Question: What makes them fundamental?
Can you demonstrate a way in which any 'fundamental right' exists, without humans creating it and enforcing.
I think that depends on what you mean by "rights." If you say that rights are only rights if they can be physically enforced then I'd say there are no such things as rights at all; there is also going to be someone with a bigger stick.
If you say that rights can be violated, yet still exist, you're implying that those rights are recognized by a superset of those involved in the direct conflict which resulted in the violation of rights. So far, so good, but who qualifies to be a member of the superset? Only those currently alive? Only members of the particular society? Only those who agree to be bound by the decisions of the group? None of these definitions is really satisfying, though they do serve as a reminder to re-read "The case of the Speluncean Explorers" :P
Can we can make some reasonable guesses about what most people would consider basic rights, at least if given the choice, and then declare those to be our baseline? While it's true they're still being derived from consensus, it would be a theortical consensus of all people who have lived, and are yet to live. Therefore, no single government or group could hope to refute them. In effect, they're "fundamental." Is it possible that is what was intended by the idea of rights be inalienable and inherent? If not, what is the creator, save for the biggest stick of them all?
I'm sure I don't have the answers...in the end, I tend to cleave to "do unto others.*"
*yeah, yeah, I get the irony. :P
Most people seem to think so, but I think that when we compromise fundamental human rights for expedience or social benefit we are basically accepting that fundamental human rights are allowed by society when they are convenient. I think this is a bad idea, but I am a tiny minority.Is it possible that both are correct and not purely in conflict?
That is to say, that a person inherently has rights in an ethical/idealistic sense, but in a practical/pragmatic sense those rights have to be granted/supported by the society in order to exist?
Question: What makes them fundimental?
Can you demonstrate a way in which any 'fundimental right' exists, without humans creating it and enforcing.
For me self ownership is the fundamental human right from which all others extend.
Not really, but I can't accept a model that maintains that rights are simply what society allows you to do either.
There are a lot of people who can't accept a lot of things, because they hold a belief in something else that they can provide no proof for the existence off.
I am afraid that doesn't make them right.
Even if these intrinsic right you believe exist do, I am afraid that the reality is that it is socially ascribed rights which govern your life. Because the intrinsic right you describe have no teeth. Extrinsic rights granted by society however do have teeth, because society backs them up.
There is a reason that the animal welfare movement has done considerable more good for animals than the Animal rights movement ever will, it is because they use an extrinsic rights frame work and evidence, to change the way people behave.
I don't think I can refute the logic of your argument by objectively proving the existence of a concept, in this case intrinsic rights. I'm not appealing to any supernatural basis for human rights either.
On the other hand the rejection of the existence of intrinsic human rights seems to me as hazardous as the divine right of kings, for instance. Any violation of humans rights can be justified simply by changing the definition of human rights to whatever is expedient for whomever holds power in a society. The world has run that way for a long time, but I don't accept that the world should continue to do so.
I am hella rusty on ethics, not having studied them in depth in about five years now, so forgive my former sloppy argument.
The point I am trying to make is this. Extrinsic rights are the most sound way to build a society. Why? Because they are the only one with a demonstrable source. Intrinsic rights, such as those which bitter thorn seems to feel should exist, are unstable. I have never been convinced by any of the proposed sources, especially those which credit the supernatural. They really seem to be nothing more than ways to escape society having to take responsibly for their own ethical and moral frameworks.
By contrast, extrinsic rights systems have a proven track record. In fact, I would challenge anyone to provide a right system that was intrinsic.
The point being that rights come from people choosing to give them to one another, and people change. Which is what I am moving onto.
The form of "fundamental" right you describe is about as close as you can get, too a set of fundamental rights. And you know what, we can more than guess at what they are we can measure them. They are a product of evolutionary psychology...and do you know what they look like? Thats right, you guessed it; utilitarian ethic.
We humans innately way ethical choices in the manner of a cost benifit analysis. it works on the level of "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins" and "If I kill one non relative for the sake of five relatives, that is moral."
Such behaviour is the result of genetics, and our ancestors have most certainly not always acted in this manner, and our descendants almost certainly will not.
But all that aside, it is a behaviour, when such behaviours are carried out into a society, and we start to think in terms of 'rights' those rights are still social norms, not something intrinsic.
I don't think I can refute the logic of your argument by objectively proving the existence of a concept, in this case intrinsic rights. I'm not appealing to any supernatural basis for human rights either.
On the other hand the rejection of the existence of intrinsic human rights seems to me as hazardous as the divine right of kings, for instance. Any violation of humans rights can be justified simply by changing the definition of human rights to whatever is expedient for whomever holds power in a society. The world has run that way for a long time, but I don't accept that the world should continue to do so.
Firstly, the 'rights' are a product of the tenets in the system I am describing, so if someone wanted to twist the rights to hurt others, the'd already have thrown every one of the societal tenets i described out the window, and frankly, at that point, a set of inalienable right arnt going to do you much good.
Secondly, you confusing society with government, no one, however powerful can flip a switch and change how the public views a specific right.(okay, maybe Rupert Murdock can, but we're fighting that bastard tooth and nail to stop him getting even more f!~!ing media domination.)
The point being. Anyone powerful enough to change the way that a society enacts a set of extrinsic rights, is powerful enough to get them to ignore intrinsic rights. In fact, i would go so far as to say that Extrinsic rights, based on Utilitarianism principles are more resistant to such attempts because people can understand why an action is wrong, as opposed to having to accept 'because it's wrong.'
I would be more sypathetic is you could at least provide a hypothetical source for you intrinsic rights system.
Plenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The thing people forget about these countries is they also have zero or extremely low corporate taxes. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. When liberals in the U.S. figure out you don't have to tax everything that moves, maybe we can move towards some European style living. Until then, any move in that direction will be an economic disaster for the U.S.
Published tax rate? Maybe. Effective tax rate? Absolutely not. Studies regular show that about two-thirds of US companies (and foreign companies operating in the US) pay NO taxes. And more than 90% pay less than 5%.
How about cutting spending and bring the basic tax back until we are nto swimming in debt then talk about cutting them?What spending to you cut? Liberals won't budge on cleaning up waste in social spending (far more money goes to sustaining the bureaucracy than to the targeted recipients). Conservatives won't budge on military spending. Apparently none of them will budge on earmarks or their own salaries/pensions.
Far more money goes into sustaining the bureaucracy? From what I've read in the past, Social Security's admin cost was about 3% of expenditures. That's way better than private health care companies that regular run profits in the high 20%'s range and admin costs also in the high 20%'s.
I am hella rusty on ethics, not having studied them in depth in about five years now, so forgive my former sloppy argument.
The point I am trying to make is this. Extrinsic rights are the most sound way to build a society. Why? Because they are the only one with a demonstrable source. Intrinsic rights, such as those which bitter thorn seems to feel should exist, are unstable. I have never been convinced by any of the proposed sources, especially those which credit the supernatural. They really seem to be nothing more than ways to escape society having to take responsibly for their own ethical and moral frameworks.
By contrast, extrinsic rights systems have a proven track record. In fact, I would challenge anyone to provide a right system that was intrinsic.
The point being that rights come from people choosing to give them to one another, and people change. Which is what I am moving onto.
The form of "fundamental" right you describe is about as close as you can get, too a set of fundamental rights. And you know what, we can more than guess at what they are we can measure them. They are a product of evolutionary psychology...and do you know what they look like? Thats right, you guessed it; utilitarian ethic.
We humans innately way ethical choices in the manner of a cost benifit analysis. it works on the level of "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins" and "If I kill one non relative for the sake of five relatives, that is moral."
Such behaviour is the result of genetics, and our ancestors have most certainly not always acted in this manner, and our descendants almost certainly will not.
But all that aside, it is a behaviour, when such behaviours are carried out into a society, and we start to think in terms of 'rights' those rights are still social norms, not something intrinsic.
I don't think your argument is sloppy at all. It has a certain elegance that leaves me with something of a cognitive impasse. I still believe humans have intrinsic rights. Self ownership being the most fundamental. Of course this doesn't in any way counter your basic premise. Furthermore if I argue that intrinsic rights have practical value I seem to be ceding the core argument on some level. Arguing that human rights are a function of being human (which I believe) is more of a circular statement of belief than a cogent argument, so I'm not certain how to structure my argument in a manner that doesn't run into a number of logical fallacies.
I know libertarian thinkers have wrestled with the notion of non supernatural intrinsic rights so I'm sure that others have framed this argument better than I, but I find myself at a loss for a counter to your argument.
From a purely pragmatic standpoint I see where you are coming from and I see where Houston Derrick is coming from when he says the only rights you have are the ones you can enforce. (I think I'm paraphrasing his position correctly). In practical terms right and wrong make very little (if any) difference without some power to back it up.
It just seems to me that the rejection of intrinsic rights seems to me like the rejection of rights entirely. "Rights" granted by kings, gods or governments seem to me to be mere privileges that can be as easily taken back as they are granted.
Firstly, the 'rights' are a product of the tenets in the system I am describing, so if someone wanted to twist the rights to hurt others, the'd already have thrown every one of the societal tenets i described out the window, and frankly, at that point, a set of inalienable right arnt going to do you much good.I don't think I can refute the logic of your argument by objectively proving the existence of a concept, in this case intrinsic rights. I'm not appealing to any supernatural basis for human rights either.
On the other hand the rejection of the existence of intrinsic human rights seems to me as hazardous as the divine right of kings, for instance. Any violation of humans rights can be justified simply by changing the definition of human rights to whatever is expedient for whomever holds power in a society. The world has run that way for a long time, but I don't accept that the world should continue to do so.
I don't think I agree.
Secondly, you confusing society with government, no one, however powerful can flip a switch and change how the public views a specific right.(okay, maybe Rupert Murdock can, but we're fighting that bastard tooth and nail to stop him getting even more f*#%ing media domination.)
I may be conflating society and government in your model. Wouldn't government and rights ideally be a reflection of society in your model? This seems to me like it makes extrinsic rights a function of popularity.
The point being. Anyone powerful enough to change the way that a society enacts a set of extrinsic rights, is powerful enough to get them to ignore intrinsic rights. In fact, i would go so far as to say that Extrinsic rights, based on Utilitarianism principles are more resistant to such attempts because people can understand why an action is wrong, as opposed to having to accept 'because it's wrong.'
I would be more sypathetic is you could at least provide a hypothetical source for you intrinsic rights system.
Um....I got nothing.
I don't think I agree.
Well, if you know of a way in which simply being right will protect you from tyranny. i would love to here it. My point being that once a government, or entire society gets it into their heads to deprive you of health, happiness and freedom of speech, you can have all the Inalienable rights you want, but it is your ability to defend them that will ultimately decide how free you are. Knowing i have the right not to be tortured really isn't going to do me much good if I am chained, gagged and spirited away to a country that does not recognise such rights.
I may be conflating society and government in your model. Wouldn't government and rights ideally be a reflection of society in your model? This seems to me like it makes extrinsic rights a function of popularity.
