Unions

Labor would disagree. They might point to NAFTA or even earlier, Reagan's handling of the Air Traffic Controllers. The government referee had said the tie now goes to Business instead of Labor. Free trade has given capital access to cheap labor from anywhere. Capital in this country has always searched for cheap labor from the blacks to the Irish to the Italians and now the Mexicians. Originally Posted by WTF

But WTF, herein lies the disconnect:

Take NAFTA. Sure at a national leadership level the Unions are against it. At a local level, Union leadership is against NAFTA, but then at the end of the talk/local meeting with a wink and a nod the speaker talks about how here locally the International Brotherhood of Something Important #456 here in Rustbelt City has a strong relationship with XYZ and ABC Corps here locally and with your continued support of your local union leadership there's no reason to think XYZ or ABC would ever pull out of Rustbelt City.....

....So reassured it won't happen to him, Joe Union goes home content....

Point being, even for those that follow the news/current events, until something happens locally, it doesn't hit home. Often that is too late

Point being, even for those that follow the news/current events, until something happens locally, it doesn't hit home. Often that is too late Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I knew there was a point somewhere in that alphabet soup of a paragraph!

People hate change....even when it is in their best intrest. Why do you think people stay in shitty relationships. No different with people's work.

A union's purpose is to give the employees a voice. An employee in a union usually is paid a higher wage than a person outside of one. When a union and company collectively bargain a contract both sides are agreeing to to a set of work rules. When it said that there was once a purpose for unions but we no longer live in those times. I say we are right back where we started from. How many more jobs can we outsource to other countries for cheaper labor. Or higher illegal workers to drop labor costs. We hear about the high wages a union worker makes at GM, and how it is crippling the company. What about the CEO'S 20 Million yearly salary?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/...waukee_breakup

Damn Unions!

This is about as iconic as it get between brand and city.....

But reality is reality....if the Unions make the cost of manufacturing there uncompetitive why not move?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/...waukee_breakup

Damn Unions!

This is about as iconic as it get between brand and city.....

But reality is reality....if the Unions make the cost of manufacturing there uncompetitive why not move? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Not sure I would blame that on unions. I have a feeling that it is a combination of a lot of things. I mean Harley's are a luxury item. All luxury items and dealers have taken a massive hit in the last few years. As a luxury item how many people use them as their primary mode of travel? My guess is not many. So most of them sit around in a garage and don't need replacing. Not to mention, how many hawgs does one person need? Thus my guess, they are just suffering like everyone else.

Good god. People are evil if they want to make a living wage.
So more than one TV and more than one car is excessive unless you're part of the elite. There are millions of Indian's and Chinese that will make your widgets for chump change. You can hug your gold coins in comfort.
Or should I have said, "Let them eat cake."

Good god. People are evil if they want to make a living wage.
So more than one TV and more than one car is excessive unless you're part of the elite. There are millions of Indian's and Chinese that will make your widgets for chump change. You can hug your gold coins in comfort.
Or should I have said, "Let them eat cake." Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

No MA...people are not evil if they want to make a living wage. Now that we are past that diversion from reality...define living wage.

ROE is always going to be the driving force. If ROE is not high enough to attract E...then there is no need for the expenses (jobs) to be deducted from revenue (goods and services) to create the R to the E.

Do you want to limit ROE? Fine by me. Then the E will seek out a venue that does not limit the ROE.

There is obviously a balance that must be achieved between the expenses and the E. More than one car or one TV is far from excessive...until the guy who has the two cars and two TVs starts trying to take the money away from the guy who went without that extra car or TV years ago...so that he can have three of each today.

Personal Freedom requires Personal Responsibility...they cannot be separated no matter how hard you try. More freedom...more responsibility. Less responsibility...less freedom. It really is as simple as that.

What do you folks think about efforts to pass the "Employee Free Choice Act?"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40642.html

That seems like a misnomer to me, since it robs employees of the secret ballot in organization elections. As I recall, even George McGovern wrote an op-ed opposing it a couple of years ago. He said he feels that the secret ballot, long in place, is something that should be held sacrosanct.

It does not seem to me that McGovern's pro-labor bona fides would be in doubt.

ROE is always going to be the driving force. If ROE is not high enough to attract E...then there is no need for the expenses (jobs) to be deducted from revenue (goods and services) to create the R to the E.

Do you want to limit ROE? Fine by me. . Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I wonder who read this and thought we'd thread drift into abortion rights?

The other thing that always gets lost when the discussion goes down this path is the "E" is not Wall Street fat cats but institutions that run middle class pensions and retirement plans...you & me & Marcus & the school teacher at the local emementary & (hold it) even the shift worker in Milwaukee

What do you folks think about efforts to pass the "Employee Free Choice Act?"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40642.html

That seems like a misnomer to me, since it robs employees of the secret ballot in organization elections. As I recall, even George McGovern wrote an op-ed opposing it a couple of years ago. He said he feels that the secret ballot, long in place, is something that should be held sacrosanct.

It does not seem to me that McGovern's pro-labor bona fides would be in doubt. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I don't know anything about it other than what you posted here. But the only rational I can concieve of for a non-secret ballot...would be to put peer pressure on others. Not exactly a "vote your conscience" attitude.

No MA...people are not evil if they want to make a living wage. Now that we are past that diversion from reality...define living wage.

ROE is always going to be the driving force. If ROE is not high enough to attract E...then there is no need for the expenses (jobs) to be deducted from revenue (goods and services) to create the R to the E.

Do you want to limit ROE? Fine by me. Then the E will seek out a venue that does not limit the ROE.

There is obviously a balance that must be achieved between the expenses and the E. More than one car or one TV is far from excessive...until the guy who has the two cars and two TVs starts trying to take the money away from the guy who went without that extra car or TV years ago...so that he can have three of each today.

Personal Freedom requires Personal Responsibility...they cannot be separated no matter how hard you try. More freedom...more responsibility. Less responsibility...less freedom. It really is as simple as that. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I agree that personal responsibility is lost on those that could benefit from it.