Discussion: All Things Union

[SuBe]

The Courts system will fix issues of Fraud.

 

[BlackLantern]

by putting these guys in a country club minimum security prison?

IMO ( and maybe this is just my emotion talking) is that the only way you really make the entitled correct their behavior is by applying harsh reprucussions for their actions

send a CEO to a maximum security federal poundtown prison, the message will be heard

 

[Arc-Light]

Making sweet passionate secks in the dumpster out behind Wendy's?

If you get that reference I will give you a dollar.

You are a big, fat flightless bird!!!!!!!

i love that show........wheres my dolla!!!!!!!!

 

[WildcatNC]

I would contend that a capitalist economy is apathetic to the desires of corporations and simply no longer exists when government decides to cater to those desires. It is, I contend, ONLY government that can allow corporations to achieve unnatural economic occurrences like monopoly.

I would also contend that there is a natural morality to the markets that makes profit-maximization dependent upon corporate responsibility. The best example is BP - if BP doesn't fill the gulf with oil, their profits for their year increase 20 billion dollars (the government imposed escrow fund only serves to make it simple to place a figure on the cost clean up, not a demonstration of the necessity of government intervention. Without government enforcement BP would still be legally liable and their world-standing would depend on their reaction to oil clean up) + the potential profits they would have earned if their image was not tarnished with the spill + the destruction of value in the billions BP has spent on PR campaigns over the past years (no American consumer connects BP with their pre-spill commercials, rendering the investment void).

Therefore if a corporation wishes to maximize profits, they won't spill oil in the gulf.

Now it is only through government intervention that they can avoid these costs. With the government's endorsement of BP's response, consumers are less likely to make their own judgments. With the lobbyist forged tax code, BP was able to apply for billions in corporate-friendly tax credits. With government imposed liability caps, BP had the possibility of avoiding the costs of their actions. Many in and out of government expressed concerned for innocent BP shareholders and the need to protect their investment when it seems to me that forcing BP shareholders to bare the consequences of BP's actions would serve to encourage the shareholders of other companies to be more curious in the practices of their invested companies, understanding that their investment is not invulnerable and dependent upon competent management.

Only governments can enable corporations to revoke free markets, that is why government must stay completely out of the economy.

Is your opinion that government should be altogether abolished? With all government functions provided by the private sector? The only way to keep business from co-opting the government is to remove all ability for the government to do ANYTHING, thereby abolishing it. Even maintaining an army will invite the military industrial complex to run the show, without some kind of checks and balances.

I completely disagree with the notion that there is ANY built in ethical framework in an economic system. I'm aware of what you are saying and how it is SUPPOSED to work IN THEORY. That is kind of my point though.

The "pure capitalism" that you are talking about does not, has never and will never exist in that pure mathmatical form. Its a hypothetical that is useful for modeling and predictions, to help guide those who have a stake in it.

Economics is a pseudo-science. Much like psychology/sociology. They are still figuring it out and don't really have the full understanding that most think. Until the 70's they thought inflation and unemployment could NOT both rise at the same time. You could argue that it was a distortion, but the fact is you can NEVER remove all distortion, nor can you remove the human element from an endeavor that involves mostly HUMANS making decisions.

One of the basic principles of classical economics is Rational Choice. Even a cursory look will show you that this is HARDLY always accurate. It is generally true on certain scales (mostly business models rather than consumer models). The concept that people are inherently rational and logical, making decisions that are best for them is fallacious in and of itself, framing is proof of that. Not sure how anyone who has studied history could believe this. Consumers don't use cost/benefit analysis nearly as much as economists want you to believe. It applies to business much more so than consumers, and is not universally accurate either way.

The whole Temple of Economics is built on sand. Its good for prediction and modeling, for making general policies and functions. Thats about it. If Physics were as accurate as Economics we wouldn't be able to get a satellite in orbit, let alone ever made it to the moon. We don't have things figured out nearly as much as its made out.

