View Full Version : Unions: Where did the U.S.A. go wrong?
Prompted by a sub-topic in another thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129950-The-Republican-Party-has-finally-gotten-to-reinvent-itself.-I-m-so-proud.).
What's the hate against trade unions in America? Without it you'll probably be in the same working conditions as in the Industrial Revolution.
In fairness to Republicans, we Americans have really screwed the union thing up. I know, I know, it works fine in Japan and South Korea and Germany, but somehow we got the whole union concept upside down. I'm not sure how we did it.
Most of the things we thank unions for are now matters of law (no 90-hour workweeks, child labor, etc.), so maybe our unions just got lost once they won. Or something. I don't really know, and haven't studied the subject in depth. But I do know that other countries make the union thing work, and we don't.
Not quite. I know it's common for people to assume that unions just phased out because they weren't needed anymore, but the fact that productivity has skyrocketed over the last 40 years while wages have largely stagnated turns that theory on its head. The real reason unions don't hold much sway is because they've had their power forcibly stripped from them by conservative leglislation; i'ts not like America has some unique trait that stops unioins from being doable like they are everywhere else.
Bull jabarto. Unions have way to much power and its not good. Its a legitimate economic belief unions aren't needed when workers gain a voice and protection.
The reason unions are nigh on useless in the US is because they are greedy for power and money and influence. Workers left them because they realized unions protect useless people with seniority at the expense of those who are more competent.
Teacher's unions protect those who sexually harass students and make it impossible to fire them in some cases.
Police unions protect those dangerously incompetent or violent.
I don't know what is worse, working in a place with corrupt unionizing or working in a country without unions period.
Which was followed by some complex cross-quoting posts that I don't know how to reproduce.
Again, if we accept that unions are messed up in America, this raises some questions:
Why do unions seem to be so much less screwed-up in places such as Japan and Germany? What are they doing right that we are doing wrong?
How/why did American unions become so adversarial?
Are unions in the U.S.A. fixable? Should they be fixed?
If unions evaporate from the economic life of America, what will the net effect be?
Are unions replaceable by labor laws?
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has made a real study of the subject (which I have not). Skip the political talking points about how all unions are bad or how all unions are good, please. Clearly they can be a bit of both, and just as clearly we in the U.S.A. missed the boat somehow.
Prompted by a sub-topic in another thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129950-The-Republican-Party-has-finally-gotten-to-reinvent-itself.-I-m-so-proud.).
Which was followed by some complex cross-quoting posts that I don't know how to reproduce.
Again, if we accept that unions are messed up in America, this raises some questions:
Why do unions seem to be so much less screwed-up in places such as Japan and Germany? What are they doing right that we are doing wrong?
How/why did American unions become so adversarial?
Are unions in the U.S.A. fixable? Should they be fixed?
If unions evaporate from the economic life of America, what will the net effect be?
Are unions replaceable by labor laws?
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has made a real study of the subject (which I have not). Skip the political talking points about how all unions are bad or how all unions are good, please. Clearly they can be a bit of both, and just as clearly we in the U.S.A. missed the boat somehow.
Lemur's quote was probably the best. Although it works fine in other countries, unions in the USA are a whole different breed. It is interesting that people who don't live in a heavily unionized state, let alone America , speak like they know what they are talking about it. (sorry for the political crap, I'll get to your questions now)
1) I'm not really qualified to answer the question since I'm not very knowledge, but I'll give it a crack. Work Ethic and culture would probably play into it. I'd imagine the union would be less about personal gain, but more about the good of all.
2) Greed. It's as simple as that. To use the auto companies in Michigan as an example, the unions kept asking for more, and the car companies, not wanting to upset earnings in the short term, gave it to them.
3) Unions are very fixable. Again, my home state of Michigan is a good example. Due the government bailouts and auto company reorganizations, many union benefits have been slashed, work hours increased, and starting salaries lowered. If you ask me, to screw a door on a car at an assembley plant is not rocekt science as evidence by the mass hiring of unskilled workers straight out of high school. The new salary/benefits better reflects this.
