I find it offensive to be forced to pay a protection racket in order to hold a job. I find it offensive that the worst workers i have ever witnessed were protected time after time by union thuggery. I find it offensive that my hard earned dollars are stolen pay check after pay check to fund the democrat party.
Unions ONCE did something good, today they drive up costs and protect the dead weight workers.
Did you find it offensive that billions of your (aka tax payers) dollars were paid to bail out greedy, risk-taking financial institutions? Did you find it offensive that the worst insitutions were able to get away with what they did due to a lack of meaningful regulation?
Do you think workers' conditions will improve, or even stay level, if it was left solely to management to make sure workers aren't screwed over by a focus on profit over all else? Without the efforts of unions conditions of service across the board would worsen - increased casualisation of the workforce, occupational health and safety regualtions weakened or removed, lower salary, among many other issues.
Some unions, or at least elements within them, go overboard, but given what many employers/companies/corporations would do, or try to do, in the absence of unions, I know which way I'd go.
Do you like being safe at work?That is now regulated by the goverment...while Unions might have got it mandated...no need for them now really.
Interestingly the huge amount of government regulation and modern unions have relatively little impact on work place safety.
The insurance industry has done far more to promote work place safety.
Shall we raise a beer to them too?
Is this the thread where I copy-paste my collection of Billy Bragg lyrics?
Do you like being safe at work?That is now regulated by the goverment...while Unions might have got it mandated...no need for them now really.
Interestingly the huge amount of government regulation and modern unions have relatively little impact on work place safety.
The insurance industry has done far more to promote work place safety.
Shall we raise a beer to them too?
"Here's one to all my homies. The trial lawyers."
*pours 40 out*
The first corporations in the U.S. were educational (dartmouth collage). They were money making exercises that relied on providing valuable service to the public to ensure profits.
Once upon a time one of the requirements for gaining a corporate charter was that the corporation had to be able to *consistently prove* that it was serving the public good. If they did anything illegal, or were even debatably non-beneficial to the public at large, they would be dissolved.
This changed in 1919 with the Supreme Court ruling in the Ford v. Dodge case.
See, Henry Ford wanted to give his workers a significant wage increase. He reasoned that if his workers could actually afford the products they were manufacturing it would raise his profits in the long run, and give his workers some pride in what they were doing.
The Dodge Brothers (who would later found Dodge motors) were on Ford's board of directors and filed a lawsuit that stopped Ford from raising wages because it would cut into the company's profits. It went all the way to the supreme court.
The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation's *sole reason for existing* was to maximize profits to it's shareholders.
This negated all requirements that related to the public good, fair wages or safe working environments. Effectively, if it made more money for the company, they were allowed to do it. It was in the wake of this that nearly *all* of the regulations on safety, fair wages, taxation and environmental concerns sprung up. A mountain of red tape to try to restrict the carte blanche "whatever makes money fastest" attitude corporations were allowed to adopt. To this day, corporations do everything in their power to work around these completely reasonable restrictions, and are allowed to because their *legal reason for existing* is pure greed.
For nearly 100 years the stance of american corporate interests has had it's precedent set by that one ruling.
If we were to somehow enact a law that once again required corporations to serve the public good, we wouldn't even need unions.
I always heard that Ford wanted higher wages to keep his skilled workers doing their often extremely boring repetitive job instead of leaving.
I always heard that Ford wanted higher wages to keep his skilled workers doing their often extremely boring repetitive job instead of leaving.
Heh, well that might very well be part of it, though the only quotes from him that I've seen were regarding his desire to see his workers able to afford the products they were building.
In any case, it's an example of someone running a company that recognized the value of a higher paid workforce, for whatever the reason. This is the way things aught to be, especially regarding any job that requires consistently doing something that sucks.
...If we were to somehow enact a law that once again required corporations to serve the public good, we wouldn't even need unions.
Who would get to decide what the public good is?
...If we were to somehow enact a law that once again required corporations to serve the public good, we wouldn't even need unions.Who would get to decide what the public good is?
Indeed, I could see someone arguing a gaming company like Paizo doesn't offer anything of long term value to the public good.
|
For nearly 100 years the stance of american corporate interests has had it's precedent set by that one ruling.
I'm not an expert on american corporate law, but I was under the impression that Dodge v Ford doesn't represent the current state of affairs, and hasn't for like 40 to 50 years - having been overtaken by the business judgment rule. It is certainly taught as being an example of a dead end up here.
I don't think your summary of the facts is quite right either.
(edit)
Yeah, first hit on a quick literature search:
Why We Should Stop Teaching Dodge v. Ford
Lynn A. Stout
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law
Abstract
Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.
