No? So the race to the bottom in the name of globalization is good for everyone?

Labor goes where labor is cheap. What has really hurt the middle class is that when we were forced from a manufacturing economy to a service economy we did not take the unions with us.

Big business thinks America itself is unnecessary at this point.

They don't need us to buy or make their products now that they've gone full globalization.

WTF Indeed: Labor goes where labor is cheap.

That doesn't make sense. Wouldn't labor go where labor isn't cheap?

If I'm making $20/hr, why would I go where they only pay $15/hr?

I used to think that we should have applied tariffs to imports from countries that didn't meet a basic level of human rights and working conditions. Apply a tariff to imports from countries that allowed child labor or did not allow (either in practice or through outright bans) on collective bargaining. We had an opportunity to promote these things years ago but instead decided cheap crap from China was better and awarded them with "most favored nation" trading status.

By doing these things in the 70's and 80's, we could have improved lives globally while remaining competitive. Now, we're on the whole WTO bandwagon's race to the bottom. It is probably too late now.

If you can't live on $50 week then move somewhere where you can. This is what Nopublicans actually believe.

In the not-too-distant future, Americans are going to be the ones (instead of the Chinese or Indians) doing subsistence farming and starving.

dr_blasto: No? So the race to the bottom in the name of globalization is good for everyone?
[cdn.theatlantic.com image 640x448]

oh not this stupid chart again.
show what the income is, not what the share of the aggregate income.

or do you not like having the lower middle class get a larger share of aggregate income?

dr_blasto: No? So the race to the bottom in the name of globalization is good for everyone?
[cdn.theatlantic.com image 640x448]

by the way, cheap chart display. show both axis on the same scale. union scale is 30 and the share of income scale is 12. gee, wonder why? maybe to make it look bad?

tenpoundsofcheese: or do you not like having the lower middle class get a larger share of aggregate income?

Oh my gosh. This is a real thing that someone has typed.

sweetmelissa31: tenpoundsofcheese: or do you not like having the lower middle class get a larger share of aggregate income?

Oh my gosh. This is a real thing that someone has typed.

To be fair, he is a functional retard.

sweetmelissa31>:tenpoundsofcheese: or do you not like having the lower middle class get a larger share of aggregate income?

Oh my gosh. This is a real thing that someone has typed

That tenpoundsofderp, man, he's hilarious!

sweetmelissa31: tenpoundsofcheese: or do you not like having the lower middle class get a larger share of aggregate income?

Oh my gosh. This is a real thing that someone has typed.

Yeah, his desperation to find some silver lining in a pile of dung is pretty amazing. Or maybe he's just an idiot.

Unions are necessary so long as industries have their own associations. So long as industry management and owners lobby for their interests, then unions will be necessary as well. You like Chambers of Commerce, then you should love unions as well. You like industry think tanks, then you should like unions as well. You like business lobbying, then you should like union lobbying.

You want to abolish unions, then you need to prevent industry leaders meeting as well. That is the unfortunate side effect of that pesky freedom of association. Workers join together to look out for their own interests.

If the greed that is good to drive businesses forward, and secure the best compensation packages for their executives and management, then the desire for workers to protect their own interests should be just as appealing. If monster compensation packages and golden parachutes are the price we pay for having top notch management, then the converse should likewise be true: workers looking out for their own interests should be just as sacrosanct.

We sit on a three legged stool. Management is supposed to look out for the shareholders' interests. Unions help the workers look out for their own interests, since they are actually busy working, and can't take the time from doing that to lobby and meet with management AND lobby Washington and their State. The State is supposed to be looking out for the public weal. When you remove one of those legs, then you can balance for a short while, but it's not exactly a sturdy arrangement, and the moment that balance tips in any one direction, the whole thing tips over.

So long as industry lobbies and meets with one another to plan out their strategies, then we will need unions to look out for the workers' interests. It would be nice if we didn't. If we had responsible management, there would be no need for unions, but we don't. We have a culture steeped in the idea of increasing shareholder value, and excusing executives when they heap on a hefty chunk of that value for themselves, and then point to the workers as if they were to blame. Contracts to pay management in the millions is fine, even if it eats into profits, but if you use less money than these parachute packages to pay thousands of workers a bit more per hour, then that's SOCIALISM?

