of ambiguity in what you're saying.

Per your earlier statement;

A lot more than some CEO deserves 300 mil. Like I said there is no comparison. I also bet 300K is within 20 times what the line worker at the union makes.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-12-2012, 05:48 PM

It's not the wage the guy gets on the line, it's the money that the unions use to freeze out non-union workers and then use tax payer money (in the case of public employees) to fund political movements. That is actually illegal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Please give an example of what you are talking about.
Basically without unions the wage guy on the line is getting screwed over hence the over 20% pay difference favoring union vs non union employees nation wide. Like I said earlier just because I am a public employee does not mean I should get screwed by not being allowed to negotiate a fair wage. One thing I have learned is if you don't have a union in this line of work you will be paid less pure and simple.
Pat

Joe in PNG

12-12-2012, 06:41 PM

Alaskapopo

12-12-2012, 10:09 PM

And now let us discuss the law of unintended consequences. Often times things begun with a good motive have negative consequences that bring about a bad result.

Easy example- the plan to control erosion by introducing the kudzu vine. Or Australia introducing cane toads. Both were done with good motives, but had bad results.

Thus, the unions. They were originally introduced to protect employees against being ripped off. Now, it's become more of a way for politicians to legally buy votes and disperse favors while protecting under performing workers. That it is killing industries is a pretty self evident fact.

Here is the deal yes unons use their money to put people in office that will vote the way want to benefit their members. But big buisness does this and has a lot more money to push around. Unions still protect workers from getting ripped off and if they were not there things would be worse for the working class. Not all unions are perfect but they do a good job at keeping employers honest when it comes to pay and benefits. Not many employers will give better pay or benefits because its the right thing to do. Most would rather just keep the money for themselves. Its human nature. Employees need to have a voice and a way to bargain for their needs and unions do that. What is killing the industry is greed at the top not wanting to invest that money back into their employees in the form of wages or in new factories. They would rather gamble that money on Wallstreet to make as much profit as possible.
Pat

TGS

12-12-2012, 10:26 PM

Wealth Redistribution:

(There's some curse words, fwiw)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk

littlejerry

12-12-2012, 10:43 PM

Here is the deal yes unons use their money to put people in office that will vote the way want to benefit their members. But big buisness does this and has a lot more money to push around. Unions still protect workers from getting ripped off and if they were not there things would be worse for the working class. Not all unions are perfect but they do a good job at keeping employers honest when it comes to pay and benefits. Not many employers will give better pay or benefits because its the right thing to do. Most would rather just keep the money for themselves. Its human nature. Employees need to have a voice and a way to bargain for their needs and unions do that. What is killing the industry is greed at the top not wanting to invest that money back into their employees in the form of wages or in new factories. They would rather gamble that money on Wallstreet to make as much profit as possible.
Pat

You sure about that? Or did you get that from an SEIU ad?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Looks like mostly unions as top campaign contributors. My personal experience in union environments is contrary to every claim you have made. I've watched unions SCREW skilled workers out of more pay based simply on seniority. I have out earned unionized colleagues.

Unions protect incompetence, laziness, and poor work ethic. Skilled and dedicated workers are highly valued in every industry, and in my experience are far more successful in non unionized companies.

BaiHu

12-12-2012, 11:03 PM

Here is the deal yes unons use their money to put people in office that will vote the way want to benefit their members.

Are you sure it's all about benefiting the members? Kind of like the give a man a fish story. Don't you think the Unions act more akin to a drug dealer where the first 'hit' is free? Once you commit, you can never leave, maybe?

But big buisness does this and has a lot more money to push around. Unions still protect workers from getting ripped off and if they were not there things would be worse for the working class. Not all unions are perfect but they do a good job at keeping employers honest when it comes to pay and benefits. Not many employers will give better pay or benefits because its the right thing to do. Most would rather just keep the money for themselves. Its human nature.