Ideally, yes the government would be reflective of the society, but that is not always the case. take the UK's current situation, the Majority vote was centre left parties, but one of those parties joined with the conservatives, forming a centre right government with a few lib-Dem policies, which is actually less reflective of the popular vote, than the alternatives would have been(yes, i'm bitter, so shoot me :p).
The point is, that is it society who sets what the extrinsic rights are, and the government tries to reflect them in law(or at least it is meant too.)
As for extrinsic rights being a function of popularity...In the world as it is, yes that is basically how it works. Ideally, i would like to see it become something which is derived from evidence, and given approval via referendum. In my ideal world, voting is mandatory(though abstention is allowed), and there is a higher level of direct democracy.
I suspect you'd find it odd, but I think that Self ownership is something that would be very strongly protected under my world view.
Self determination is something that if lost, causes high levels of stress, and stress is very bad for you, so interfering with an individuals in that manner would require very that the benefit of doing so would need to effect almost the entire society. Perhaps only teachers(education, especially in the sciences and mathimatics are a corner stone of progress), doctors(univeral healthcare is a function of national defense), some scientists and soldiers would fall under its say, and even then, people would be making a choice to step into those roles.
I think there's a fundamental problem with the conception of "rights" as something that can be given or not given.
Let me explain,
Away from sociey, we are free to do anything we are capable of doing.
The concept of "rights" don't exist in such an environment.In a society, we agree to give up certan things in order to get other things. The question of interest isn't about "rights", but about "limitations" which we voluntarily make and can retract at any time.
The interesting thing, though, is what happens when a society we've chosen not to be a member of imposes on us limitations we never agreed to. Any definition of rights the society gave us would be a further limitation imposed on us. It's a tricky conundrum and one which many people like to respond to by pulling out their magic wand and chanting "objective morality", but that only works about as long as you believe in other fairy tales
This is a very interesting point. I have often argued along similar lines, in that I consider the taxes which I pay to be voluntary contribution to the nation in which I live. I could after all move else where.(i have been giving more and more serious thought to the idea of moving to one of the northern European social democracies because of the improved quality of life I can expect there. If I where single, I think I would have done it by now)
I can’t find the quote, but on the topic of Europeans having more social pressure to keep families small: I’m all for it. Most modern people have this ideal that life is sacred, and that we’re all deserving of some basic rights. But people in power, whether dictators or politicians or corporate employers, are often able to ignore ideals and rights because there’re so many people. Don’t want to bow down to my dictatorship? I’ll just kill you, and thousands of others will! Don’t want to get shot at to protect American oil interests? Well, thousands of others don’t know any better or don’t have any better option! Don’t want to work for less than a living wage? Well get out of the way, there’re millions of others who will!
So I could stand a bit more social pressure to keep families small. One of the few things that I’m really patriotic about is that my country isn’t crammed full like a sardine can--yet. But too many people have children prolifically and thoughtlessly. The older I get, the more parents I meet, the more I think that people should need a license to have children. Many people just don’t have the means to give their children a good life, and many people are bad parents, plain and simple. (I include myself in both of those categories; I just don’t know what to do with kids.) It’s unenforcible without extremely invasive and ethically questionable government intervention, so it’ll never happen, but I can wonder.
I do think we can and should have a law about politicians who want to declare war. Can’t send a son or daughter to the front lines? Then you don’t get a vote when it comes to war.
I don’t think taxes should go up. Why would anyone trust DC with more tax dollars and more power when they have done such an abysmal job of managing what they have already taken away from us? This is what mystifies me about progressives; it seems that no matter how badly the government screws anything up the solution is always to give more power to the government.
Thanks, Bitter Thorn, for bringing something up that I should have included in the OP.
We liberals know there’re problems with the government. Big problems. Politicians aren’t motivated to work faster than a snail’s pace--except right before an election--because they get paid [often obscene salaries] regardless of how the rest of the nation is doing. Because money = campaign ads = votes, politicians have to either be wealthy to begin with or be slave to corporate sponsors to get elected. We have this weird narrow-spectrum dualistic party system, enforced by the electoral college. My high school government teacher told us that European countries have a much higher voting population because without an electoral college, there are more viable candidates over there. Apparently, more Europeans vote and become politically aware because they’re afraid a real psycho will get elected. I’d like other opinions on this, because I’m not sure it entirely makes sense.
Tangental Observation: problems always arise in any system, whether a government or a role playing game, as its players learn to game the system. Unfortunately, the only tried and true way of ameliorating this problem is to start over. The US itself was a start-over at its birth, which was part of its success. I don’t think we need a whole new country, but we need some major changes to the one we have.
Because one kills a person and one doesn’t.How are conservatives against abortion but for capital punishment ;-)How are liberals for abortion but against capital punishment?Because one kills a person and the other doesn’t.
Haha, that’s a joke right?
Pro-lifers see abortion as murder, while pro-choicers see abortion as health care. That is, the zygote/embryo isn’t a person yet; it isn’t aware enough to feel fear, and isn’t developed enough to feel any more pain than a house fly. I myself don’t have a strong opinion on the issue, but I will say this: I’ve had a decent life, all things considered. I’m an American, which puts me ahead of most of the world’s population right off the bat. I have loving parents, and I have the freedom to pursue the education and hobbies I want to.