Should they be fixed? Sort of. They should be gradually phased out over time. Anyone a current union employee, should stay one. All new hires would be exempt.
4) You would see companies opening up more shop in the Northern States because they would be able to directly compete with the Southern Right to Work states. There was a gubernatorial candidate (who didn't win unforunately) who ran in an ad in the primaries which compared unioned states to right to work states via unemployment. Guess who was 5% lower?
5) In short, yes.
I can't format my reply because of the forums downgrade that happened recently, so this will be a little disorganized.
1. Screwed up is a very vague term. What does it mean to you?
2. Because their emplyers won't stop exploiting them right to the edge of what society will bear.
3. Absolutely.
4. Short answer: the rich would flouirish to unimaginable levels and the poor would be stripped of what little protections they have at work.
5. No. Without unions those laws will be eroded.
Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.
Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.
I don't see where I have made the argument that "truth is always in the middle." That would be a surprising thing for me to write or say, given that I don't believe it. Even more surprising to hear that from South Park, given how they've never made that argument, um, ever.
Rather, I understand how the need for unions arose, I understand the good unions did, and I have seen firsthand how messed-up they can be today. I can't go into too much detail, but I have done work for a manufacturer who has a strong union presence in-house. The union employees take an extremely adversarial attitude toward management, the company, and pretty much anybody who wanders by. To call their attitude "counterproductive" would be an epic understatement. Just go ahead and attempt to move a cable out of your way, and watch the guys freak out. You're gonna cost somebody his job if you touch that cable!
I've got a hazy outline of a theory, that the breakdown of unions is really a breakdown of management, that bad executives have allowed an us v. them attitude to fester in some industries, which led to a polarization between labor and management. But I haven't done deep reading or study on the subject, so I can't assert anything with confidence.
I don't see where I have made the argument that "truth is always in the middle." That would be a surprising thing for me to write or say, given that I don't believe it. Even more surprising to hear that from South Park, given how they've never made that argument, um, ever.
Rather, I understand how the need for unions arose, I understand the good unions did, and I have seen firsthand how messed-up they can be today. I can't go into too much detail, but I have done work for a manufacturer who has a strong union presence in-house. The union employees take an extremely adversarial attitude toward management, the company, and pretty much anybody who wanders by. To call their attitude "counterproductive" would be an epic understatement. Just go ahead and attempt to move a cable out of your way, and watch the guys freak out. You're gonna cost somebody his job if you touch that cable!
I've got a hazy outline of a theory, that the breakdown of unions is really a breakdown of management, that bad executives have allowed an us v. them attitude to fester in some industries, which led to a polarization between labor and management. But I haven't done deep reading or study on the subject, so I can't assert anything with confidence.
ALright, I guess that was a little aggressive of me. I'm sorry.
My point still stands, though; by saying that "some unions are good, some are bad", you're ascribing to them this kind of moral ambiguity that simply doesn't exist. There are bad unions - the prison workers' union in CA comes to mind - but that's literally the only valid example of unions causing serious trouble that I've ever heard. The overwhelming mojaority are agents of good.
I can't format my reply because of the forums downgrade that happened recently, so this will be a little disorganized.
1. Screwed up is a very vague term. What does it mean to you?
2. Because their emplyers won't stop exploiting them right to the edge of what society will bear.
3. Absolutely.
4. Short answer: the rich would flouirish to unimaginable levels and the poor would be stripped of what little protections they have at work.
5. No. Without unions those laws will be eroded.
Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.
Newflash: It isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore.
My point still stands, though; by saying that "some unions are good, some are bad", you're ascribing to them this kind of moral ambiguity that simply doesn't exist. There are bad unions - the prison workers' union in CA comes to mind - but that's literally the only valid example of unions causing serious trouble that I've ever heard. The overwhelming mojaority are agents of good.
Ever heard of the United Auto Workers Union?
Do unions in Europe and Japan have mob ties?
Do unions in Europe and Japan have mob ties?
Dunno about Europe, but in Japan definitely. That said, the Yakuza have historically had ties to the extreme rightwing of Japanese politics, so the situation is a bit different from the U.S.A.
