The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Captain]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there's no question that unions allowed the middle class to be created here. without the labor movement most of us would not be college educated, and it is likely there would be much less legal work since most people would be too poor to buy anything. That said, unions have become too focused on helping the unions move forward at all cost rather than considering market realities.

Example: the UAW defending people's right to fuck off all day at $30/hour. This hamstrings the big 3 into being non-competitive and they really have no way out. Delphi (formally GM's parts division) just went bankrupt. a main reason is unskilled workers were being paid $28/hour from old GM contracts. Meanwhile Delphi is competing against companies making parts in Mexico at next to nothing per hour. the unions wouldn't get real and help Delphi deal with this so it goes into bankruptcy to get out of its contracts. I like the American worker making money, but there are real world realities.

I agree on the first. On the second, why isn't the answer that jobs will go to other plants, whether here or abroad, because of the behavior that is irrational? Is this any different in terms of the need for government regulation from any situation where a company or industry behaves irrationally, and feels the sting of Darwin as a result?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The unions inefficiently add costs and distort markets? That may be true to some measure. However, historically, the unions gained their greatest strength in those industries where the employers distorted markets by colluding to deny benefits to workers and artificially maintain wages at a below-market rate.

I know, you're going to ask how a wage can be below-market if someone is willing to take a job at the given wage. But efficient markets are based upon the base premise that information and bargaining power are equal. Where workers were faced with the Hobson's choice of working for a subsistence wage or not working at all, then there was no real market in the classical sense.

Industry is paying the price for its past sins when it confronts powerful unions with bargaining power that exceeds that of the employer. Over a long wave cycle, however, the curve should eventually smooth itself out without government intervention.

And after all, a good conservative is never in favor of distorting governmental intervention, correct?

is a bankruptcy court breaking union contracts "governemnt intervention?"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Shh. If you explain to Penske that the Constitution was drafted to protect the rights of the minorities he's going to start spouting about how he's a poor downtrodden white conservative in Seattle. And then he'll start with a whole new crop of Photoshops and who knows where that will lead (more importantly, where it would end).

No. If you explain that to Penske, he'll probably tell you the Constitution was created to protect the rights of all citizens, minorities and majorities.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Captain
I'd be interested in this. I thought union elections could be prompted by a group of employees, though they'd be fought by the employers through an established process. But I won't claim to know anything really about contemporary labor laws.

Well, uh, yes, that's pretty much right. Some would argue (as I implicitly did) that the process is a bit stacked againts the would-be organizers, and that some employers go beyond what the law permits them to do in fighting unionization efforts.

(In short, I was engaging in a bit of hyperboele. I blame too many viewings of "Norma Rae" as a lad.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there's no question that unions allowed the middle class to be created here.

Uh, what about all the entrepreneurial immigrants who came over and started businesses and scratched and worked themselves to the middle class and above?

I'd sooner be branded than carry a fucking union card. My immigrant forebears never got in spitting distance of a union. I think a lot of older people would get very offended at your generalization there. Some people got ahead in life by having ingenuity and working and taking some risks.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is a bankruptcy court breaking union contracts "governemnt intervention?"

It seems like the NLRA is gov't intervention.

My impression is that a lot of cost is healthcare and pensions (i.e., past promises), not wages. I was reading somewhere (somewhere NORMAL, like the Economist or Yahoo news, or something) that blue collar workers, and I think even the lower levels of white collar workers, have experienced, in real terms, a decline in wages not only over the near term but also over the last 30+ years (from sometime in the 70s). I don't know if the "start date" for the comparison was timed to coincide with some particular year in the stagflation era, such that it would make now look particularly bad (whereas a year later or earlier would not produce so dramatic a result), but it was interesting.

The article did point out, and I agree, that you get more bang for your buck on a lot of products nowadays -- like, a car that costs the same in real terms would be safer/more reliable/have more features. But, the lack of growth for lower-wage workers, where higher-wage workers have been experiencing significant growth in real terms, does highlight that there is a gap between haves and have-nots. I personally think that such a situation is not politically sustainable unless the lower class a real lower class of peasants with very low expectations, and I don't think we can get there from here.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, what about all the entrepreneurial immigrants who came over and started businesses and scratched and worked themselves to the middle class and above?