Someone needs to make sure the ship is going in the right direction every now and then. Check the stars and the maps.

 

[WildcatNC]

The Courts system will fix issues of Fraud.

No they wont. Again, "in theory".


The only reason any fraud gets prosecuted today is because politicians have to win the public opinion polls, and rarely even then. If popular opinion gets to hot they will go after them in public and then set them up in some posh, upper scale "detainment facility" where they can order takout and entertain guests. Bush wanted badly to let the Enron guys off the hook, but the outrage was so bad they were forced to do something. So they made arrangements because someone had to take a fall. Most still got off the hook.

They are all in bed together and its a show for us, nothing more.


The people responsible for reporting or investigating said things act in accordance with the "for profit" motive and accept probably about 10x their yearly salary from said "fraud-er" to let things go and become "friends".

Everyone makes a ton of money, all parties are happy with the arrangement. They might even help take down a competitor or two.

Only when the Mob gets unruly or they see more opportunity otherwise does anything get done about it.

 

[WildcatNC]

I want to thank you guys for being able to have civil discussions so far.

Its somewhat rare when it comes to message boards and politics.

 

[enterthemadness]

How lovely!

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/14/walker-anti-union-bill/

Last month, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) said that if employees strike, “they should be fired,” and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) wrote in an op-ed that the moral case for unions “does not apply to public employment.” Now, facing a $137 million budget deficit, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed a “budget repair bill” that would severely limit collective bargaining, eliminate the right of unions to negotiate pensions, retirement and benefits. Walker is facing fierce criticism for this all-out assault against state workers, especially after he insisted that the “National Guard” will be used against a walkout:

When asked by a reporter what will happen if workers resist, Walker replied that he would call out the National Guard. He said that the National Guard is “prepared…for whatever the governor, their commander-in-chief, might call for. … I am fully prepared for whatever may happen.”
​

And this one...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...isconsin-ad-wars-and-national-guard-vs-unions

The mention of the National Guard in Walker's Friday news conference was specifically in reference to state prisons. He said he would call out the Guard to take control of prisons if Corrections Officers went on strike or took any other sort of job action. Union officials say they don't have any plans to. One union official said the governor was "baiting" guards. Walker’s bill would maintain the workers' ability to negotiate over pay and only over pay -- it would strip them of their rights to negotiate any other benefits or work rules. Any raises couldn't exceed inflation, all contracts would be limited to one year and employees would be required to vote every year on whether to recertify the union as their bargaining agent.

 

[StorminNorman]

Misleading phrasing with the "National Guard will be used against a walkout". If the question is using the National Guard to cover prisons in case of strike, I say go Governor Badger.

Just like I applaud Kasich's response and I applaud Pawlenty's response. (Not that I endorse either men)

 

[bell110]

Will the price to pay the Nation Guard to take over prison duties exceed the price to pay Correctional Officers? If the CO's don't feel they are paid enough, quit. See how long the state can go without people looking after their prison population.

 

[enterthemadness]

Misleading phrasing with the "National Guard will be used against a walkout". If the question is using the National Guard to cover prisons in case of strike, I say go Governor Badger.

Just like I applaud Kasich's response and I applaud Pawlenty's response. (Not that I endorse either men)

Yes, I was about to post the topic, but then I decided to google for more info and ran across second article. And I agree, if he uses the Guard *only* for the prisons, it's fine.

 

[DACrowe]

The "moral incentive" for public employees not to have unions is what allowed police men and fire fighters to be treated like **** for years and the use of excessive force to break peaceful assemblies in strikes at the turn of the century. It got so bad after World War I it led to the Boston Strike Riots of 1919. For the record, that was an occasion that the national guard was needed due to the police being incapacitated due to tyrannical leadership. The complete mismanagement and bungling of the situation that led to a needless night of riots and death by Governor Calvin Coolidge was spun enough in the press by his guys that he came out a hero and rode it onto the stage of national politics and to the presidency.