This Essay argues that Dodge v. Ford is bad law, at least when cited for the proposition that maximizing shareholder wealth is the proper corporate purpose. As a positive matter, U.S. corporate law does not and never has imposed a legal obligation on directors to maximize shareholder wealth. From a normative perspective, options theory, team production theory, the problem of external costs, and differences in shareholder interests all suggest why a rule of shareholder wealth maximization would be bad policy and lead to inefficient results.
Courts accordingly treat Dodge v. Ford as a dead letter. (In the past three decades the Delaware courts have cited the case only once, and then on controlling shareholders' duties to minority shareholders). Nevertheless, legal scholars continue to teach and cite it. This Essay suggests that Dodge v. Ford has achieved a privileged position in the legal canon not because it accurately captures the law - it does not - or because it provides good normative guidance - it does not - but because it serves professors' need for a simple answer to the question, What do corporations do? Simplicity is not a virtue when it leads to misunderstanding, however. Law professors should mend their collective ways, and stop teaching Dodge v. Ford as anything more than an example of how courts can go astray.
Corporations are useful tools - what is needed is greater shareholder involvement and oversight. Disclosure laws are pretty good, but no one takes advantage of them.
Indeed, I could see someone arguing a gaming company like Paizo doesn't offer anything of long term value to the public good....If we were to somehow enact a law that once again required corporations to serve the public good, we wouldn't even need unions.Who would get to decide what the public good is?
That's a pretty subjective argument. There might be a lot of people that get nothing of value out of Paizo, but these boards are a good indicator of the fact that they are beneficial (enjoyable) to some.
And I think you'd have a *really* hard time arguing that paizo was the source of any public detriment. There might be some people out there who are mentally unstable and use paizo products, but I really doubt you could convince anyone that it was paizo's fault.
Many companies provide a valuable service, do a good job of taking care of their people, and don't operate at a detriment to public welfare. Google, Costco, Netflix, Virgin and (from what I understand) Paizo are examples of what I'd call "good" corporations. I wish there were more companies like them. They have their flaws and skeletons in their closets, I'm sure, but by and large they seem to be using following the Nash Equilibrium in regards to themselves and the public.
That's not the case for companies like Enron, Wallmart, Clearchannel, News Corp, and others who's track record shows a flagrant disregard for honesty, sustainability, and even legality.
I'm an old fashioned guy in some ways. I put a lot of stock in honor. Company honor is a fairly recent and very japanese concept, so I expect a lot of americans, especially those in the business world, don't really get it.
Simply put, any company that acts without regard for their own honor and the honor of those they affect, does not deserve to be a company.
I'm not an expert on american corporate law, but I was under the impression that Dodge v Ford doesn't represent the current state of affairs, and hasn't for like 40 to 50 years
For nearly 100 years the stance of american corporate interests has had it's precedent set by that one ruling.
Lawyers decided that the 14th amendment, which was supposed to guarantee freedom and equality for freed slaves, should also give corporations the right of personhood under the constitution.
Ford v. Dodge became obsolete because of that (once corporations really gained steam as "legal persons" they didn't much need the ruling. They could do what they liked according to freedoms that were supposed to be accorded to citizens), but it is still great as an example of a *terrible* legal decision that paved the way for abuses and consolidations of power that we are still feeling today.
|
The gulf disaster stems partially from enviromental idiots driving offshore drilling into waters so deep that it is difficult to work on them.Yes! Blame the environmentalists for BP's Gulf Oil Disaster! That's classic!
Do you have any CDs of your stand-up routine available for sale? Just wondering.
Yeah it wasn't the evironmentalists.
It was the lobbyists on their behalf.
Nice talking point. Sadly, it isn't the least bit factual.
If you're interested in actually exposing yourself to facts, as opposed to repeating made-up drivel, you might try reading this.
Or, you could just keep spreading falsehoods and pretending they have a factual basis.
|
|
Indeed, I could see someone arguing a gaming company like Paizo doesn't offer anything of long term value to the public good....If we were to somehow enact a law that once again required corporations to serve the public good, we wouldn't even need unions.Who would get to decide what the public good is?
They'd better not argue that on these boards, buster! :)
They were good at a time, much like armed rebellion, but both are potentially dangerous to our society todayWhat a terribly crafted analogy. In what possible way can you support your offensive, reactionary platitude? I'm honestly intrigued, politics aside.
Zo
I find it offensive to be forced to pay a protection racket in order to hold a job. I find it offensive that the worst workers i have ever witnessed were protected time after time by union thuggery. I find it offensive that my hard earned dollars are stolen pay check after pay check to fund the democrat party.
