What is the problem?
 

That's life. Find a full time job. I know lots of low-skilled workers who work part-time who have better health benefits than I do. The market is a wonderful place for those with ambition and ingenuity.


Not really, because we all absorb the costs of union labour. i will take my Nikes made in Indonesia with cheap labour for a reduction in price. I work hard for my money and don't want to expend for socialist ideals.

What is the problem?
 

No one has to be given benefits, wanker. They could give health and other non-retirement benefits just to managers and above if they bought insurance rather than self-insuring. It's just not good for PR. And, you can't exclude a category "part time" from retirement plans -- so if you have full-time and part-time people in the same job classifications, the way to keep people out is to ensure that they don't work more than 1,000 hrs/year.

But the thing where they were going to add somewhat strenuous physical activity (pushing carts in the summer in 90+ heat is strenuous) to every low-level job classification to discourage people with health problems (and probably the elderly) from applying was possibly, like, illegal. Heh.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

I thought we had a truce and were making progress. Why so much hate?

That is a distinction without a difference.

If the employer is forced to pay their dues, then in reality they are forced to join. Now if the employer could refund the dues to the employee who did not join the union there would be freedom of choice and action.

What is the problem?
 

Re your first paragraph, that is true. But unions also gave us an unsustainable level of expectation in terms of what workers were entitled to. Competing against foreign workers, companies utilizing our high priced workers simply can't compete. Unions never hedged for globalization.

In re to the second paragraph, you're taking a different view of the union member. I see him as uncreative and lacking ambition. You see him as a necessary lower level consumer who fuels the ambitious person's business plan. We're both right. I just have this naive ideal that if everyone tried to better himself, instead of just getting a union card and phoning in a worklife, we could achieve some amazing things. But from a pragmatic, practical perspective, your point - basically, "we can't have winners without losers" can't be debated.

What is the problem?
 

The problems is the unions get involved with politics. Those sins laid at the civil service door are rules passed by a legilslature under the influence of unions.

In California teachers cannot be fired because of laws passed by the legislature paid for by the unions.

In politics unions are dangerous because they don't care about creating jobs, or reducing prices, or increasing efficiency, all they care about is protecting the jobs they govern.

In a world where only the economies that adapt to the changing markets thrive, all the unions do is try and prevent the economy from adapting.

Almost any law or policy unions support politically make the economy less responsive and adaptible, hurting everyone by increasing prices and preventing job creation.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

No hate. I'm just acknowledging that I'm never going to change your mind about anything and you're never going to stop pissing me off when it comes to politics.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time, and you annoy the pig.

What is the problem?
 

What you fail to grasp is that someone is going to make sneakers paying 2$ a day in Indonesia no matter what the US government does. Either it will be an american company or another company. If you prevent the American company from doing it they will not be able to sell their shoes as cheaply around the world as the company that does and the american company goes out of business. So all the other jobs that the American shoe company provides in america (managers, shoe designers, consultants, lawyers etc) will all be lost.

There is no way to stop outsourcing. The only thing you can do is drive american companys out of business by preventing them from taking advantage of cheap labour .

We live in a world market. Either we compete in it or we go out of business. The choice is that simple.

What is the problem?
 

Re: your first paragraph, I think you may have a point as to recent developments with unions, but at the outset, I think unions were a natural outgrowth of industrialization/mass production. With large employers, especially those who dominate the industry in a particular area, workers have very little bargaining power (even more so a bazillion years ago when communications and transportation were so much more primitive) and factory owners really were exploiting them and getting ridiculously rich. I think the choice at that point was between unions and socialism, and unions seem more market-y than socialism. It's people banding together to bargain. I don't think that bringing in armed guards to force people back to work has a role in a free market. I don't think that "company towns" where the mill or mine or factory owner controls the price of food and housing -- keeping them artificially high -- so that workers have no way to save etc. to leave and get a better life is part of a free market.

Re: your second paragraph, I wasn't saying "we can't have winners without losers." I was saying, we can't develop a modern, industrialized society if everyone is an entrepreneur and does the bootstrap thing. Small businesses may drive growth, but hugenormousgantic businesses (not as much industrial anymore) are the backbone of the economy. And, for some people, becoming what you see as a drone is a big step up and is challenging.

Go suck on that silver spoon you've had since birth. Your forebears would be ashamed of you.

I'm not sure that I understand this, or perhaps there is a typo. Employers don't pay union dues. Employees do. An employer may have dues checkoff and send the payment to the union every month, but it still comes out of the employee's pocket, whether the employee is in the union or is a fair share fee payer.