The wisdom goes, if you want the best workers, then you pay them for it. That seems to be the wisdom in looking at executive packages, but when it comes down to paying the workers, the folks at ground level, who actually produce the products, whose labor the entire business if dependent upon, then that's somehow stealing from the shareholder value?

So long as industry organizes to lobby and consult with one another, then workers have the same rights. Outlaw Chambers of Commerce and other organizations, then you can look at outlawing unions. Or repeal that pesky Amendment about the freedom of association. Workers pool their resources for a reason--they are busy working for a living, and appoint representatives to do for them in their stead. Much like we appoint representatives to deal with governing our damn selves. You don't like that? Then maybe you should find someplace else to live and work, because democracy and a free market must be terribly burdensome for you...

sweetmelissa31: Oh my gosh. This is a real thing that someone has typed.

so is this: tenpoundsoffarts

tenpoundsofcheese: dr_blasto: No? So the race to the bottom in the name of globalization is good for everyone?
[cdn.theatlantic.com image 640x448]

by the way, cheap chart display. show both axis on the same scale. union scale is 30 and the share of income scale is 12. gee, wonder why? maybe to make it look bad?

It's the chart from TFA dumbass.

But, it appears you're positing that wealth has actually moved from the middle class to the lower middle class. Care to explain why you believe that?

WTF Indeed: Labor goes where labor is cheap. What has really hurt the middle class is that when we were forced from a manufacturing economy to a service economy we did not take the unions with us.

FTFY

tenpoundsofcheese: dr_blasto: No? So the race to the bottom in the name of globalization is good for everyone?
[cdn.theatlantic.com image 640x448]

oh not this stupid chart again.
show what the income is, not what the share of the aggregate income.

or do you not like having the lower middle class get a larger share of aggregate income?

Can you explain exactly why you hate America and loathe the middle class?

WTF Indeed: sweetmelissa31: tenpoundsofcheese: or do you not like having the lower middle class get a larger share of aggregate income?

Oh my gosh. This is a real thing that someone has typed.

To be fair, he is a functional retard.

How is he functional? Tenpounds o lame hasn't shownany indication it's functional.

If you get rid of unions, they will become necessary again. That's not the best plan.

WTF Indeed: sweetmelissa31: tenpoundsofcheese: or do you not like having the lower middle class get a larger share of aggregate income?

Oh my gosh. This is a real thing that someone has typed.

To be fair, he is a functional retard.

Minus the functional part.

Ok, before I do something stupid and agree with tenpoundsofbrokenclock, I should point out

1) I have nothing against (or really for) unions (I am in one at the moment FWIW)
2) I do think that the last thirty-forty years have really gutted the middle class

But that graph at the top is horribly misleading, and it is precisely because the right-hand y-axis has been cropped and skewed to give the desired result. In raw numbers, it shows union membership (roughly) dropping by half, and share of income dropping six percentage points (or about 10-12% or so).

Hardly has the same impact when you look at what it's actually saying.

Problem: The economy stinks because no one is buying stuff.

Solution: Kill the unions because they get paid too much. Because the first thing a person getting paid less does is spend money.

And from the article:

"The red ski slope line is lamentable. But was it inevitable?"

No, it wasn't inevitable, it's just the way you chose your axes.

Darrell Huff is not amused.

dr_blasto: No? So the race to the bottom in the name of globalization is good for everyone?
[cdn.theatlantic.com image 640x448]

Based on numbers in the graph, middle class share of aggregate income dropped about 12%. while union membership dropped by over 50%. But if you draw the graph like this, you can say they fell at the same rate and are directly related.

/Correlation is always equal to causation
//Down with hurricanes, we need more Pirates!

I do belive unions are still necessary. For the protection of the workers. At the same time I think unions need to work more with management to figure out what to do to stay competitive. And If labor has to bite the bullet so should management proportionatly. I know how we hear stories about lazy union employees, hell we have probably even had to deal with a few in our lives. But for teh most part a lot of the union people I have had to deal with have been compotent workers that can get a job done.

Marcus Aurelius:

Can you explain exactly why you hate America and loathe the middle class?