Unions ONCE did something good, today they drive up costs and protect the dead weight workers,
I wrote a really snarky response involving Dickensian child-laborers and use of the word "tuppenny," but then I thought better of it and decided to simply state that I feel that everyone has the inherent right to work and to avoid exploitation in doing so, regardless of whether I approve of how, when, where, or why they choose to do it. To each his own. Refraining from judgment, I'm glad that my experiences in the labor force haven't left me jaded and/or alienated from my fellow workers.
Zo
As a guy who spends his days helping mostly non-unionized and exploited workers from the most vulnerable segments of society file employment standards and human rights complaints, workers' compensation claims, and employment insurance claims/appeals (we had a 77% success rate in 2010), yeah, I'll raise a glass to the labour movement...
Where I live (Alberta, Canada), unions continue to fight to protect the rights of workers, unionized and non-unionized. Alberta has been ruled by conservative parties for 40 years now, and it arguably has the weakest labour legislation and enforcement in the country. Take away the unions, and watch basic employment standards, occupational health and safety, and employment insurance decline even further.
From my experience, unions are needed now more than ever, and the lazy union worker stereotype is blown way out of proportion. And yes, we see companies firing workers with no just cause all the time...
Funny how unionized workers are always blamed for a company's financial woes... yet inept high ranking executives are always "rewarded" with outrageous severance packages when they drive a company into the ground...
Unions level the playing field. The gains of the last century that we now take for granted would be quickly eroded if they disappeared.
The gulf disaster stems partially from enviromental idiots driving offshore drilling into waters so deep that it is difficult to work on them.Yes! Blame the environmentalists for BP's Gulf Oil Disaster! That's classic!
Do you have any CDs of your stand-up routine available for sale? Just wondering.
Yeah it wasn't the evironmentalists.
It was the lobbyists on their behalf.Nice talking point. Sadly, it isn't the least bit factual.
If you're interested in actually exposing yourself to facts, as opposed to repeating made-up drivel, you might try reading this.
Or, you could just keep spreading falsehoods and pretending they have a factual basis.
OMG you read it on a internet blog...which refered to other internet souces...It mist be true. How could I be so blind.
And I see conservative blogs with the same kind of souces sited.
OPEN your eyes boths sides are lying horribly.
|
The gulf disaster stems partially from enviromental idiots driving offshore drilling into waters so deep that it is difficult to work on them.Yes! Blame the environmentalists for BP's Gulf Oil Disaster! That's classic!
Do you have any CDs of your stand-up routine available for sale? Just wondering.
Yeah it wasn't the evironmentalists.
It was the lobbyists on their behalf.Nice talking point. Sadly, it isn't the least bit factual.
If you're interested in actually exposing yourself to facts, as opposed to repeating made-up drivel, you might try reading this.
Or, you could just keep spreading falsehoods and pretending they have a factual basis.
So you refute it with a longwinded anti oil industry hate peice. Doesn't change the FACT that our energy policies are influenced by enviro folks that do not always have good science to back up what they say, and often are just out to take shots at "big oil" out of hate.
Curious about something here...
Big Corporation are greedy...and would abiuse the workers if they could...I agree with this. It is a human nature...
But do you think that it is possible that Unions...and the working class people are just a greedy and and would abuse corporation just as much?
I mean I see Union jobs all the time...4 guys standing around one guy working...I thought it was just a joke till I actualy see this happens with road crews. All thanks to the almighty Union. So we as tax payer not only have to pay these guys to stand around and pretty much collect a check...who is getting abused here? Who is being greedy?
All how about when a Union got a corp in a vulnerable position? What happens? Usualy the corp get screwed out a ton of money can't keep the bussiness open and either go to the Goverment for aid( that is us the tax payers getting screwed again..or goes out of bussiness).
So...how should I be thanking unions again? I mean the garbarge collecting union in NJ ensures that a garbage men gets paid more than teachers...maybe if they were not that greedy...we could pay teachers more?
Just saying...sure I'll raise a drink to Unions...as I will raise a drink to the corporation who are run smart and their employees don't need unions...and corporation who hire people in the first place...and may they all start being rational...yeah I know it is a pipe dream.
|
|
Curious about something here...
Big Corporation are greedy...and would abiuse the workers if they could...I agree with this. It is a human nature...
But do you think that it is possible that Unions...and the working class people are just a greedy and and would abuse corporation just as much?
