Discussion: All Things Union

[chaseter]

I am tired of talking about unions in five different threads. This thread will be for all things union.

Public union pensions are currently the hot button issue with a lot of states and cities as they inch closer to bankruptcy. 21st century unions in my opinion have destroyed this country.

Also, anybody see the video of the two NYC union guys pulling a plow that is stuck on a street and they tear up an SUV and damage another car. Youtube it. I can't post it as it has bad words in it. They tell the owner of the suv that they will have to get a supervisor down there. In today's world, those guys won't be fired because they are members of public employee unions.

Youtube New York City Sanitation Worker Wrecks Ford Explorer

[dnno1]

Well, if this is all things union, the title shouldn't be "Public Employee Unions". It should be just "Labor Unions" or "All things Union".

[chaseter]

Yeah I guess that is true...I had public employee unions on the brain.

[chaseter]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...d-snow-cleanup

New York sanitation workers union sabotaged snow cleanup

Is that really surprising? Read in that article how much these people get paid.

Public employee unions should be illegal. People died in NYC because the streets weren't plowed.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...save_baby.html

[Kelly]

I'm moving to New York, **** my career and college degree....lol

[chaseter]

Here is some more delights from the wonderful Union run NYC sanitation dept:

Twice The Normal Amount Of Sanitation Workers Called In Sick For Blizzard
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_803343.html

They should all be fired.

[Kelly]

That is the problem with Public Servants today.....they don't know what service to the public means.....they have no pride in what they do, they don't see it as a service, they see it as a pay check.....

[chaseter]

The NYC Sanitation Union is under investigation.

[BlackLantern]

Originally Posted by Kel

That is the problem with Public Servants today.....they don't know what service to the public means.....they have no pride in what they do, they don't see it as a service, they see it as a pay check.....

indeed

Unions here in Connecticut have caused nothing but trouble...theyve driven various industries out of the state, strikes, work stoppages, lawsuits

its at the point where most any large employer here has a very public anti-union stance

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Violet Lantern

Government spending money in the private economy can lead to NO good. It just doesn't work. They should NEVER interfere in the economy...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/12/news...ults/index.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/general-mot...ry?id=10437944

Hmm...

Never mind that GM paid back the loan, that it's making a profit now and that if the Federal government hadn't bailed them out they would have gone out of business, leading to millions more jobs lost.

The government getting involved in the economy CAN'T work! You hear me?? And don't EVEN bring up the government mobilization of industry during the second World War. Every time you do, Ronald Reagan cries in heaven.

Those stories are somewhat misleading. Taxpayers are currently in the red regarding GM, and the fact that Obama's intervention strengthen the position of the unions helps feed one of the major limits on GM's growth.

Yes, congrats, we invested 52 billion dollars to save some jobs and a classic American name. And in doing so we gave an unfair competitive advantage to a company who ran itself into the ground, depriving profit away from companies like Ford and Hyundai from gaining greater DESERVED (by way of not running their companies into the ground) PROFITS - which would have expansion of their facilities (you know, possibly in now-vacant buildings already designed for auto-mobile creation) and their work-force (you know, possibly having a greater interest in those who are familiar in the industry). Now it is true, not all of those unemployed would have been been rehired by the car industry - but then consider the other jobs that would have been created with the 52 billion dollars.

Every dollar the government spends it must first take from the economy in the first place. That means the 52 billion dollars loaned with the primary motive NOT being to receive a profit on the investment, but serving political ends (those of the unions and special interest - even if those interest are the workers of GM, they shouldn't receive special treatment over any other worker.) The private industry is better at investing money than the public industry, this should be a well accepted axiom, so by letting the government give away 52 billion dollars we are betting on the judgment of a perennial loser. That is why this high-speed rail is such an amazing idiotic idea.

And if you want historical examples I would point to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufac...ces_de_miroirs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_P...road#Criticism

http://blogs.reuters.com/environment...ze-other-jobs/

[Violet Lantern]

taxpayers are currently in the red regarding GM,

You would argue with a stop sign.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by Violet Lantern

You would argue with a stop sign.

Now you're catching on...

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Violet Lantern

You would argue with a stop sign.

What is your objection?

We gave GM 53 billion, they turned a majority of that into stock, stock we still own. It was the 8 billion that was on the books as a "loan" that has been paid back. Congrats That still means we are in the red.

1. General Motors still owes the U.S. government approximately $30 billion, with the government still owning around 30 percent of the Company. If the government were to sell its remaining holdings in General Motors at the IPO offering price, they would lose billions.
2. General Motors’ financing arm still owes the U.S. government an additional $15 billion.

http://americanmissive.com/2010/11/1...ipo-a-success/

[Violet Lantern]

Yeah, real reliable source there.

http://americanmissive.com/about-the-authors/

[imdaly]

Originally Posted by Violet Lantern

Yeah, real reliable source there.

http://americanmissive.com/about-the-authors/

Here, then: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/

[WildcatNC]

Originally Posted by chaseter

What he said was true. See the stimulus for example of how trillions were wasted on union ruined companies and state employee pension plans. Shovel ready projects? Those were apparently a myth. The stimulus stimulated the pocket books of private and public employee unions. Or as I should say, we invested in unions.