The Middle Class is full of Liberals.

hubiestubert: who actually produce the products

pfft you low level grease monkies would not have a design nor know how to produce if it was not for the engineering gray collars. Down with unions and the engies all need raises.

hubiestubert: Unions are necessary so long as industries have their own associations. So long as industry management and owners lobby for their interests, then unions will be necessary as well. You like Chambers of Commerce, then you should love unions as well. You like industry think tanks, then you should like unions as well. You like business lobbying, then you should like union lobbying.

You want to abolish unions, then you need to prevent industry leaders meeting as well. That is the unfortunate side effect of that pesky freedom of association. Workers join together to look out for their own interests.

If the greed that is good to drive businesses forward, and secure the best compensation packages for their executives and management, then the desire for workers to protect their own interests should be just as appealing. If monster compensation packages and golden parachutes are the price we pay for having top notch management, then the converse should likewise be true: workers looking out for their own interests should be just as sacrosanct.

We sit on a three legged stool. Management is supposed to look out for the shareholders' interests. Unions help the workers look out for their own interests, since they are actually busy working, and can't take the time from doing that to lobby and meet with management AND lobby Washington and their State. The State is supposed to be looking out for the public weal. When you remove one of those legs, then you can balance for a short while, but it's not exactly a sturdy arrangement, and the moment that balance tips in any one direction, the whole thing tips over.

So long as industry lobbies and meets with one another to plan out their strategies, then we will need unions to look out for the workers' interests. It would be nice if we didn't. If we had responsible management, there would be no need for unions, but we don't. We have a culture steeped in the idea of increasing shareholder value, and excusing executives when they heap on a hefty chunk of that value for themselves, and then point to the workers as if they were to blame. Contracts to pay management in the millions is fine, even if it eats into profits, but if you use less money than these parachute packages to pay thousands of workers a bit more per hour, then that's SOCIALISM?

The wisdom goes, if you want the best workers, then you pay them for it. That seems to be the wisdom in looking at executive packages, but when it comes down to paying the workers, the folks at ground level, who actually produce the products, whose labor the entire business if dependent upon, then that's somehow stealing from the shareholder value?

So long as industry organizes to lobby and consult with one another, then workers have the same rights. Outlaw Chambers of Commerce and other organizations, then you can look at outlawing unions. Or repeal that pesky Amendment about the freedom of association. Workers pool their resources for a reason--they are busy working for a living, and appoint representatives to do for them in their stead. Much like we appoint representatives to deal with governing our damn selves. You don't like that? Then maybe you should find someplace else to live and work, because democracy and a free market must be terribly burdensome for you...

Also, why is it that unions are to blame for the failures of their industries? Why is it always their benefits and "union breaks" that destroy companies like GM, rather than bad management decisions, using defective parts from disreputable suppliers and waste at the top end?

If GM was making quality vehicles that people were willing to pay for, it wouldn't be a stretch to see how they might have been able to stay out of trouble.

Subby, perhaps you should've submitted this study, as well:

Unions, Norms, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality

From 1973 to 2007, private sector union membership in the United States declined from 34 to 8 percent for men and from 16 to 6 percent for women. During this period, inequality in hourly wages increased by over 40 percent. We report a decomposition, relating rising inequality to the union wage distribution's shrinking weight. We argue that unions helped institutionalize norms of equity, reducing the dispersion of nonunion wages in highly unionized regions and industries. Accounting for unions' effect on union and nonunion wages suggests that the decline of organized labor explains a fifth to a third of the growth in inequality-an effect comparable to the growing stratification of wages by education.

Because without unions, big business would gladly hand over improved health benefits, salaries and working conditions. It's just how they roll. The unions are actually holding them back from doing these things on their own.

Saiga410: hubiestubert: who actually produce the products

pfft you low level grease monkies would not have a design nor know how to produce if it was not for the engineering gray collars. Down with unions and the engies all need raises.

Actually, I'm a chef. Management. And without the workers, my kitchen falls to sh*t. Any good chef will tell you that without a good dishwasher, you're boned. That's why you pay to keep good ones. You treat them as an important part of your team. If you're in a warehouse, you treat your selectors well, because they are the folks with their eyes directly on your product, and shipping it.