I mean I see Union jobs all the time...4 guys standing around one guy working...I thought it was just a joke till I actualy see this happens with road crews. All thanks to the almighty Union. So we as tax payer not only have to pay these guys to stand around and pretty much collect a check...who is getting abused here? Who is being greedy?
All how about when a Union got a corp in a vulnerable position? What happens? Usualy the corp get screwed out a ton of money can't keep the bussiness open and either go to the Goverment for aid( that is us the tax payers getting screwed again..or goes out of bussiness).
So...how should I be thanking unions again? I mean the garbarge collecting union in NJ ensures that a garbage men gets paid more than teachers...maybe if they were not that greedy...we could pay teachers more?
Just saying...sure I'll raise a drink to Unions...as I will raise a drink to the corporation who are run smart and their employees don't need unions...and corporation who hire people in the first place...and may they all start being rational...yeah I know it is a pipe dream.
That is the problem, some get off on the idea of the unions sticking it to the man and taking a shot at the greedy corporate bigshots but many unions are only sticking it to US the taxpayers.
They were good at a time, much like armed rebellion, but both are potentially dangerous to our society todayWhat a terribly crafted analogy. In what possible way can you support your offensive, reactionary platitude? I'm honestly intrigued, politics aside.
Zo
I find it offensive to be forced to pay a protection racket in order to hold a job. I find it offensive that the worst workers i have ever witnessed were protected time after time by union thuggery. I find it offensive that my hard earned dollars are stolen pay check after pay check to fund the democrat party.
Unions ONCE did something good, today they drive up costs and protect the dead weight workers,
Digmarx and Andrew R.
Just thought the following might help you to
remember the difference between x is offensive, and i am offended by x.
Is this the thread where I copy-paste my collection of Billy Bragg lyrics?
Oh dude, i will read those all day long. Give us that good s@£T.
Digmarx and Andrew R.
Just thought the following might help you to
remember the difference between x is offensive, and i am offended by x.
Thanks for the help, though I'll continue to rely on my fluency in the English language and/or ability to utilize a dictionary rather than referring to a webcomic when deciding on a particular adjective. I've bookmarked the site and if it comes up in any of my ESL classes I'll know where to point my students. :)
Zo
Digmarx and Andrew R.
Just thought the following might help you to
remember the difference between x is offensive, and i am offended by x.Thanks for the help, though I'll continue to rely on my fluency in the English language and/or ability to utilize a dictionary rather than referring to a webcomic when deciding on a particular adjective. I'll bookmark the site and if it comes up in any of my ESL classes I'll be sure to point my students toward it. :)
Zo
In fairness the web comic really was just a neat way of making the point. More and more, offensive is a term that is being used to shut down argument, especially when it comes to religion. I don't see a little consiousness raising hurting anyone. ;)
In fairness the web comic really was just a neat way of making the point. More and more, offensive is a term that is being used to shut down argument, especially when it comes to religion. I don't see a little consiousness raising hurting anyone. ;)
Certainly, shutting down argument was not my intention. Apologies to all who perceived it that way.
Zo
In fairness the web comic really was just a neat way of making the point. More and more, offensive is a term that is being used to shut down argument, especially when it comes to religion. I don't see a little consiousness raising hurting anyone. ;)Certainly, shutting down argument was not my intention. Apologies to all who perceived it that way.
Zo
I am sure you didn't mean too. But ask your self this. Why is the fact you are offended even relivant. You could have possed the question without putting it in terms of offense.
|
They were good at a time, much like armed rebellion, but both are potentially dangerous to our society todayWhat a terribly crafted analogy. In what possible way can you support your offensive, reactionary platitude? I'm honestly intrigued, politics aside.
Zo
I find it offensive to be forced to pay a protection racket in order to hold a job. I find it offensive that the worst workers i have ever witnessed were protected time after time by union thuggery. I find it offensive that my hard earned dollars are stolen pay check after pay check to fund the democrat party.
Unions ONCE did something good, today they drive up costs and protect the dead weight workers,
I find your generalities offensive. Being a union member, I can tell you for a fact there is no dead weight in the trade unions. If you don't produce each and every day you're gone. If you don't show up on time each and every day, you're gone. If you do manage to produce and show up, but your quality of work is sub-par, you're gone.
I know for a fact that this is true in the Sheet Metal, Plumbers, Electricians, Operating Engineers, Ironworkers, Glaziers and even the Carpenters unions. These are the ones I interact with on a daily basis. These unions produce high quality, well trained workers year after year. As for other unions, I will reserve comment, as I have little first hand knowledge.