A) How do you know big business has more money to push around?
B) How many abuses do you hear about wrongful firings and unsafe working conditions in the US in non-union vs union locations?
C) Do you honestly think that big business can afford to rip off its workers on such a regular basis that you assume only a Union would be so honest, forthright and 'protectionist' about their employees?
D) What does keeping an employer honest when it comes to pay and benefits have to do with a Union, when everyone has access to the internet and can find out what a proper wage is by state? In 5 seconds I put a random query into Google for a 'welder in washington st' and this is what I got: http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Welder-l-Washington.html and it didn't cost me 500-800 dollars a year to some Union head to tell me that.
E) What does 'doing the right thing' have anything to do with work for pay or 'right to work' for pay in a Union vs Non-Union sense?
F) Of course people want to maximize the money they have earned. No one wants to give away what they've earned, b/c they're fixated on their needs/wants, which is why we have taxes in the first place. You don't think Union dues are a tax? Worse, a tax in order for you to work, not a tax because you're working.

Employees need to have a voice and a way to bargain for their needs and unions do that. What is killing the industry is greed at the top not wanting to invest that money back into their employees in the form of wages or in new factories. They would rather gamble that money on Wallstreet to make as much profit as possible.
Pat

Employees do have a voice, it's called 'proving your worth with hard work' and then pleading your case 'using your words' like an adult.

Lastly, do you see the irony in this? "They would rather gamble that money on Wallstreet to make as much profit as possible."

Where do you think your pension comes from? Where do you think your benefits are generated from? Where do you think your dues go? Where do you think your overtime comes from? Do you think all of the money that gets paid to you in salary and benefits just sits in a 'magic lock box' just waiting for you to pull the lever every 2 to 4 weeks? That money is liquid and is tied to everything from drugs to church pews.

The world is a tangled web and if you think that your job is somehow not definitively and directly tied to everything you love and hate about the world you live in, then you might want to do some research and soul searching.

Alaskapopo

12-12-2012, 11:06 PM

You sure about that? Or did you get that from an SEIU ad?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Looks like mostly unions as top campaign contributors. My personal experience in union environments is contrary to every claim you have made. I've watched unions SCREW skilled workers out of more pay based simply on seniority. I have out earned unionized colleagues.

Unions protect incompetence, laziness, and poor work ethic. Skilled and dedicated workers are highly valued in every industry, and in my experience are far more successful in non unionized companies.

I have not seen what you have. As for lazy workers etc that is a management issue. Like I said before I have been involved in employee terminations in both union and non union departments. The process is similar and in all cases the bad employees got the boot. If management does not do it job and address problems and document them then your going to have a harder battle.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-12-2012, 11:09 PM

Are you sure it's all about benefiting the members? Kind of like the give a man a fish story. Don't you think the Unions act more akin to a drug dealer where the first 'hit' is free? Once you commit, you can never leave, maybe?

A) How do you know big business has more money to push around?
B) How many abuses do you hear about wrongful firings and unsafe working conditions in the US in non-union vs union locations?
C) Do you honestly think that big business can afford to rip off its workers on such a regular basis that you assume only a Union would be so honest, forthright and 'protectionist' about their employees?
D) What does keeping an employer honest when it comes to pay and benefits have to do with a Union, when everyone has access to the internet and can find out what a proper wage is by state? In 5 seconds I put a random query into Google for a 'welder in washington st' and this is what I got: http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Welder-l-Washington.html and it didn't cost me 500-800 dollars a year to some Union head to tell me that.
E) What does 'doing the right thing' have anything to do with work for pay or 'right to work' for pay in a Union vs Non-Union sense?
F) Of course people want to maximize the money they have earned. No one wants to give away what they've earned, b/c they're fixated on their needs/wants, which is why we have taxes in the first place. You don't think Union dues are a tax? Worse, a tax in order for you to work, not a tax because you're working.

Employees do have a voice, it's called 'proving your worth with hard work' and then pleading your case 'using your words' like an adult.

Lastly, do you see the irony in this? "They would rather gamble that money on Wallstreet to make as much profit as possible."