You don't respect the folks who are closest to your customer base, then you are headed towards bad country. And it's that attitude that has gotten us into the financial mess we're in.

I may set the menu, I may crunch the numbers, and plan events, but without a good team with me, I'm an expensive cook, and an overworked and overextended one as well. You have to build good teams, and you have to treat that team for what it is: an extension of how you run the show. You don't respect the team, then you don't really respect the business, or your customers. Which pretty much sums up why business in this country is in the shape it's in, because a lot of folks simply don't give a rat's ass, and it shows...

TheAlgebraist: Ok, before I do something stupid and agree with tenpoundsofbrokenclock, I should point out

1) I have nothing against (or really for) unions (I am in one at the moment FWIW)
2) I do think that the last thirty-forty years have really gutted the middle class

But that graph at the top is horribly misleading, and it is precisely because the right-hand y-axis has been cropped and skewed to give the desired result. In raw numbers, it shows union membership (roughly) dropping by half, and share of income dropping six percentage points (or about 10-12% or so).

Hardly has the same impact when you look at what it's actually saying.

...and share of income != income.
If there is an increase in the share that other groups get, your share can go down in percentages, but go up in absolute dollars.
Where did that 6 percentage points go? Citation?

and of course, correlation != causality.
Secondly, the correlation is really weak since union membership only represented less than a third or workers.

According to who? Oh right, the shareholders, those folks we must all bend over for.

/fark 'em
//Unions haven't been doing themselves any favors lately either.

AtomicTwinkie: dr_blasto: No? So the race to the bottom in the name of globalization is good for everyone?
[cdn.theatlantic.com image 640x448]

Based on numbers in the graph, middle class share of aggregate income dropped about 12%. while union membership dropped by over 50%. But if you draw the graph like this, you can say they fell at the same rate and are directly related.

/Correlation is always equal to causation
//Down with hurricanes, we need more Pirates!

and remember that union membership at the peak in this chart was only 30% so how can that be highly correlated with the entire income of the middle class (e.g. including the other 70% who are not union members?).

ajgeek: According to who? Oh right, the shareholders, those folks we must all bend over for.

/fark 'em
//Unions haven't been doing themselves any favors lately either.

That's the thing. There are bad unions out there. There are good management teams too. There are places that don't need union shops, because the management is doing right by them, but without guarantees inherent to the system, then there has to be a balancing force out there. Unions don't just help the folks who join, but by bringing up standards, industries can avoid the unions by providing better than union shops voluntarily, and without the standard brought by unions, then that bar drops lower and lower.

Unions aren't automatically good, and management isn't automatically bad, and you do have to look at things by a case by case basis. But getting rid of unions is not the way to address the wrongs of bad shops, any more than stringing up patent lawyers will curb abuses in court...

Saying this will probably piss people off, but I hear people reference how people in the military died to protect our freedoms.

Around the turn of the century small wars were fought in our very own country. Wars fought by workers to give everyone the same right to not be killed at work, not to have to live in company towns, to keep your kids out of coal mines and get rid of sweatshops. These people were beaten and killed so you can have a lunch break.

None of the work regulations were going to happen on their own. Industry fought, hiring their own security forces, violently to prevent workers from making any progress. I don't want to see that fight again, but keep rolling back protections and busting unions and we will.

dr_blasto: Also, why is it that unions are to blame for the failures of their industries? Why is it always their benefits and "union breaks" that destroy companies like GM, rather than bad management decisions, using defective parts from disreputable suppliers and waste at the top end?

If GM was making quality vehicles that people were willing to pay for, it wouldn't be a stretch to see how they might have been able to stay out of trouble.



Guess who designed this. Hint: It wasn't unions.

dr_blasto: hubiestubert: Unions are necessary so long as industries have their own associations. So long as industry management and owners lobby for their interests, then unions will be necessary as well. You like Chambers of Commerce, then you should love unions as well. You like industry think tanks, then you should like unions as well. You like business lobbying, then you should like union lobbying.

You want to abolish unions, then you need to prevent industry leaders meeting as well. That is the unfortunate side effect of that pesky freedom of association. Workers join together to look out for their own interests.