Our union representatives work with our signatory contractors to develop training and sales programs that grow our market. If that means no raises or even pay cuts during lean years, then that's what we agree too. Unions should be about working together, companies AND workers to achieve greater rewards for everyone. Fair wages for an honest days work is and should be a two way street.
Blanket statements are not called for here. Speak clearly and cite specifics. Otherwise you're just another empty windbag.
I mean I see Union jobs all the time...4 guys standing around one guy working...I thought it was just a joke till I actualy see this happens with road crews. All thanks to the almighty Union. So we as tax payer not only have to pay these guys to stand around and pretty much collect a check...who is getting abused here? Who is being greedy?
Is there anybody out there in the construction trades who can explain why this happens?
It's pretty easy to laugh at them as we drive by on the highway (and I do it, too, even though I'm a shop steward at my job), but it's always easy to laugh at stuff when you have no real idea what's going on.
So anyone out there who can actually explain what's going on? Of those 4 guys, how many are workers and how many are supervisors? How many have the same job classification? Etc., etc.
Now, to change the subject a bit:
I think it's interesting that the anti-union people (who may or may not be the same as the anti-government people) say that we can rely upon the government to maintain safety standards. I think this is ridiculous and would point to the last couple of Appalachian mine disasters. In my (thankfully limited) experience, IF the government ever gets involved in workplace safety, it's usually AFTER the shiznit's already gone down.
At both my old non-union job and my current union box-throwing job, I've noticed that given their druthers, management ALWAYS cuts corners and blows hot air up the insurance companies' butts. At my current job the workforce is subjected to more lectures about safety, but the same manager giving the safety lecture is just as likely to tell workers to do unsafe stuff as soon as their daily plan becomes jeopardized (which is almost every day).
Interestingly, whenever the militant union members express interest in joining the joint safety committee or anything like that, management breaks out in a cold sweat. Why? Because they know that if we actually held them to the safety standards that the insurance companies require and that they have publicly committed themselves to we'd be able to shut them down.
I am sure you didn't mean too. But ask your self this. Why is the fact you are offended even relivant. You could have possed the question without putting it in terms of offense.
LOL. Anyway...a glass of Stoke Amber raised for the Wisconsinite unions, from the other side of the world. A second glass for those injured and killed in the earthquake in Christchurch and their families and friends.
Zo
|
|
So you refute it with a longwinded anti oil industry hate peice. Doesn't change the FACT that our energy policies are influenced by enviro folks that do not always have good science to back up what they say, and often are just out to take shots at "big oil" out of hate.[\Quote]
Cite any specific policy sought by environmental activists that in any way forced or encouraged deep water drilling. I'm guessing you can't.
If you've read conservative blogs, no doubt one of them specifically states some action taken by these lobbyists that contributed to the disaster. Or maybe it's true, just because Sarah Palin tweeted that it is.
I know that environmental activists make Glenn Beck cry, but that doesn't mean they hate America...
|
|
Curious about something here...
Big Corporation are greedy...and would abiuse the workers if they could...I agree with this. It is a human nature...
But do you think that it is possible that Unions...and the working class people are just a greedy and and would abuse corporation just as much?
I mean I see Union jobs all the time...4 guys standing around one guy working...I thought it was just a joke till I actualy see this happens with road crews. All thanks to the almighty Union. So we as tax payer not only have to pay these guys to stand around and pretty much collect a check...who is getting abused here? Who is being greedy?
All how about when a Union got a corp in a vulnerable position? What happens? Usualy the corp get screwed out a ton of money can't keep the bussiness open and either go to the Goverment for aid( that is us the tax payers getting screwed again..or goes out of bussiness).
So...how should I be thanking unions again? I mean the garbarge collecting union in NJ ensures that a garbage men gets paid more than teachers...maybe if they were not that greedy...we could pay teachers more?
Just saying...sure I'll raise a drink to Unions...as I will raise a drink to the corporation who are run smart and their employees don't need unions...and corporation who hire people in the first place...and may they all start being rational...yeah I know it is a pipe dream.
Yes, I think that's possible.
As to corporations going to the government for aid, I think it's pretty simplistic to blame unions for that. After all, when the financial firms needed a government bailout, it was caused by their own malfeasance, not a union.
Chrysler was a poorly run company, that made poor business decisions prior to requiring government aid, but even then it was prefaced by the collapsing economy resulting in tightening credit markets and fewer people buying cars. None of that had anything to do with unions (and everything to do with corporations).
It's ironic that the same people that scream about personal responsibility, are so quick to look for someone else to blame when a company goes under. It must be unions...why those poor companies never stood a chance.