I'm not arguing whether union membership it is good or bad, I am simply responding to your statement that in some closed shops, everyone is required to join the union. That is incorrect. There are also religious exemptions that do relieve an employee from paying anything to the union. Some religious sects (normally a Christian Sect) interpret the bible to mean that members of that church CANNOT be a member of a union and CANNOT pay any money to even support the union. If the individual can show that he or she has this religious conviction, then the fair share fee amount will be donated to a charity that has been mutually agreed upon by the employee and the union.

aV

What is the problem?
 

All large organizations get involved with politics, you simplistic twit. Almost any law or policy industry supports politically makes the economy less responsive and adaptable, or hurts the sustainability of human life, or drains resources from the majority of people. Employers/corporations/industries don't care about creating jobs or reducing prices (other than reducing the prices of things they buy), they care about making money and to hell with anything else. They don't want any change that will hurt them economically, either.

What is the problem?
 

The bar system in this country is ridiculous and should be an illegal monopolistic practice.

I have no problem with unions fighting for higher wages. I have no problem with unions lobbying for a higher minimum wage. I have no problme with unions lobbying for worker safety laws. It is just when the try and distort the market to protect their jobs, that is when they screw everyone and don't really help themselves.

What is the problem?
 

I don't think it's feasible to make a lot of stuff domestically now. But your much-admired corporations are working at least as hard as the unions to keep their companies alive, through subsidies and trade restrictions and all that other crap.

You can have the shoe designers and consultants and upper management stay here in the US, even if production is overseas.

I think you need to take some time off from here. Normally your logic and analysis aren't totally fucked.

What is the problem?
 

Simplistic? Simplistic is the union saying - if we stop free trade we will save our jobs. Their jobs are lost. That is just a fact of life. All they do when trying to preven the loss is screw everyone else in the process.

I didn't say I didn't expect unions to get involved in politics, but when they do they almost are always on the wrong side of economic issues. They are always pushing for regulations that make american businesses less competitive.

That is why I consider Unions one of the, if not the biggest threat to the economic future of the United States. If the unions had their way we would turn into a third world nation.

What is the problem?
 

I had bacon for lunch. mmmmmmm. and sausages!

What is the problem?
 

I don't fail to grasp it. I even think that it can be a good thing, as the $2 a day wage may be more than the guy would be making had Nike not put the factory there.

My point had nothing to do with free trade, globalization, etc. I was simply pointing out that a labor market where there are no unions to "artificially interfere" with the supply and demand of labor is not a labor market where I would like to be a factory worker. And, AoN, not a place where a factory worker's son has a shot at becoming a lawyer.

What is the problem?
 

Bite your tongue! With a little initiative, anyone can realize the Indonesian dream!

OK now I am confused. Absent a religious objection, are there not some companys where for every worker at the company the union gets money. Either it comes from the worker, or from the employer. Is that not ture?

Or can any company in the United STate hire someone who can then choose not to be part of the union and does not cause by their presence more money to be paid to the union by the employer?

What is the problem?
 

On sunday I realized I was out of bacon. But don't get too stressed, I bought some last night.

It's deducted from wages. Where the actual incidence falls would of course depend on elasticity and so forth, but it is nominally paid by the employee, just as health care premiums, etc. are nominally paid by the employee.

I'm sure there are probably studies on who really pays the union dues.

When I worked at a grocery store, I had union dues withheld from my check after some waiting period. I didn't have a choice about it. But it reduced my pay and was visible to me.

ETA you are so totally not qualified even to be participating in this discussion. By revealing how you make utterly confident statements when you have no knowledge, you are undermining the effectiveness of anything you've ever said on this board. Kudos.

was your lunch free?

What is the problem?
 

You are making assumptions that are unfounded. If I don't like Unions messing with the markets that does not mean I like corporations messing with the markets. If I don't like what unions do politically that does not mean I have to like everything companys do politically.

Corporations also lobby for protectionism, subsidies and tax breaks, and that sucks. The old joke is companys like free trade in everything except in their own industry. Industry specfic lobbying groups are almost always up to no good like the Unions. It is only the ination wide organizations that represent business, mainly the chamber of commerce, and exporting dependent businesses that I trust to promote sound economic policies.

ADM Corporation has done almost as much as the unions in screwing up US economic policy.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

This is the same type of relentless harassment, PoPD and hate that drove Paigow off of the boards. Congrats on being a biased prejudiced hater. you remind of the typical liberal I meet in my day to day travels who eschews hate and bias and prejudice and professes to being an open minded progressive advocate of diversity and then ends up having a bumper sticker that says "FUCK BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS".

Frankly you and your cohort's hate is a bit tiring.......making Paigow's offer of a position with her blog look more and more attractive at this point, which will leave you and your leftist dupes alone to blow each other to your lustful moral relativistic hearts content.