But if I could go back in time and convince my mother to abort me, I would. Even given the good life that I have, I’ve felt and seen more pain than I want to. I have two chronic and incurable conditions (diabetes and cystic fibrosis) that force daily medications and physical therapy upon me, in order to postpone the slow death that I’ll have to experience one day. (And to top that off, I have to depend on charity to get that medication because my country doesn’t care enough to provide them.) My sister is a drug addict and my father is an angry antisocial man. My parents love me, but not each other. I don’t think the human condition is inherently worth living, so if I could have died before I had the awareness to fear death, before my family had grown attached to me, I’d thank my mother.
As for capital punishment, some extreme liberals believe killing is categorically wrong under any circumstance, but that’s not why I don’t like it. If I could kill psychopaths, I’d kill them all. If I had the omniscience of God, I’d kill them before they even comitted their crimes. Unfortunately I’m only human, and so are judges and juries, who occasionally convict innocent men and women. Sure, that’s rare once our ‘innocent until proven guilty’ system actually manages to convict them, but convicts are occasionally exonerated months or years after being sentenced. It’s those few innocents who make capital punishment a deadly gamble.
It isn't about revenge or anything like that, it is about putting a sick animal down. Like the kid at the end of Old Yeller, sometimes dead is better.
It isn't about revenge or anything like that, it is about putting a sick animal down. Like the kid at the end of Old Yeller, sometimes dead is better.
If this holds true, can we have agreement, that should i become victim of a disease that caused the death of personality, while letting my body continue that it is moral for me to leave instructions for my doctor to end my life, and that it should be moral and legal for the doctor to act on said instructions. After all, sometimes dead is better. I mean, it is a simple dignity we provide our pets, it is the least we can do to allow it to our-selved.
Presman, that is also the first time i have heard a half way sensible argument in favour of the death penalty.
It isn't about revenge or anything like that, it is about putting a sick animal down. Like the kid at the end of Old Yeller, sometimes dead is better.
If this holds true, can we have agreement, that should i become victim of a disease that caused the death of personality, while letting my body continue that it is moral for me to leave instructions for my doctor to end my life, and that it should be moral and legal for the doctor to act on said instructions. After all, sometimes dead is better. I mean, it is a simple dignity we provide our pets, it is the least we can do to allow it to our-selved.
Presman, that is also the first time i have heard a half way sensible argument in favour of the death penalty.
I personally don't have a problem with it, as long as no doctor is forced to do it against their will.
When the Terri Schiavo thing was going on, I told my wife that if I ever became brain dead, that it would be ok for her to allow me to die. Just don't starve/dehydrate me to death like they did her. My body has served me well for the last 3-4 decades and it does not deserve to be treated like that. If they determine that I can die, then do it quickly, and preferably painlessly (even if I consciously will not be aware of it, again my body will respond to pain and it doesn't deserve that).
|
The top end is 35%, but the U.S. taxes gross income, not net, like most European nations do, so the comparison is even more stark. Furthermore, Europe allows for more deductions on capital gains, therefore avoiding quite a bit of the disincentive to invest that the American system creates, particularly in poor economic climates where investors get very jumpy when they think government is actively working against them (like, say, the last two years).Plenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world.
Huh ?
out of Curiosity : How much exactly ?
Hi Derek,
You're right it makes quite a difference.
However a point that I remember from my tax courses, long ago : a major point a dissension in American companies operating abroad lies there.
In America, you want your company's accounting to show profits : they please the shareholders. So you try to maximize profits whenever you can. In Europe (especially France, since you are taxed on net profit, you try to ensure that your company is (on the paper) always in the red so that you pay less tax.
Also, in France the tax rate for company is (or used to be) a flat 33%.
EXCEPT : we are very creatuive about taxes.
You hire new staff ? Tax on the salaries ! (but without the word tax, you see, that'd be bad form, let's call this "social patriotic contribution" (or whatever)
You invest in machines ? Gee, man, hat just happens to fund the tax on Professional training.
You don't turn any profits in ? say, bad luck, as there is (used to be until very recently) a minimum tax whatever your size is ...
You are not in a mainstream industry, or have made yourself be noticed too much ? Ooooh, there is probably a specific tax, just for you. Say for instance on gas for truckers ....
Say, we're not quite yet to the point where we will tax taxes, but I have high hopes for the near future :)
And, hey, guess what ? After all this ... government is still on deficit, and we'd probably have to raise all of the above to break even.
Or cut useless spending. But that's taboo.
So you see, if it helps you all feel better, I'm still not convinced that your lor is worse than ours.
Cheers anyways !
Stereo
So if I don't think the USA is the greatest country in the world, am I disqualified from being both a conservative and a modern hippie socialist progressive liberal?
Great is a pretty generic term in fact, great at what? Great how?
Now don't get me wrong, the USA is my country, and I love it. But if I had been born somewhere else, like say Malta, I doubt I would love Malta any less in that scenario than I love the USA.
For me at least, the irrationality of nationlism is a forgone conclusion, but I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who seem to be in the "my country, right or wrong" camp.
Speaking of irrational, I've never been able to wrap my head around belief systems that maintain it's wrong for the government to tax people, but it's OK for the government to kill people (not that the case is being made here, but it seems surprisingly common).
I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that the government should not collect ANY type of tax. There is just disagreement to what types of taxes should be collected and how much. I hear alot more grumbling about income tax, than I ever hear about sales tax for example.
At this point in the game I should no longer be surprised, but I am a little amazed that a thread devoted to discussing Socialist-Progressive-Liberalism-whatever can go on for over 100 posts without a single poster mentioning trade unions. (And if someone did and I missed it, I apologize).
It probably has something to do with the demographics of people who post on role-playing game websites, but a core belief of all socialists (crazy third-worldist Maoists excluded), most progressives (whatever that term means) and a lot of liberals in the 20th century is that the right to organize is necessary for the wage-earners in industrial capitalism.