If the greed that is good to drive businesses forward, and secure the best compensation packages for their executives and management, then the desire for workers to protect their own interests should be just as appealing. If monster compensation packages and golden parachutes are the price we pay for having top notch management, then the converse should likewise be true: workers looking out for their own interests should be just as sacrosanct.

We sit on a three legged stool. Management is supposed to look out for the shareholders' interests. Unions help the workers look out for their own interests, since they are actually busy working, and can't take the time from doing that to lobby and meet with management AND lobby Washington and their State. The State is supposed to be looking out for the public weal. When you remove one of those legs, then you can balance for a short while, but it's not exactly a sturdy arrangement, and the moment that balance tips in any one direction, the whole thing tips over.

So long as industry lobbies and meets with one another to plan out their strategies, then we will need unions to look out for the workers' interests. It would be nice if we didn't. If we had responsible management, there would be no need for unions, but we don't. We have a culture steeped in the idea of increasing shareholder value, and excusing executives when they heap on a hefty chunk of that value for themselves, and then point to the workers as if they were to blame. Contracts to pay management in the millions is fine, even if it eats into profits, but if you use less money than these parachute packages to pay thousands of workers a bit more per hour, then that's SOCIALISM?

The wisdom goes, if you want the best workers, then you pay them for it. That seems to be the wisdom in looking at executive packages, but when it comes down to paying the workers, the folks at ground level, who actually produce the products, whose labor the entire business if dependent upon, then that's somehow stealing from the shareholder value?

So long as industry organizes to lobby and consult with one another, then workers have the same rights. Outlaw Chambers of Commerce and other organizations, then you can look at outlawing unions. Or repeal that pesky Amendment about the freedom of association. Workers pool their resources for a reason--they are busy working for a living, and appoint representatives to do for them in their stead. Much like we appoint representatives to deal with governing our damn selves. You don't like that? Then maybe you should find someplace else to live and work, because democracy and a free market must be terribly burdensome for you...

Also, why is it that unions are to blame for the failures of their industries? Why is it always their benefits and "union breaks" that destroy companies like GM, rather than bad management decisions, using defective parts from disreputable suppliers and waste at the top end?

If GM was making quality vehicles that people were willing to pay for, it wouldn't be a stretch to see how they might have been able to stay out of trouble.

Management should be held responsible for their decisions, and unions/employees have every right to try to maximize their income. But keep in mind that the decisions that management of the auto companies made, that led to the downfall of the industry, wasn't design or marketing but giving too much to the unions!

So yeah, unions aren't to blame for the downfall of the auto industry. The blame falls on management for paying union employees too much, particularly in promising them retirement benefits.

Usually if you cite a source you should link directly to that source and not to Google Docs by proxy.

tenpoundsofcheese: TheAlgebraist: Ok, before I do something stupid and agree with tenpoundsofbrokenclock, I should point out

1) I have nothing against (or really for) unions (I am in one at the moment FWIW)
2) I do think that the last thirty-forty years have really gutted the middle class

But that graph at the top is horribly misleading, and it is precisely because the right-hand y-axis has been cropped and skewed to give the desired result. In raw numbers, it shows union membership (roughly) dropping by half, and share of income dropping six percentage points (or about 10-12% or so).

Hardly has the same impact when you look at what it's actually saying.

...and share of income != income.
If there is an increase in the share that other groups get, your share can go down in percentages, but go up in absolute dollars.
Where did that 6 percentage points go? Citation?

and of course, correlation != causality.
Secondly, the correlation is really weak since union membership only represented less than a third or workers.

Find some real number, then. Or, just keep on being a jackass. Show how income has increased, especially for middle and lower incomes, compared to inflation. Show how the income distribution has remained even or, even, remotely equitable and remotely sustainable.

I'll wait.

Are unions necessary?



Of course not.

dr_blasto

Saying this will probably piss people off, but I hear people reference how people in the military died to protect our freedoms.

Around the turn of the century small wars were fought in our very own country. Wars fought by workers to give everyone the same right to not be killed at work, not to have to live in company towns, to keep your kids out of coal mines and get rid of sweatshops. These people were beaten and killed so you can have a lunch break.