I ate at TNSTAAFL.

What is the problem?
 

As I said, I have no problem with unions working to get the most out of the market. It is when they influence the legislature to pass laws that try and prevent the 2$ job from going overseas that they screw everyone.

You had mentioned the 2$ job going overseas, and my point is complaining about it does no one any good. Nothing can stop job flight and job loss, the only thing you can do is try and create more jobs than you are losing.

But politically unions do not care about job creation.

What is the problem?
 

This is exactly what i said and for it I got PoPD and hate.

What is the problem?
 

Based on where you give money and support and vote, you should focus your efforts on discouraging the corporate crap. You have no pull with the politicians who vote to keep unions powerful, but you do have pull with those who pass shit like that corporate tax bullcrap handout from last year. That is, if you really want to do anything to make the situation better.

It is certainly not my goal to confuse you. However, to clarify, it depends on the state that you live in. If you live in a right to work state, then yes, even if there is a union representing all of the widget makers, and you are hired to be a widget maker, then you cannot be required to pay union dues, be a member, or even pay fair share fee payer amounts. In non right to work states, unless you can qualify for a religious exemption, that same widget maker will be required to pay either union dues (and be a member) or pay a fair share amount (and not be a member).

Of course, this is thrown out the window if employees file a deauthorization petition with the NLRB and the employee vote to deauthorize (or "turn off" the dues check-off language).

Does that help?

aV

What is the problem?
 

Pssst!

Sebby -- Your fly is open again. Don't worry, I don't think anyone else noticed.

S_A_M

(eta: Ooops. They noticed.)

Give me a break. This coming from you is ridiculous. If you are insecure because you know so little about international labor economics or how unions effect policy don't try and take it out on me.

Give me a double break. You phrase everything like it is the revealed word of god. It's dishonest and annoying.

You must have stopped doing it, at least for a while, because now that I'm saying that I recall that it was an annoying hallmark when you first appeared, but it hasn't been as evident lately.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

How do you know? Do you speak to them AND the baby jesus?

S_A_M

P.S. I'm beginning to think that Penske and Janice Rogers Brown were separated at birth. At a minimum, there is an obvious moral [and intellectual] equivalency.

Holy shit. This was discussed? Spanky's subtlety and capacity for nuanced argument increases by the day.

What is the problem?
 

No, I didn't. Here's what penske said and here's my reply. http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...965#post222965

• Originally posted by Penske_Account
  They inefficiently add costs and distort markets. Let the free market for labour decide. People can share info and join together as they choose but employers are free to ignore those "unions".

• Originally posted by Not Bob
  I think that every person who spouts off on the "free market" as the be-all and end-all should try to live as a worker in such a "free market" system.
  
  I'm sure that you will have a new appreciation for the worker's freedom of job choice after a period of time making Nike sneakers for $2 a day in Indonesia.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

Given her high level of positive achievement, I take that as a compliment. thanks.

Yes - it shows me I was never confused and was right all along


Originally posted by Spanky:

This may not be true of public employee unions, but there are many unions that are close shopped. In other words, you have to be a member of the union to work there.

The you said:

"Sorry Spanky, but this is incorrect. Whether you are a public sector employee (see Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977)) or a private sector employee (see Pattern Makers v. NLRB , 473 U.S. 95 (1985)), NO employee can be required to be a union member.

The bottom line is that employees can be forced to pay money, but they cannot be forced to be "members" of a union."

The I stated that as long as someone is forced to pay your dues (your or your employer) that pretty much means you are forced to be a union member

The you said:

In non right to work states, unless you can qualify for a religious exemption, that same widget maker will be required to pay either union dues (and be a member) or pay a fair share amount (and not be a member).

So I stand by my original statement that there are closed shopped unions where one has to be member (technically one does not have to be a member but if the company is forced to pay dues on your behalf then you are in reality being forced to be a member).

What is the problem?
 

And you never answered my question, I don't think, apologies if yoiu did, what do lawyers in Indonesia make? Transactional lawyers to be specific? I want to compare apples with apples.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

Really? Kudos.

You've just identified the title of the next thread named by a Democratic poster on this Board. Seems only fair.

Penske and Paigow -- Now THERE is a moral and intellectual equivalency.

S_A_M

OK. You are arguing that because an employee (again, not the Company, the employee) has to pay a fair share fee, then it is the same as being forced to be a member of the union. Fine. That's your opinion. However, it is not factually correct, regardless of whether you want to call it a technicality or not.

aV

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

I thought you would.

See, a post that made everyone on the Board happy. it can be done.

S_A_M