I am a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I throw boxes at UPS. We top out at around $25/hour for inside work $30/hr for package truck drivers and even for more for trailer drivers. Our insurace (at least in New England) is free and when we retire we get a pension. Despite all of this, UPS netted over $2 billion last year and expects to net $4 billion this year.
We got none of this by relying upon the government. We got this by collective bargaining and exercising our ability to withhold our labor, for example, the highly successful 1997 strike. Or, as one of my co-workers so cogently put it, I hate my job but I love my union.
Just wanted to throw this out there.
Solidarity forever!
I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that the government should not collect ANY type of tax. There is just disagreement to what types of taxes should be collected and how much. I hear alot more grumbling about income tax, than I ever hear about sales tax for example.
The line has been seriously toed on this issue with respect to the average person, I fear. It would not take too much for a group of people to want to take that first step over it.
At this point in the game I should no longer be surprised, but I am a little amazed that a thread devoted to discussing Socialist-Progressive-Liberalism-whatever can go on for over 100 posts without a single poster mentioning trade unions. (And if someone did and I missed it, I apologize).
It probably has something to do with the demographics of people who post on role-playing game websites, but a core belief of all socialists (crazy third-worldist Maoists excluded), most progressives (whatever that term means) and a lot of liberals in the 20th century is that the right to organize is necessary for the wage-earners in industrial capitalism.
I am a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I throw boxes at UPS. We top out at around $25/hour for inside work $30/hr for package truck drivers and even for more for trailer drivers. Our insurace (at least in New England) is free and when we retire we get a pension. Despite all of this, UPS netted over $2 billion last year and expects to net $4 billion this year.
We got none of this by relying upon the government. We got this by collective bargaining and exercising our ability to withhold our labor, for example, the highly successful 1997 strike. Or, as one of my co-workers so cogently put it, I hate my job but I love my union.
HD, BT, your thoughts on this topic?
Just wanted to throw this out there.
Solidarity forever!
Like anything you can't know if "it will be used" until you have it.
Second, I don't want the government to have more power.
Actually the problem in this country is that the governement doesn't really have the power... it's the corporate controlled special interests which pull the strings without accountability that are driving polcies in this country. The recent Supreme Court decision to essentially allow unlimited unaccounted money into the election process was a further excaberation of the problem.
What is needed is more transparency into decision making processes, both government and corporate.
Even if we had more transparency, would it be used?
A democracy runs on education. I know -far- too many people who let others do their thinking for them.Also,
Take any new controversial issue and do a web search. The first ten pages are just copies of the same old 'news' (perhaps told in different ways). The Internet was suppossed to make us more informed. What it's actually done is expose us to more spin. Until we teach our kids to think for themselves rather than try to pass exams, until we teach our kids reason, logic, and critical reading, until we teach our kids to ask every time they read something on the web, "who is saying this? why are they saying this? what is their source?", all the transparency in the world will be just a pile of mud.
I'm unsure on this. One man's spin is another man's fact. If anything it has exposed kids to more opinions and encouraged them to make their own. How well informed said opinions are comes down to the individual.
|
HD, BT, your thoughts on this topic?At this point in the game I should no longer be surprised, but I am a little amazed that a thread devoted to discussing Socialist-Progressive-Liberalism-whatever can go on for over 100 posts without a single poster mentioning trade unions. (And if someone did and I missed it, I apologize).
It probably has something to do with the demographics of people who post on role-playing game websites, but a core belief of all socialists (crazy third-worldist Maoists excluded), most progressives (whatever that term means) and a lot of liberals in the 20th century is that the right to organize is necessary for the wage-earners in industrial capitalism.
I am a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I throw boxes at UPS. We top out at around $25/hour for inside work $30/hr for package truck drivers and even for more for trailer drivers. Our insurace (at least in New England) is free and when we retire we get a pension. Despite all of this, UPS netted over $2 billion last year and expects to net $4 billion this year.
We got none of this by relying upon the government. We got this by collective bargaining and exercising our ability to withhold our labor, for example, the highly successful 1997 strike. Or, as one of my co-workers so cogently put it, I hate my job but I love my union.
Just wanted to throw this out there.
Solidarity forever!
Long post got eaten. Long and short of it: unions have outlived their usefulness. They're only there to fund the Democratic Party now. And public service unions only exist to extort taxpayers.
Long post got eaten. Long and short of it: unions have outlived their usefulness. They're only there to fund the Democratic Party now. And public service unions only exist to extort taxpayers.HD, BT, your thoughts on this topic?At this point in the game I should no longer be surprised, but I am a little amazed that a thread devoted to discussing Socialist-Progressive-Liberalism-whatever can go on for over 100 posts without a single poster mentioning trade unions. (And if someone did and I missed it, I apologize).
It probably has something to do with the demographics of people who post on role-playing game websites, but a core belief of all socialists (crazy third-worldist Maoists excluded), most progressives (whatever that term means) and a lot of liberals in the 20th century is that the right to organize is necessary for the wage-earners in industrial capitalism.
I am a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I throw boxes at UPS. We top out at around $25/hour for inside work $30/hr for package truck drivers and even for more for trailer drivers. Our insurace (at least in New England) is free and when we retire we get a pension. Despite all of this, UPS netted over $2 billion last year and expects to net $4 billion this year.
We got none of this by relying upon the government. We got this by collective bargaining and exercising our ability to withhold our labor, for example, the highly successful 1997 strike. Or, as one of my co-workers so cogently put it, I hate my job but I love my union.