I mean I see Union jobs all the time...4 guys standing around one guy working...I thought it was just a joke till I actualy see this happens with road crews. All thanks to the almighty Union. So we as tax payer not only have to pay these guys to stand around and pretty much collect a check...who is getting abused here? Who is being greedy?Is there anybody out there in the construction trades who can explain why this happens?
It's pretty easy to laugh at them as we drive by on the highway (and I do it, too, even though I'm a shop steward at my job), but it's always easy to laugh at stuff when you have no real idea what's going on.
So anyone out there who can actually explain what's going on? Of those 4 guys, how many are workers and how many are supervisors? How many have the same job classification? Etc., etc.
Now, to change the subject a bit:
I think it's interesting that the anti-union people (who may or may not be the same as the anti-government people) say that we can rely upon the government to maintain safety standards. I think this is ridiculous and would point to the last couple of Appalachian mine disasters. In my (thankfully limited) experience, IF the government ever gets involved in workplace safety, it's usually AFTER the shiznit's already gone down.
At both my old non-union job and my current union box-throwing job, I've noticed that given their druthers, management ALWAYS cuts corners and blows hot air up the insurance companies' butts. At my current job the workforce is subjected to more lectures about safety, but the same manager giving the safety lecture is just as likely to tell workers to do unsafe stuff as soon as their daily plan becomes jeopardized (which is almost every day).
Interestingly, whenever the militant union members express interest in joining the joint safety committee or anything like that, management breaks out in a cold sweat. Why? Because they know that if we actually held them to the safety standards that the insurance companies require and that they have publicly committed themselves to we'd be able to shut them down.
I'm trying to understand the bolded part. Are you saying it is in your interest as a worker for a company to get the company shut down?
|
|
I'm trying to understand the bolded part. Are you saying it is in your interest as a worker for a company to get the company shut down?
Interestingly, whenever the militant union members express interest in joining the joint safety committee or anything like that, management breaks out in a cold sweat. Why? Because they know that if we actually held them to the safety standards that the insurance companies require and that they have publicly committed themselves to we'd be able to shut them down.
I'd venture it's more in a "These are the rules you agreed to. You are currently breaking them. If you fix the problem, we won't mention it loudly and publicly, which would screw us all over" kind of way. It's a negotiation stance to improve safety up to the levels they've committed to but aren't actually adhering to.
The gulf disaster stems partially from enviromental idiots driving offshore drilling into waters so deep that it is difficult to work on them.Yes! Blame the environmentalists for BP's Gulf Oil Disaster! That's classic!
Do you have any CDs of your stand-up routine available for sale? Just wondering.
Yeah it wasn't the evironmentalists.
It was the lobbyists on their behalf.Nice talking point. Sadly, it isn't the least bit factual.
If you're interested in actually exposing yourself to facts, as opposed to repeating made-up drivel, you might try reading this.
Or, you could just keep spreading falsehoods and pretending they have a factual basis.
It's not quite as simple as that. Various environmental lobbying interests and the government have made shallow water and arctic exploration and production less feasible or imposable. Several regulatory bodies (the MMS in particular) utterly failed to provide even the most rudimentary oversight even when they weren't engaged in outright corruption.
Union and non union jobs also have mixed records on safety. IIRC Tesoro was a union shop. I'm not sure about Texas City, and I don't think the hands on Deepwater Horizon were unionized. I've been on jobs where unions provided valuable training and strongly supported the safety culture, and I've been on jobs where unions were the biggest impediment to safety.
Today it's grossly over simplistic to say that union jobs always run safer or that union hands always have better pay and benefits (not that you asserted that).
I'd venture it's more in a "These are the rules you agreed to. You are currently breaking them. If you fix the problem, we won't mention it loudly and publicly, which would screw us all over" kind of way. It's a negotiation stance to improve safety up to the levels they've committed to but aren't actually adhering to.I'm trying to understand the bolded part. Are you saying it is in your interest as a worker for a company to get the company shut down?
Interestingly, whenever the militant union members express interest in joining the joint safety committee or anything like that, management breaks out in a cold sweat. Why? Because they know that if we actually held them to the safety standards that the insurance companies require and that they have publicly committed themselves to we'd be able to shut them down.
"Shut them down" is hyperbole. I am totally prone to that.
But, yes, they are frightened of us militantly enforcing safety standards, because if we did so it would add vast amounts of time to the operation which would equal more overtime hours for the part-timers and the trucks wouldn't go out on time (not they ever do).
"Safety first. Safety never takes a vacation. Safety, safety, safety. Except when it interferes with our profit margin."