While Unions are out of control in many cases its ridiculous to say they are the main problem, or that they got the lions share of the stimulus money. Unions arose in the "free market" because miners were being forced into life threatening conditions by shotgun point and a worker knowingly sickened by unsafe conditions would be fired with no compensation. Big business and the "profit motive" has itself to blame for Unions. Yes they are out of control but they are a minor player in the big picture.

Corporatism and Lobbyists do far more damage to the "free market" than all the unions that have ever existed combined.

Its fine to point out whats wrong with Unions, but why ignore the bigger problem. My guess is because Unions usually lean and vote to the "left".

Unions are always presented to us as if they are an equivalent powerful entity to corporations. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Corporatism is a far bigger pig in the pen. I would venture to say that Goldman Sachs and Haliburton combined use their money to "interfere" in the free market process more than all the unions that have ever existed combined.


Honestly, a true "FREE market" is a fantasy. It can never exist in reality. For the government to completely stay out of the market, the market would have to stay out of the government. That never has and never will happen. There will always be backroom deals for no bid government contracts and pork projects. The "for profit" motive assures us of it. The vast tax coffers are "free money" and require only a few greased palms.

If business is always going to buy into government, SOMEONE needs to keep watch on it.

Like most things in life, its about balance and wisdom.

I'm in agreement that Unions are hurting industry in many cases. But if your argument is that they are "interfering in the market process" you guys should be focusing on the bigger pigs and COMPLETE reform.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by WildcatNC

While Unions are out of control in many cases its ridiculous to say they are the main problem, or that they got the lions share of the stimulus money. Unions arose in the "free market" because miners were being forced into life threatening conditions by shotgun point and a worker knowingly sickened by unsafe conditions would be fired with no compensation. Big business and the "profit motive" has itself to blame for Unions. Yes they are out of control but they are a minor player in the big picture.

Corporatism and Lobbyists do far more damage to the "free market" than all the unions that have ever existed combined.

Its fine to point out whats wrong with Unions, but why ignore the bigger problem. My guess is because Unions usually lean and vote to the "left".

Unions are always presented to us as if they are an equivalent powerful entity to corporations. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Corporatism is a far bigger pig in the pen. I would venture to say that Goldman Sachs and Haliburton combined use their money to "interfere" in the free market process more than all the unions that have ever existed combined.


Honestly, a true "FREE market" is a fantasy. It can never exist in reality. For the government to completely stay out of the market, the market would have to stay out of the government. That never has and never will happen. There will always be backroom deals for no bid government contracts and pork projects. The "for profit" motive assures us of it. The vast tax coffers are "free money" and require only a few greased palms.

If business is always going to buy into government, SOMEONE needs to keep watch on it.

Like most things in life, its about balance and wisdom.

I'm in agreement that Unions are hurting industry in many cases. But if your argument is that they are "interfering in the market process" you guys should be focusing on the bigger pigs and COMPLETE reform.

Name 10 things that unions have done in the past decade that have been truly great. Yes unions were needed at one time. That time has passed. All unions are today are nothing more than pyramid schemes. They are corrupt and in bed with politicians. They are bankrupting states. They have bankrupted companies. They drive up costs. Why does a nice car cost 30 grand? Maybe it's because the people putting it together make $40 an hour with amazing benefits.

And yes, the majority of the stimulus went to unions. A lot of the money given to GM went to the pension fund. A lot of the money that went to states went to public employee pensions.

Unions are destroying this country.

[SuBe]

Unions have served their purpose and now runs on thuggery and collusion with politicians.

A Politician needs money to run their campaigns and votes for re-election. Union bosses want to remain in power and keep their high salaries. Unions raise money for Politicians who give Union Bosses pension bailouts from Tax Payers Funds. Those Tax Dollars get put back into Politician's campaign coffers. It's a cycle ending with a screwed consumer and tax payer and an economy that is suffering.

[chaseter]

Imagine how much less things would cost if instead of paying union fees. If that same amount was cut from their paycheck instead of it going to corrupt union heads that blow on Democratic campaigns and fatcat salaries...everyone would win.

[Violet Lantern]

Originally Posted by chaseter

Imagine how much less things would cost if instead of paying union fees. If that same amount was cut from their paycheck instead of it going to corrupt union heads that blow on Democratic campaigns and fatcat salaries...everyone would win.

My mom has FANTASTIC health insurance(most jobs don't offer such comprehensive coverage) thanks to her union's(Communication Workers of America) contract with AT&T. A union is an organization run by human beings, of course it's not going to be perfect and yes, sometimes there can be corruption. But you know what? It's the same thing with the government, a business or anything else. To suggest that's reason to "Throw the baby out with the bathwater" as they say is patently ridiculous. It's just an excuse to fulfill an ideological beef you(and others) have with unions.

[Violet Lantern]

Originally Posted by chaseter

Name 10 things that unions have done in the past decade that have been truly great. Yes unions were needed at one time. That time has passed. All unions are today are nothing more than pyramid schemes. They are corrupt and in bed with politicians. They are bankrupting states. They have bankrupted companies. They drive up costs. Why does a nice car cost 30 grand? Maybe it's because the people putting it together make $40 an hour with amazing benefits.