More interesting and individualized stories, but not as significant in terms of social development. Unions, and the fear of socialism/communism, linked healthcare and retirement to employment, and with that went a long way toward ensuring a more reasonable standard of living for huge numbers of people.

Middle-class entrepreneurs can't get anywhere unless there are people to buy from them. The whole industrialization/mass production thing had to shift work from individuals and small groups to huge numbers of people working in a single location. We wouldn't be where we are if it weren't for this type of labor --we'd be in the pre-industrial, small shopkeeper era and all have shit-ass standards of living.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'd sooner be branded than carry a fucking union card . . . Some people got ahead in life by having ingenuity and working and taking some risks.

Dude, you need to learn a little history. People risked their lives fighting for a decent wage -- and were shot by state militias, federal troops, Pinkerton goons, etc. not just for asking for more money, but because they had the nerve to not want to take a pay cut.

The problems with unions today shouldn't blind you to the fact that their efforts made it possible for the working class to become middle class.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is a bankruptcy court breaking union contracts "governemnt intervention?"

It wasn't before, but post BARF, it's an abuse of the judicial process by big business interests exercising remedies denied ordinary citizens.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, what about all the entrepreneurial immigrants who came over and started businesses and scratched and worked themselves to the middle class and above?

I'd sooner be branded than carry a fucking union card. My immigrant forebears never got in spitting distance of a union. I think a lot of older people would get very offended at your generalization there. Some people got ahead in life by having ingenuity and working and taking some risks.

Do you really think your PA bar registration is any better? Seriously, each of the 50 states and DC all have laws that prohibit an attorney from one jurisdiction from practicing in another, except under limited circumstances. Isn't that the same sort of barrier to entry as a union card?

I suggest you put the brand on your ass. Less possibility of communicating burns or infection to vital organs.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Well, uh, yes, that's pretty much right. Some would argue (as I implicitly did) that the process is a bit stacked againts the would-be organizers, and that some employers go beyond what the law permits them to do in fighting unionization efforts.

(In short, I was engaging in a bit of hyperboele. I blame too many viewings of "Norma Rae" as a lad.)

The traditional organizing process - filing an RC-petition with the NLRA, scheduling and conducting an election and then negotiating a first contract, is very much tilted towards employers. I can keep that fucker in limbo/litigation for years. Thats why unions are fighting so hard to keep and expand the use of neutrality agreements.

aV

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And the ability to countermand the tyranny of the majority was the precise reason our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution in order to ensure an independent judiciary and a Bill of Rights that would be interpreted to preserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all, even those who don't share the same opinion.

Yes, but unlike certain activist judges, the Founders did not see any mystical penumbras emanating from their work.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The unions inefficiently add costs and distort markets? That may be true to some measure. However, historically, the unions gained their greatest strength in those industries where the employers distorted markets by colluding to deny benefits to workers and artificially maintain wages at a below-market rate.

I know, you're going to ask how a wage can be below-market if someone is willing to take a job at the given wage. But efficient markets are based upon the base premise that information and bargaining power are equal. Where workers were faced with the Hobson's choice of working for a subsistence wage or not working at all, then there was no real market in the classical sense.

Industry is paying the price for its past sins when it confronts powerful unions with bargaining power that exceeds that of the employer. Over a long wave cycle, however, the curve should eventually smooth itself out without government intervention.

And after all, a good conservative is never in favor of distorting governmental intervention, correct?

You're argument is anachronistic,like unions. There is no rationale for any special protection for organised labour anymore. Unfortunately, are markets and then our reactive politicians will have to be schooled in this lesson the hard way. Via competition that kicks our ass. Outsourcing. I applaud every union job lost to outsourcing to India and China and Latin America. These union socialist fucks will reap what they sow.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. If you explain that to Penske, he'll probably tell you the Constitution was created to protect the rights of all citizens, minorities and majorities.

I believe in the UMC and natural rights of all men.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, what about all the entrepreneurial immigrants who came over and started businesses and scratched and worked themselves to the middle class and above?

I'd sooner be branded than carry a fucking union card. My immigrant forebears never got in spitting distance of a union. I think a lot of older people would get very offended at your generalization there. Some people got ahead in life by having ingenuity and working and taking some risks.

2.