Just wanted to throw this out there.
Solidarity forever!
Houston:
You've always seemed to be a big proponent of personal experience. Here is a post from someone with direct personal experience that runs counter to your belief that unions have outlived their usefulness. This person states that a labor union made his life better. My goal here is not to provoke a defensive reaction ("I know about unions because..."); I'm honestly wondering how you reconcile that.
|
|
Long post got eaten. Long and short of it: unions have outlived their usefulness. They're only there to fund the Democratic Party now. And public service unions only exist to extort taxpayers.HD, BT, your thoughts on this topic?At this point in the game I should no longer be surprised, but I am a little amazed that a thread devoted to discussing Socialist-Progressive-Liberalism-whatever can go on for over 100 posts without a single poster mentioning trade unions. (And if someone did and I missed it, I apologize).
It probably has something to do with the demographics of people who post on role-playing game websites, but a core belief of all socialists (crazy third-worldist Maoists excluded), most progressives (whatever that term means) and a lot of liberals in the 20th century is that the right to organize is necessary for the wage-earners in industrial capitalism.
I am a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I throw boxes at UPS. We top out at around $25/hour for inside work $30/hr for package truck drivers and even for more for trailer drivers. Our insurace (at least in New England) is free and when we retire we get a pension. Despite all of this, UPS netted over $2 billion last year and expects to net $4 billion this year.
We got none of this by relying upon the government. We got this by collective bargaining and exercising our ability to withhold our labor, for example, the highly successful 1997 strike. Or, as one of my co-workers so cogently put it, I hate my job but I love my union.
Just wanted to throw this out there.
Solidarity forever!
Houston:
You've always seemed to be a big proponent of personal experience. Here is a post from someone with direct personal experience that runs counter to your belief that unions have outlived their usefulness. This person states that a labor union made his life better. My goal here is not to provoke a defensive reaction ("I...
I'm sure GM employees thought their lives were better when they were getting 95% of their pay when they were laid off. That is, until GM started shutting down plants and moving them to Mexico. Remember "Roger and Me"? Remember when Moore asked union leadership about the effect of their labor contract on GM's bottom line? Nope. Because he never asked.
All whatever union UPS is represented by did was extort more money for their members. Relatively unskilled members. Sorry, getting a CDL doesn't require any special talent. Neither does working in a warehouse, frankly (this I know from personal experience on both counts). And they did that by giving FedEx more money for a time.
And, frankly, the "I hate my job" sentiment would chap my hide if I owned a business. Even as a manager, I noticed (more personal experience coming up) that people that don't like their job make lousy employees. Luckily, I managed a place with no union, so I could just fire people that didn't like their job. I didn't have to keep them on, allowing them to poison the staff with their bad attitudes. The customers appreciated having happy employees to deal with as well.
Also, apparently his "personal experience" doesn't include knowing exactly how underfunded the Teamster's pension plan for its members is. As it stands, it's nearly 50% underfunded (due to political contributions and general corruption), and they're either discussing or have already implemented an 18% increase in member contributions to try and cover the funds they squandered.
Funny thing though, the Teamster's union leadership's pensions are fully funded. Imagine that.
And don't get me started on the SEIU....
Unions were useful once, when government actively colluded with business to keep workers in a semi-slave state (see: late 1800s), but, since the '50s, they've been a corrupt body who does not have the workers' best interests at heart. Now, the situation has done a 180, where government currently actively colludes with unions against business. Seriously, without government protection, the union members would have been fired and replaced with ease, as little of the UPS workforce has anything approaching unique skills that are difficult to find.
Furthermore, the entire concept of the "closed shop" is antithetical to anything approaching a free market. I should be allowed to negotiate my own contract without having to join a union. Basically, if I don't live in a "right to work" state, certain industries are 100% closed to me if I don't join a union. So, I am forced to join an organization that is going to take money I think is going to a pension fund and use it to back politicians I don't agree with politically.
And, yes, I've even been shut out of jobs here in Houston because I refused to join a longshoreman's union (the docks are exempt from Texas law). If you want to be a checker, you have to join. Period. No exceptions.
(I tried including HD's post but it was quote upon quote upon quote, so I just erased it all.)
Never claimed working at UPS was skilled labor. Thought I hinted at that when I said I threw boxes.
Also, please don't assume what I know and what I don't know. I am well aware of the problems facing my pension fund, thank you very much.
Extort money from its members? Well, you're entitled to your own opinion but here's what I get for my membership dues: job security for life (unlike GM, it's impossible to deliver packages to American homes from Mexico), I can't be fired unless I steal, fight or copulate on company time, free insurance for myself and my family (well, I don't have a family, but if I did...)and a pension upon retirement. For $49 a month? If that's extortion, well I'm a happy victim.
(Despite the problems with the Teamster pension funds, UPS workers generally pick up pensions funded by the company.)
I'm glad that you're happy with your job, but, again, I would ask that you refrain from making assumptions about me and my co-workers. UPS has a pretty effective self-sifting mechanism when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff: either you can precision load 200 packages that can weigh up to 150 lbs. onto four trucks in an hour or you quit. Also, since I don't deal with customers, I fail to see how they'd care one whit about my attitude.
I would agree with you totally about closed shops having nothing to do with the free market. I just happen to not be a huge fan of the invisible hand of capitalism.
And, finally, I believe that far from having outlived their usefulness that the decline in American unionism has marched step-by-step with the decline in the living standard of what most people would like to call the "middle class," bu8t what has always struck me as just the working class making $20/hour.