EDIT: By the way, UPS's profits for 2010 were recently announced: $5.8 billion. They expect to make more this year.
Today it's grossly over simplistic to say that union jobs always run safer or that union hands always have better pay and benefits (not that you asserted that).
Absolutes are usually overly simplistic.
Note that I didn't say "always." ;-)
They were good at a time, much like armed rebellion, but both are potentially dangerous to our society todayWhat a terribly crafted analogy. In what possible way can you support your offensive, reactionary platitude? I'm honestly intrigued, politics aside.
Zo
I find it offensive to be forced to pay a protection racket in order to hold a job. I find it offensive that the worst workers i have ever witnessed were protected time after time by union thuggery. I find it offensive that my hard earned dollars are stolen pay check after pay check to fund the democrat party.
Unions ONCE did something good, today they drive up costs and protect the dead weight workers,
I find your generalities offensive. Being a union member, I can tell you for a fact there is no dead weight in the trade unions. If you don't produce each and every day you're gone. If you don't show up on time each and every day, you're gone. If you do manage to produce and show up, but your quality of work is sub-par, you're gone.
I know for a fact that this is true in the Sheet Metal, Plumbers, Electricians, Operating Engineers, Ironworkers, Glaziers and even the Carpenters unions. These are the ones I interact with on a daily basis. These unions produce high quality, well trained workers year after year. As for other unions, I will reserve comment, as I have little first hand knowledge.
Our union representatives work with our signatory contractors to develop training and sales programs that grow our market. If that means no raises or even pay cuts during lean years, then that's what we agree too. Unions should be about working together, companies AND workers to achieve greater rewards for everyone. Fair wages for an honest days work is and should be a two way street.
Blanket statements are not called for here. Speak clearly and cite specifics. Otherwise you're just another empty windbag.
I would also mention here that there is a world of difference between the value that trade unions provide their members and some public sector unions. I'm pro trade union because my experience with them has been generally positive. In varying degrees they provide good value for the dues they collect. Many have very good training and safety programs as well as providing job placement and pension, health, life, disability, dental, and other solid and portable benefits that come directly from union membership and are not tied to a single employer or even a single union hall.
Public sector unions that I am somewhat familiar with negotiate most of these benefits with government to provide which results in much less portability and IMO value.
EDIT: Public sector unions negotiate collective bargaining agreements in such a way that the school district or other branch of government pay for pension and health benefits rather than the unions providing these benefits. I think this model provides less value to members in term of portability, and I think it surrenders too much leverage to the employer who provides these benefits directly.
Today it's grossly over simplistic to say that union jobs always run safer or that union hands always have better pay and benefits (not that you asserted that).Absolutes are usually overly simplistic.
Note that I didn't say "always." ;-)
Absolutely! Wait... ;)
...If we were to somehow enact a law that once again required corporations to serve the public good, we wouldn't even need unions.Who would get to decide what the public good is?That's the thing isn't it? It's a matter of who you trust to make those decisions because THEY WILL BE MADE Such as the decision to close GM plant of Flint Michigan. Now how many of those decisions you want to leave to the following?
1. Corporate directors who answer only to profit-minded stockholders.
2. Regulatory agencies set up by a presumably represented government
3. Direct action by legislature
4. Oversight by consumer public groups.
Note that the four choices above do not have equal power in making those decisions.
My issue is that I don't particularly trust any of them.
1. Corporations seem to suffer from a dangerously short sighted view with disturbing regularity, and the notion of "too big to fail" creates a huge moral hazard and a deeply corrupting climate.
2. We've seen what a dreadful job the regulatory bureaucracies have done, and many are literally and figuratively in bed with the industries they are supposed to oversee. Regulatory capture is a huge issue.
3. Legislatures seem to be hopelessly politicized and owned by elements other than their constituents. Obamacare and the consumer protection bill show us that the biggest most powerful industries wind up writing the legislation, creating more barriers to entry, and strangling competition.
4. I'd love to see more action by consumer groups and reporting that exposes malfeasance, corruption and incompetence by corporations and government, but real investigative reporting in the public interest seems to be all but extinct.
I think the status quo is entirely broken, but we have very different ideas about how to fix it.
Yes, I think that's possible.As to corporations going to the government for aid, I think it's pretty simplistic to blame unions for that. After all, when the financial firms needed a government bailout, it was caused by their own malfeasance, not a union.
Chrysler was a poorly run company, that made poor business decisions prior to requiring government aid, but even then it was prefaced by the collapsing economy resulting in tightening credit markets and fewer people buying cars. None of that had anything to do with unions (and everything to do with corporations).