And yes, the majority of the stimulus went to unions. A lot of the money given to GM went to the pension fund. A lot of the money that went to states went to public employee pensions.

Unions are destroying this country.

Yes, I'm sure that big business has learned it's lesson now, and the Unions can just all go away. I'm sure that won't lead to any kind of backslide in workers' rights or benefits. You're very naive in your trust of business.

[SuBe]

If the Business is not providing good benefits, the workers have the right to leave and go somewhere where there are better benefits. If the wages are too low, there are are other options, go somewhere where you will earn more or start your own company. If the prices are too high, buy from a competitor who's prices are slightly lower.

The problem with Unions is they have a wolf pack mentality. They are not strong enough in their own individuality, they have to join together to force a company to do what they want instead of standing on their own merits as individuals and decide what is best for them. If it's so bad, start your own company, nothing is keeping you at your job.

[Violet Lantern]

Originally Posted by SuBe

If the Business is not providing good benefits, the workers have the right to leave and go somewhere where there are better benefits. If the wages are too low, there are are other options, go somewhere where you will earn more or start your own company. If the prices are too high, buy from a competitor who's prices are slightly lower.

The problem with Unions is they have a wolf pack mentality. They are not strong enough in their own individuality, they have to join together to force a company to do what they want instead of standing on their own merits as individuals and decide what is best for them. If it's so bad, start your own company, nothing is keeping you at your job.

My mother doesn't have a wolf pack mentality.

Workers have the right to organize. Businesses don't have to deal with them, they can try to hire non-Union workers(aka scabs) to do the work if they want. They have that right. They don't if they've signed a Union contract I guess but that's their decision to do so. No one puts a gun to their head and forces them to sign these agreements. Workers collectively bargaining(using their labor, or potentially a lack there of as a bargaining chip) is not unfair. Sounds like a free market to me. In the free market, the commodity with which workers have to trade is their labor. It's their's to bargain with.

Workers are just as important to producing something and therefore turning a profit, as the boss. Don't think so? Well then let's let the AT&T execs(for example) to fire all their employees and do the work on their own. Yeah? Thats what I thought.

If businesses can't provide a decent, competitive benefits package and wages, then people don't want to work for them and they will go out of business. Sounds like the free market at work. It sounds like to me, you think the "Free Market" is only free if you're a boss. Otherwise it's a dictatorship.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by StorminNorman

Those stories are somewhat misleading. Taxpayers are currently in the red regarding GM, and the fact that Obama's intervention strengthen the position of the unions helps feed one of the major limits on GM's growth.

Yes, congrats, we invested 52 billion dollars to save some jobs and a classic American name. And in doing so we gave an unfair competitive advantage to a company who ran itself into the ground, depriving profit away from companies like Ford and Hyundai from gaining greater DESERVED (by way of not running their companies into the ground) PROFITS - which would have expansion of their facilities (you know, possibly in now-vacant buildings already designed for auto-mobile creation) and their work-force (you know, possibly having a greater interest in those who are familiar in the industry). Now it is true, not all of those unemployed would have been been rehired by the car industry - but then consider the other jobs that would have been created with the 52 billion dollars.

Every dollar the government spends it must first take from the economy in the first place. That means the 52 billion dollars loaned with the primary motive NOT being to receive a profit on the investment, but serving political ends (those of the unions and special interest - even if those interest are the workers of GM, they shouldn't receive special treatment over any other worker.) The private industry is better at investing money than the public industry, this should be a well accepted axiom, so by letting the government give away 52 billion dollars we are betting on the judgment of a perennial loser. That is why this high-speed rail is such an amazing idiotic idea.

And if you want historical examples I would point to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufac...ces_de_miroirs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_P...road#Criticism

http://blogs.reuters.com/environment...ze-other-jobs/

You are looking at this the wrong way. A government's purpose is not to make a profit, but it rather to provide for its people. That could be in the way of goods and services as well as defense. What is more important here is the benefit to society. No private business was going to save GM and even though they did the right things to survive, it was also because of the Government bailout/loan that they received (remember, no one would give them loans to help them). In this case the investment in GM actually saved the company, which in turn saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. It also maintained an industry and a manufacturing base in the United States which is strategic for defense purposes. Lord knows what would happen to us if the rest of the world decided to have an embargo against us and we had no manufacturing base. We would then be in the situation of The Compagnie du Noyer where we would have to start up our lost industries over from scratch. Furthermore, every dollar of stimulus put into the economy produces more than a dollar in income due to the number of jobs created or saved so even though some of it is taken out of the economy it is getting more back in return.

[SuBe]

Tell the Unions to do their own work without "the Boss". They won't have work to begin with. It's a symbiotic relationship between "workers" and "Boss". But Unions don't have to be in the mix. "Employee" and "Union" is two completely different things.

A Union only exists because those within it don't have the back bone to stand up for them selves, and thus need a mob mentality to make changes or demands.