I love when politicians seem to have no grasp that they're reliving the same mistakes of decades past. It should be unbelievable.

 

[hippie_hunter]

This seems a little overboard, but IMO, essential public employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. Public employee unions alos deserve a bit more scrutiny considering how they drag down states like New York and have even shut down nations like France.

 

[dnno1]

If legislators are allowed to shut down the government, pay their employees with IOU's, or even lock them out, then public employees should be allowed to strike (especially if they have collective barganing agreements).

 

[hippie_hunter]

If legislators are allowed to shut down the government, pay their employees with IOU's, or even lock them out, then public employees should be allowed to strike (especially if they have collective barganing agreements).

I think that legislators shouldn't be allowed to do that.

 

[dnno1]

I think that legislators shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Although I can't argue that point, it does happen. The ability to strike is a natural right and the only way to circumvent it is to have the person give that right up. If there is a no strike clause in their contract, then that is where they wouldn't have the right to strike. This is what happened in the mid 1950's with the airtraffic controllers union. Some 20 some odd years later, they struck and Regan fired them for breach of contract (in a nutshell). That was plausible since they were under contract not to strike (and had given up that right in the process).

 

[hippie_hunter]

Although I can't argue that point, it does happen. The ability to strike is a natural right and the only way to circumvent it is to have the person give that right up. If there is a no strike clause in their contract, then that is where they wouldn't have the right to strike. This is what happened in the mid 1950's with the airtraffic controllers union. Some 20 some odd years later, they struck and Regan fired them for breach of contract (in a nutshell). That was plausible since they were under contract not to strike (and had given up that right in the process).

If they are private sector employees, they can strike as many times as they want to for all I care. But considering how we need police officers, firemen, teachers, etc., public sector employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. Also considering how public sector employee strikes have crippled several European nations for days on end, is another reason why they shouldn't be allowed.

That said, considering that private sector employers don't pay in IOUs, usually have to give their employees notice that they're shutting down, etc. The government should be held to the same standards. And in return for outlawing public sector employee strikes, they should treat their employees like decent human beings so that there would be no reason to strike to begin with.

Sounds like common sense to me.

 

[StorminNorman]

Or we could just privatize those fields.

 

[bell110]

If you take away their right to strike, you take away a tool to help them bargain for better wages.

 

[StorminNorman]

No one has a right to a better wage. If the current crop wants more money than the position is valued, then get out and let someone else take the job.

 

[dnno1]

If they are private sector employees, they can strike as many times as they want to for all I care. But considering how we need police officers, firemen, teachers, etc., public sector employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. Also considering how public sector employee strikes have crippled several European nations for days on end, is another reason why they shouldn't be allowed.

That said, considering that private sector employers don't pay in IOUs, usually have to give their employees notice that they're shutting down, etc. The government should be held to the same standards. And in return for outlawing public sector employee strikes, they should treat their employees like decent human beings so that there would be no reason to strike to begin with.

Sounds like common sense to me.

There's such a thing as scabs. Even calling in the national guard would suffice for Police protection. Anyway, there are laws on the books in most municipalities that prohibit public servants such as policemen form striking (or at least encouraging them to), so that point is kind of moot.

 

[bell110]

Who said anything about a right to a better wage? They do, however, have a right to seek a better wage. Taking away their right to strike takes away that leverage to get a better wage.

 

[StorminNorman]

No one has a right to strike, either. An employer should have the right to fire striking workers just as easily as a government does.

 

[bell110]

Of course we have the right to strike. And if an employer fires striking workers, good luck replacing and training your entire work force while also not producing a profit.

 

[dnno1]

No one has a right to strike, either. An employer should have the right to fire striking workers just as easily as a government does.

You have to think about what you are saying here. That would mean that an employer could fire you just because his payroll check bounced and you decided to not come to work for a couple of days because you were not paid under your agreement with said employer.

 

[StorminNorman]

IF your employer's payroll checks are bouncing, then there are bigger problems than not being able to strike without worrying about job security.