It's ironic that the same people that scream about personal responsibility, are so quick to look for someone else to blame when a company goes under. It must be unions...why those poor companies never stood a chance.
Actualy where did I blame the entire collapse on the Unions? That is silly since financle institues don't have unions....you really read alot into what I am saying.
Sure Chevy and Chrysler made some rather poor bussiness dealing...not argueing that. But before going to get the beg for the bail out money they did go to the Union and tried to renegoiate the CBA...they were told flat out "No" by the unions. That is pretty wrong if you ask me.
Also do you know who make the most money on Broad way?
Actors? No.
Directors? Nope.
Stage Hands? Yup. They make a obscenes amount of money all due their Union. Does this seem right to you?
Anyway I am great believer in taking responsibility for one actions. Which is why I can see fault in the Unions. As I can see fault in big Copr., and Goverment...the fact is all three contribrute to out economical collapse...and all 3 really have done anything to get us out of it. I mean all you have done here evangelized about the evil of corporations and the blessedness of the goverment and Unions...
I have always thought of Trade Unions as more like Guilds.
- mandates quality, time, helps in onsight training, etc..
Am I wrong in this assumption?
It can vary a great deal. Some locals do a great job of maintaining things like welding and electrical certifications for quality assurance. Others locals aren't so great and cause a lot of duplication of effort by companies quality and safety management. Ideally trade unions can provide great value by dispatching well trained, certified hands and providing the relevant documentation like welding certifications and safety training records. This makes the union hands more marketable and saves the company time and money on redundant training and documentation. This varies a lot between trades, locals, and region.
Anyone know what color is the opposite of Facebook blue? Just curious.
Hmm...well in general it will be in the orange family. Let me do further research for you. :)
Edit: Probably #C4A667? Ugly light brown/orange.
UGH!!! What a hideous color. So much for a noble anti-Facebook color...
Thanks Jess Door!
|
Contrary to an often-repeated myth, UAW members at GM, Ford and Chrysler are not paid $73 an hour. The truth is, wages for UAW members range from about $14 per hour for newly hired workers to $28 per hour for assemblers. The $73 an hour figure is outdated and inaccurate. It includes not only the costs of health care, pensions and other compensation for current workers, but also includes the costs of pensions and health care for all of the retired workers, spread out over the active workforce. Obviously, active workers do not receive any of this compensation, so it is simply not accurate to describe it as part of their "earnings."
The 73 dollars an hour of course included the 371 hours of overtime per worker per year due to having an insufficent number of workers. This is also what leads to the those ridiculous 100k a year bus driver salaries or the 70k a year toll booth collectors salaries. Keep in mind those would be double time and triple time depending on how long they were working.
Personally I'd like to make 28 bucks an hour, but the reality is with benefits included I probably come close to that. I think that is close to 60k a year which on one salary could cover a 4 person family on the cheap.
According to the latest Actors' Equity figures, the minimum salary for a performer in a Broadway play or musical is $1,354 a week and it goes up from there. How high depends on how good a performer's agent is or how many tickets a producer thinks a star can sell. Thats 70k a year and that is the low end of the scale Nathan Lane is 30k a week. Julia Roberts is 35k a week. So its doubtful that even adding up the salaries of the Union non actors together will out do the Salaries of the actual Actors.
According to the latest Actors' Equity figures, the minimum salary for a performer in a Broadway play or musical is $1,354 a week and it goes up from there. How high depends on how good a performer's agent is or how many tickets a producer thinks a star can sell. Thats 70k a year and that is the low end of the scale Nathan Lane is 30k a week. Julia Roberts is 35k a week. So its doubtful that even adding up the salaries of the Union non actors together will out do the Salaries of the actual Actors.
Lets not mistake broadway actors with celebrities. The people who's names go on the marquee to draw people in are a serious abnormality in the system and are in no way indicative of what the guy playing one of the lesser roles in the show gets paid.
I've worked a few of those shows. The joke/truth is that it pretty much comes down to whether or not you can demand your own dressing room. If you can, it's likely you wouldn't need a union in the first place. You've got enough clout without it.
Interestingly though, most big names are staunch union people, because they started small and got where they are in some part due to the leverage being part of their union gave them.
|
|
Anyone know what color is the opposite of Facebook blue? Just curious.
Hmm...well in general it will be in the orange family. Let me do further research for you. :)
Edit: Probably #C4A667? Ugly light brown/orange.
UGH!!! What a hideous color. So much for a noble anti-Facebook color...
Thanks Jess Door!
go with a nice orangish gold sort of color, highly saturated. It won't be exactly opposite, but close enough. :)