None of the work regulations were going to happen on their own. Industry fought, hiring their own security forces, violently to prevent workers from making any progress. I don't want to see that fight again, but keep rolling back protections and busting unions and we will.

applause.jpg

You got fox-news yokels who don't know who the president was during WWI, you think they know about the labor movement at the turn of the century? We're doomed to repeat history.

hubiestubert: Unions are necessary so long as industries have their own associations. So long as industry management and owners lobby for their interests, then unions will be necessary as well. You like Chambers of Commerce, then you should love unions as well. You like industry think tanks, then you should like unions as well. You like business lobbying, then you should like union lobbying.***snip***

By the same token, if you believe that being employed is not a right, but a privilege granted by business ownership, and that the owner of the business can run it however s/he pleases within legal limits, then you also need to acknowledge that business ownership is not a right, but a privilege as well. Employees can act within their legal rights in response to ownership as they see fit.

I do not understand why some people feel that forming a union in response to perceived unacceptable working conditions is not the same exercising of rights as laying off workers for a perceived lack of production. Why are they different?

Are Unions necessary?

If you have to ask, they probably are...

kab: Are unions necessary?

[svtc.org image 450x328]

Of course not.

Took me a minute to figure out that picture, but point taken.

TheAlgebraist: But that graph at the top is horribly misleading, and it is precisely because the right-hand y-axis has been cropped and skewed to give the desired result. In raw numbers, it shows union membership (roughly) dropping by half, and share of income dropping six percentage points (or about 10-12% or so).

Hardly has the same impact when you look at what it's actually saying.

While it is important to discuss the scales of the two lines it's silly to think the two lines should have the same scale. I would not expect, for example, a 10% drop in unions to mean a 10% drop in income. Nor would I expect 100% drop in unions to mean 100% drop in income. I would expect, however, for there to be some correlation between a drop in unions and a drop in income without some other mitigating factors.

Debeo Summa Credo: dr_blasto: hubiestubert: Unions are necessary so long as industries have their own associations. So long as industry management and owners lobby for their interests, then unions will be necessary as well. You like Chambers of Commerce, then you should love unions as well. You like industry think tanks, then you should like unions as well. You like business lobbying, then you should like union lobbying.

You want to abolish unions, then you need to prevent industry leaders meeting as well. That is the unfortunate side effect of that pesky freedom of association. Workers join together to look out for their own interests.

If the greed that is good to drive businesses forward, and secure the best compensation packages for their executives and management, then the desire for workers to protect their own interests should be just as appealing. If monster compensation packages and golden parachutes are the price we pay for having top notch management, then the converse should likewise be true: workers looking out for their own interests should be just as sacrosanct.

We sit on a three legged stool. Management is supposed to look out for the shareholders' interests. Unions help the workers look out for their own interests, since they are actually busy working, and can't take the time from doing that to lobby and meet with management AND lobby Washington and their State. The State is supposed to be looking out for the public weal. When you remove one of those legs, then you can balance for a short while, but it's not exactly a sturdy arrangement, and the moment that balance tips in any one direction, the whole thing tips over.

So long as industry lobbies and meets with one another to plan out their strategies, then we will need unions to look out for the workers' interests. It would be nice if we didn't. If we had responsible management, there would be no need for unions, but we don't. We have a culture steeped in the idea of increasing shareholder value, and excusing executives when they heap on a hefty chunk of that value for themselves, and then point to the workers as if they were to blame. Contracts to pay management in the millions is fine, even if it eats into profits, but if you use less money than these parachute packages to pay thousands of workers a bit more per hour, then that's SOCIALISM?

The wisdom goes, if you want the best workers, then you pay them for it. That seems to be the wisdom in looking at executive packages, but when it comes down to paying the workers, the folks at ground level, who actually produce the products, whose labor the entire business if dependent upon, then that's somehow stealing from the shareholder value?

So long as industry organizes to lobby and consult with one another, then workers have the same rights. Outlaw Chambers of Commerce and other organizations, then you can look at outlawing unions. Or repeal that pesky Amendment about the freedom of association. Workers pool their resources for a reason--they are busy working for a living, and appoint representatives to do for them in their stead. Much like we appoint representatives to deal with governing our damn selves. You don't like that? Then maybe you should find someplace else to live and work, because democracy and a free market must be terribly burdensome for you...