I am not blind to many of the problems in the American labor movement--I completely understand your reference to the SEIU, for example. But after working in both union shops and non-union shops, I firmly believe that workers benefit immeasurably from collective bargaining. And I was surprised that in a thread devoted to socialist-progressive-liberal whatever that this topic hadn't yet been mentioned.
I’m not sure how most unions work, but I support them for most construction, at the very least roofing. I work for a union roofing company. The union trains our guys, so we don’t have to have training facilities on site or worse yet send out inexperienced guys. If a guy doesn’t perform we can just send his ass back to the union hall and ask for another guy. Union in the roofing industry is about standards, non union roofing shops are for the most part seen as bottom feeders who pick up their workers from the front of home depot on the way to a job.
On the flip side I'm not a big fan of the teamsters union. I have heard some outrageous stories from a friend of mine who was a manager at UPS who said the teamster guys would slack off all the time, and basically told him to go f--k himself if he tried to make them work. He said he had no power as a manager because the union had to approve any disciplinary measures and they always backed the union members. My only personal experience with them was during the awarding of a group of schools to my company. I had to go to a meeting at the union hall where the GC called all the awarded contractors up, we said what our scope of work was, and the unions claimed what work would be theirs. The teamster rep spoke up every time there was any kind of unskilled labor on the job that didn’t belong to another union. The impression I got was that the teamsters union was the union of “simple s--t that anyone can do but you have to pay me more to do it”. This kind of union seems like the opposite of the kind of union in my industry.
HD--Just realized that I read a "from" where you wrote a "for" in the "extortion" sentence--my mistake.
However, I would reiterate that this "extortion" hasn't prevented UPS from raking in $2 billion in profit during the worst recession/depression since [whichever historical depression you'd like to include here].
|
|
HD--Just realized that I read a "from" where you wrote a "for" in the "extortion" sentence--my mistake.
However, I would reiterate that this "extortion" hasn't prevented UPS from raking in $2 billion in profit during the worst recession/depression since [whichever historical depression you'd like to include here].
That "extortion" also doesn't extend to 35 of the 50 states, either. UPS drivers/warehouse workers down here don't have to belong to the Teamsters to have a job.
On the flip side I'm not a big fan of the teamsters union. I have heard some outrageous stories from a friend of mine who was a manager at UPS who said the teamster guys would slack off all the time, and basically told him to go f--k himself if he tried to make them work. He said he had no power as a manager because the union had to approve any disciplinary measures and they always backed the union members. My only personal experience with them was during the awarding of a group of schools to my company. I had to go to a meeting at the union hall where the GC called all the awarded contractors up, we said what our scope of work was, and the unions claimed what work would be theirs. The teamster rep spoke up every time there was any kind of unskilled labor on the job that didn’t belong to another union. The impression I got was that the teamsters union was the union of “simple s--t that anyone can do but you have to pay me more to do it”. This kind of union seems like the opposite of the kind of union in my industry.
As a UPS worker, my flip response is that your friend is a douchebag. But that's probably flag-worthy, so let me retract that statement and say something else.
UPS is internationally renowned for its techniques in time-management. What this means is that they have a plan for every second that you're on the clock. I work the preload shift, i.e., from 330-900. As you might imagine, that shift requires drinking a lot of coffee. Guess what happens when you drink a lot of coffee--that's right, you have to go to the bathroom more often. What am I driving at? Yes, I have seen workers berated and labelled slackers for having to go to the bathroom more than once during a shift. I also have witnessed workers being instructed that they had to work during their break because they were seen drinking from the water fountain in 100 degree weather.
I stand by what I said above--most slackers don't make it through their first 30 days. What I have noticed is that workers who are there for a long time, say 20-30 years, are labelled slackers because they can no longer work as hard as 20-25 year olds. Surprise, surprise.
Anyway, I don't work in the trades so I can't speak to what goes on there but I understand that it's completely different from a closed, industrial shop like UPS. Where I am the jobs that you describe as Teamster jobs would probably go to the Laborer's Union.
Anyway, glad to see at least one fellow trade-unionist/Pathfinder fan out there.
Solidarity forever and boycott Korvosa!
HD--
Yes, that's true, but unless I am mistaken, non-union workers in a union shop (or as I like to call them, scabs) still get the same pay, benefits and rights (including union representation in disciplinary situations) as union members. Or, put another way, they still work under a Teamster contract even if they aren't in the Teamsters.
At this point, due to my original misreading of your first sentence with "extortion" in it, I'm not sure whether you're referring to collective bargaining or the collection of membership dues. Sorry for the confusion, but I'm up way past my bedtime.
I’m not sure how most unions work, but I support them for most construction, at the very least roofing. I work for a union roofing company. The union trains our guys, so we don’t have to have training facilities on site or worse yet send out inexperienced guys. If a guy doesn’t perform we can just send his ass back to the union hall and ask for another guy. Union in the roofing industry is about standards, non union roofing shops are for the most part seen as bottom feeders who pick up their workers from the front of home depot on the way to a job.
On the flip side I'm not a big fan of the teamsters union. I have heard some outrageous stories from a friend of mine who was a manager at UPS who said the teamster guys would slack off all the time, and basically told him to go f--k himself if he tried to make them work. He said he had no power as a manager because the union had to approve any disciplinary measures and they always backed the union members. My only personal experience with them was during the awarding of a group of schools to my company. I had to go to a meeting at the union hall where the GC called all the awarded contractors up, we said what our scope of work was, and the unions claimed what work would be theirs. The teamster rep spoke up every time there was any kind of unskilled labor on the job that didn’t belong to another union. The impression I got was that the teamsters union was the union of “simple s--t that anyone can do but you have to pay me more to do it”. This kind of union seems like the opposite of the kind of union in my industry.