Where do you think your pension comes from? Where do you think your benefits are generated from? Where do you think your dues go? Where do you think your overtime comes from? Do you think all of the money that gets paid to you in salary and benefits just sits in a 'magic lock box' just waiting for you to pull the lever every 2 to 4 weeks? That money is liquid and is tied to everything from drugs to church pews.

The world is a tangled web and if you think that your job is somehow not definitively and directly tied to everything you love and hate about the world you live in, then you might want to do some research and soul searching.

With all due respect if you believe big buisness has its employees best interest at heart your very naive.
If a buisness has 300mil to pay a CEO it has money to push around. What we pay CEO's compared to line workers is almost criminal. However at this point I think we both know where we each stand and its not going to change. So I will bow out at this time.

Pat

BaiHu

12-12-2012, 11:25 PM

With all due respect if you believe big buisness has its employees best interest at heart your very naive.
If a buisness has 300mil to pay a CEO it has money to push around. What we pay CEO's compared to line workers is almost criminal.

Pat

I have said no such thing. I have simply argued that non-union workers have more freedom and equal rights to Union workers and with no adverse effects on Union workers.

However, Union workers have less freedom, less rights, but they pay for those chains by being forced to do the political bidding of their masters or 'there will be blood'. In addition, even if Unions were anywhere near as good intentioned as you purport, they still make it more difficult for non-union members to work in half of the states.

Strip away all the b.s. and you still have Unions adversely effecting non-Union jobs and not the other way around. Not just, "Damn, it's too expensive for me to join the Union and I don't like their politics, so I'll just take this 20% pay cut for the same job over at Big Bob's Playhouse of Boxes." Rather it's "Damn, not only is it too expensive for me to front my first month's pay to the Union, not only do I hate their politics, not only can I not get the same job for 20% less at a non-Union factory, I can't even find a non-Union factory!"

Alaskapopo

12-13-2012, 12:00 AM

I have said no such thing. I have simply argued that non-union workers have more freedom and equal rights to Union workers and with no adverse effects on Union workers.

However, Union workers have less freedom, less rights, but they pay for those chains by being forced to do the political bidding of their masters or 'there will be blood'. In addition, even if Unions were anywhere near as good intentioned as you purport, they still make it more difficult for non-union members to work in half of the states.

Strip away all the b.s. and you still have Unions adversely effecting non-Union jobs and not the other way around. Not just, "Damn, it's too expensive for me to join the Union and I don't like their politics, so I'll just take this 20% pay cut for the same job over at Big Bob's Playhouse of Boxes." Rather it's "Damn, not only is it too expensive for me to front my first month's pay to the Union, not only do I hate their politics, not only can I not get the same job for 20% less at a non-Union factory, I can't even find a non-Union factory!"

Ok one last thing. I will take the 20% pay increase and pay the $45 a month union dues gladly. Again been on both sides and know that working for a union department is better. You have a right to your opinion.
Here is a good cartoon for you.
http://www.adn.com/2012/12/10/2719420/cartoons-for-the-week-of-12912.html

Pat

Joe in PNG

12-13-2012, 12:07 AM

Alaskapopo

12-13-2012, 01:02 AM

Pat,
Question: do you personally know any rich people, entrepreneurs, or small business owners?
Have you yourself ever owned a business? Have you ever supervised people in a non-government, non-union job?

I'm trying to avoid the personal attack voodoo, but from reading many of your answers, you seem to have very little personal experience in non-government, non-union jobs. You have done a bit of research, but perhaps the lack of actual experience may be clouding your judgement a bit.

As an example, I've never been a police officer. Imagine if I was to try to dictate to you the details of how to do your job based entirely on stuff I read on a police bashing site... kind of see where I'm going with this?