Also, why is it that unions are to blame for the failures of their industries? Why is it always their benefits and "union breaks" that destroy companies like GM, rather than bad management decisions, using defective parts from disreputable suppliers and waste at the top end?

If GM was making quality vehicles that people were willing to pay for, it wouldn't be a stretch to see how they might have been able to stay out of trouble.

Management should be held responsible for their decisions, and unions/employees have every right to try to maximize their income. But keep in mind that the decisions that management of the auto companies made, that led to the downfall of the industry, wasn't design or marketing but giving too much to the unions!

So yeah, unions aren't to blame for the downfall of the auto industry. The blame falls on management for paying union employees too much, particularly in promising them retirement benefits.

GM made bad decisions, some of which were related to retiree benefits. They weren't simply the cost of those benefits, nor were they the salaries. Both were sustainable with the concessions given by unions over the years.

GM decided to underfund their retirement plans when they were actually selling cars and profitable. They never reinvested in tooling and capacity to change production as the buying public's purchasing decisions changed; it looked like GM thought they'd be able to sell shiat like Hummers forever. Couple that with the very inferior product designs (see pics of ugly-ass Aztec above) and faulty or poorly-spec'd parts, shiatty fit and finish and stretch that out for twenty years.

That was management's fault. Had GM designed better vehicles or reinvested in systems that allowed for them to keep turning out a product that met the needs of their customers, you would never hear about how much their retiree health care costs were.

You need unions because the employment relationship is so one sided as to be completely unfair. The employer has all the knowledge and makes the employees (most of the time) unable to negotiate successfully. To negotiate you need to know the fair value of your labor, and know what your competition is getting paid. Discussing salaries is next to sleeping at your desk and bringing a gun to work as one of those "You go home fired now" things at my place of employment. (And I don't speak for them). And in large enough corporations you have no leverage at all, since those that would do the negotiation have no skin in the end game for the group you work in. So the local manager has no say, no wiggle room, it goes to some HR drone in some other building or state and there is no consequences for them. As soon as your seen as a work allocation unit, it should be mandated you get an union. Consider the most fair worker/employer company in the US, the NFL. Ever player knows what every player around them makes and they can leverage that for their own wages. Not knowing that the guy two rows over who sucks gets paid better than I do because his boss two years ago was better at the game than my boss two years ago ruins any ability to negotiate.
I think the real reason the ruling class doesn't want universal healthcare in the US is that they know it is the "Golden handcuffs" of the modern age. I know I could make a better (maybe a lot better) living as a consultant versus being in the machine, but my wife is frequently ill and/or has surgeries and because its only a "could" the risk is too much to leave. If there was no risk in her health bankrupting us, I would have already struck out on my own. Instead I still work for the machine, bringing in tens of millions and getting paid tens of thousands. Not to mention the most likely illegal non-compete clause in the employment contract that they can afford to lawyer up and bankrupt me two ways over (no wages and lawyer fees). If you work for a fortune 500 company, you're one pissed off HR drone from being ruined. lf that isn't unfair, I'm not sure what would classify as unfair these days.
Unions are more necessary than they have been in a long time, we've just been willing to give them up. It became easier to demand everyone else join us in the mud than it was to actually work on a way out onto dry land.

SuperTramp: dr_blasto

Saying this will probably piss people off, but I hear people reference how people in the military died to protect our freedoms.

Around the turn of the century small wars were fought in our very own country. Wars fought by workers to give everyone the same right to not be killed at work, not to have to live in company towns, to keep your kids out of coal mines and get rid of sweatshops. These people were beaten and killed so you can have a lunch break.

None of the work regulations were going to happen on their own. Industry fought, hiring their own security forces, violently to prevent workers from making any progress. I don't want to see that fight again, but keep rolling back protections and busting unions and we will.

applause.jpg

You got fox-news yokels who don't know who the president was during WWI, you think they know about the labor movement at the turn of the century? We're doomed to repeat history.

Yeah, especially if we keep beating down the teachers. Do they even teach about the labor movement any more, or is that not on their goddamn standardized tests?