This is similar to my experience with trade unions for the most part. I have seen trade unions provide quite a few solid benefits to employers, tradesmen, and the crafts. As long as unions are a voluntary association of adults I'm in favor of them, and I think they can add real value to all parties involved.
The value provided by unions also varies wildly by region of the US and whether or not we are talking about trade unions or government unions or some other kind of union.
As a UPS worker, my flip response is that your friend is a douchebag. But that's probably flag-worthy, so let me retract that statement and say something else.
He really isn't, he's one of the most laid back guys I know. His stories usually involved things like guys standing around piles of boxes that needed to be loaded and chatting when they should have been loading. Then when he would say something like "okay guys we really need to get these loaded." they would turn around and tell him to f--k himself. He often said it wouldn't have pissed him off as much if he could just load the boxes himself while the union guys slacked off, but if he tried to do that then he would be fired for violating the union contract.
Now to be fair this was like 15 years ago, and I’m sure unions conduct themselves differently from area to area.
This was great. Daily Show burns Union.
Don't get me started on grocery unions. Yes you’re paid minimum wage. You’re paid minimum wage because when the minimum wage was designed somebody thought about how much a job position should pay if it requires minimum training, minimum skill, and minimum effort. Like say, I don’t know, taking cans and shoving them in bags? If we don’t pay these positions minimum wage, then why do we even have it?
(lots of good stuff about unions)
For every union that is misusing its members' money, there are many many employers who would get away with murder if they could. (I speak both as an employee and an employer in my two different "jobs").
Some aspects of unions' reason for existence may not exist any more due to the general progress in what society thinks is fair and what isn't and overall improvement in human rights since the days before unions. But many of us still hold to the idea that it is important for unions to exist.
For example, the right to collectively bargain. I suspect many on these forums have the education, skills and ability to negotiate for themselves, but many don't. Without unions representing them then they can miss out.
Here in Australia unions are very focussed on workplace safety. Some unions abuse that but I'd much rather work on a building site with unions monitoring safety than one where the unions have no right of entry.
I like to think of unions a bit like that line in Star Wars "Many brave Bothans died to bring us the Death Star plans". In the past many brave labour activists suffered and/or died to bring us the working conditions we enjoy today. It was the sacrifices of those people in the past which had a great direct impact on the employment conditions we enjoy today - including the working conidtions of those who are anti-union....
And I was surprised that in a thread devoted to socialist-progressive-liberal whatever that this topic hadn't yet been mentioned.
Thanks for your thoughts, DA. I don't know much about unions beyond their general history and purpose, because I've never been in one.
I've heard that they're prone to corruption, which isn't surprising given the "power corrupts" adage. So what I'd like to hear are opinions about how to fix the situation. We could abolish them and go back to the 1800s dynamic where unskilled workers get paid pennies an hour and get fired for complaining when exposed machinery takes a finger, but that seems like a step backward.
|
|
And I was surprised that in a thread devoted to socialist-progressive-liberal whatever that this topic hadn't yet been mentioned.Thanks for your thoughts, DA. I don't know much about unions beyond their general history and purpose, because I've never been in one.
I've heard that they're prone to corruption, which isn't surprising given the "power corrupts" adage. So what I'd like to hear are opinions about how to fix the situation. We could abolish them and go back to the 1800s dynamic where unskilled workers get paid pennies an hour and get fired for complaining when exposed machinery takes a finger, but that seems like a step backward.
So, considering 85% of the private sector workforce is non-union, and they do not suffer those conditions, why do you think we'd revert to that without unions?
In the US, the history of unions are more associated with the Godfather than with Star Wars.I like to think of unions a bit like that line in Star Wars "Many brave Bothans died to bring us the Death Star plans". In the past many brave labour activists suffered and/or died to bring us the working conditions we enjoy today. It was the sacrifices of those people in the past which had a great direct impact on the employment conditions we enjoy today - including the working conditions of those who are anti-union....
The same analogy could be used with the history of how employers treat staff.
Rhetorical tools aside, sure there are issues with how unions operate, interact with members, employers and government. But when weighed up against the alternative of a union-free environment, I am glad of the presence of unions in society.
|
|
In the US, the history of unions are more associated with the Godfather than with Star Wars.I like to think of unions a bit like that line in Star Wars "Many brave Bothans died to bring us the Death Star plans". In the past many brave labour activists suffered and/or died to bring us the working conditions we enjoy today. It was the sacrifices of those people in the past which had a great direct impact on the employment conditions we enjoy today - including the working conditions of those who are anti-union....
The same analogy could be used with the history of how employers treat staff.
Rhetorical tools aside, sure there are issues with how unions operate, interact with members, employers and government. But when weighed up against the alternative of a union-free environment, I am glad of the presence of unions in society.
So are the Mexicans making 500 pesos a day building GM and Ford vehicles. I'm sure they'd like to thank unions for providing them with their jobs.
:)
And I was surprised that in a thread devoted to socialist-progressive-liberal whatever that this topic hadn't yet been mentioned.Thanks for your thoughts, DA. I don't know much about unions beyond their general history and purpose, because I've never been in one.
I've heard that they're prone to corruption, which isn't surprising given the "power corrupts" adage. So what I'd like to hear are opinions about how to fix the situation. We could abolish them and go back to the 1800s dynamic where unskilled workers get paid pennies an hour and get fired for complaining when exposed machinery takes a finger, but that seems like a step backward.
Why would we want to abolish the right of free association?