I have worked since I was 11. I have never been out of work other than for a 2 year stint when I served a mission for the LDS church. Granted when I was younger it was paper route. But it was a big route and I made $400 a month as a 11 year old kid not bad. It took me 3 hours a day 7 days a week to work it. When I was old enough to drive I worked for a gas station, then a Hardware store, then a movie theature, in college I worked at a clothing store and then later at a sporting good store in the gun section. All those jobs were non union. Once done with college I have worked for union and non union departments as I said earlier and have supervised in both settings. I have nothing against small buisness owners or entrepreneurs or rich people. Anyway I keep coming back and really need to let this one die. If you want to continue this please use the PM feature.
pat

Joe in PNG

12-13-2012, 02:43 AM

Anyway I keep coming back and really need to let this one die. If you want to continue this please use the PM feature.
pat

Agreed. We'll call it seki* and let this alone.

*a Go term for a position not quite a stalemate, but best left alone. I've been learning the game lately.

ToddG

12-13-2012, 08:46 AM

I was discussing this with my wife last night. She's a lobbyist up on Capitol Hill and regularly works with people at a fairly high level in both the Dept of Education and the Dept of Labor. Keep in mind that one chamber of Congress and both the Depts are currently controlled by Dems...

She says the overwhelming consensus is that everyone who really looks at the stats sees non-union states on the rise and union states on the decline. The example she gave was the Toyota Tundra plant in Texas. It's non-union, pays its employees very well, and most importantly turns out more actual work (and thus makes more profit) than the Michigan union-controlled factories. Why? Because if anyone at the Toyota plant suggested they shut down production for a few hours to wait for an electrician to change a lightbulb, he'd get fired and replaced with someone who actually wanted to work as hard as he could to earn his paycheck. When the plant had to shut down for three months in 2008, Toyota didn't lay off any employees (some took early retirement, others were reassigned or retrained).

The main reason my wife knows so much about the Toyota plant is because it is directly involved with the local high schools, providing paid internships for high school students and creating a path straight from secondary education to workforce upon graduation. Those jobs pay well above the local median income, have good benefits, and don't require anyone to join an organization against their will just to work.

While I certainly don't have any links to cite, fwiw she said the proposition that employees in union states are better off than in non-union states was also false. When you look at the combination of compensation and employment rates, someone in a non-union state is significantly more likely to have a decent job. She said that unions mislead people by talking only about idealized compensation for a union member who is fully employed but ignore the fact that union shops are more volatile and a union member is more likely to be unemployed than a non-union worker in the same job category.

NickA

12-13-2012, 09:43 AM

The example she gave was the Toyota Tundra plant in Texas. It's non-union, pays its employees very well, and most importantly turns out more actual work (and thus makes more profit) than the Michigan union-controlled factories. Why? Because if anyone at the Toyota plant suggested they shut down production for a few hours to wait for an electrician to change a lightbulb, he'd get fired and replaced with someone who actually wanted to work as hard as he could to earn his paycheck. When the plant had to shut down for three months in 2008, Toyota didn't lay off any employees (some took early retirement, others were reassigned or retrained).

The main reason my wife knows so much about the Toyota plant is because it is directly involved with the local high schools, providing paid internships for high school students and creating a path straight from secondary education to workforce upon graduation. Those jobs pay well above the local median income, have good benefits, and don't require anyone to join an organization against their will just to work.

Great example Todd. That was big news locally when it happened, because people were kind of waiting to see how Toyota was going to act during that slow time. As you said, they kept everyone on, kept them busy doing maintenance, cleaning, additional training, and IIRC even sent some employees out to do community service stuff while on Toyota's dime. People can talk all they want about "big business" screwing over employees, but businesses get big by having smart, motivated, well compensated employees, and most of them know it. In Toyota's case they've become an active participant and partner in our community, to everyone's mutual benefit.
As far as RTW states and job creation, Texas is about as RTW as it gets, and in the last few years (during this huge economic downturn, mind you, and just in my area) we've added, just off the top of my head: a large Caterpillar plant, a big NSA facility, a massive expansion to a military hospital, and soon a big Amazon distribution center. Those are all good paying jobs, not to mention the huge boom from the Eagle Ford shale.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2