Skullheadhq
08-09-2010, 16:12
Newflash: It isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore.
So, if unions and labour laws would be abolished overnight won't employees radically cut salaries and decrease working condition and hire childen because it isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore?
So, if unions and labour laws would be abolished overnight won't employees radically cut salaries and decrease working condition and hire childen because it isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore?
Labor laws should not be abolished and no.
Skullheadhq
08-09-2010, 16:46
Labor laws should not be abolished and no.
Ehm, you were implying that things like this could never happen today because companies are ethical now and therefore unions are unnecessary, this is total nonsense seeing as Nike and other companies are using child labor in Pakistan and paying them close to nothing.
NEWSFLASH: Companies didn't change a thing since the beginning of the 20th century, they are only doing it in countries with weak to outlawed unions without labour laws.
Ever heard of the United Auto Workers Union?
The auto industries did not fail because of unionized labor. They fell because they produced terrible cars that nobody wanted. But go ahead and keep blaming unions for bad management decisions. :dizzy2:
seireikhaan
08-09-2010, 20:36
Ehm, you were implying that things like this could never happen today because companies are ethical now and therefore unions are unnecessary, this is total nonsense seeing as Nike and other companies are using child labor in Pakistan and paying them close to nothing.
NEWSFLASH: Companies didn't change a thing since the beginning of the 20th century, they are only doing it in countries with weak to outlawed unions without labour laws.
In other news, just over 12% of US employees are in unions. Linky (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). And, lo and behold, we have not turned into Columbia. Imo, unions are only necessary for highly dangerous professions, such as mining. Otherwise, it seems they're pretty obsolete, given such a vast majority choose not to participate in them.
In other news, just over 12% of US employees are in unions. Linky (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). And, lo and behold, we have not turned into Columbia. Imo, unions are only necessary for highly dangerous professions, such as mining. Otherwise, it seems they're pretty obsolete, given such a vast majority choose not to participate in them.
You are aware that even suggesting that a work force be unioniized can be grounds for the company firing every last employee and shutting down the workpace, right? It's happened before with WalMart. So while there probably are people who don't want to unionize, that's realy a moot point compared to how hard it is to actually do so if you want to.
Also, remember that unions exist to protect their employees from unfair practices, which are hardlyexclusive to dangerous professions. Anyone can be exploited, and everyone needs protection from it.
I'd say the fall of unions probably goes hand in hand with the growth of their incestuous relationship with government. The majority of union members are now government employees- the vicious circle that can lead to is dizzying.
Of course, that's in addition to some of the things that Lemur touched on such as early unions achieving much of their goals via labor laws.
Crazed Rabbit
08-09-2010, 23:24
You are aware that even suggesting that a work force be unioniized can be grounds for the company firing every last employee and shutting down the workpace, right? It's happened before with WalMart.
And WalMart, unlike the unionized auto makers, is not in danger of bankruptcy. Which means the employees there aren't getting laid off like at the auto plants.
Also, remember that unions exist to protect their employees from unfair practices, which are hardlyexclusive to dangerous professions. Anyone can be exploited, and everyone needs protection from it.
That's why we have laws. And people able to protect themselves.
Unions are, in the US, a permanent solution to a temporary problem. They fought for laws stopping mistreatment and exploitation and they got them. And now what?
It seems the big unions exist only to gouge more out of the business and expand membership. There's a very good reason they're shrinking in the private sector; people don't want to join them.
Unions aren't being judged worthless by some evil vast right wing conspiracy, but by the workers of the United States.
CR
And WalMart, unlike the unionized auto makers, is not in danger of bankruptcy. Which means the employees there aren't getting laid off like at the auto plants.
That's why we have laws. And people able to protect themselves.
Unions are, in the US, a permanent solution to a temporary problem. They fought for laws stopping mistreatment and exploitation and they got them. And now what?
It seems the big unions exist only to gouge more out of the business and expand membership. There's a very good reason they're shrinking in the private sector; people don't want to join them.
Unions aren't being judged worthless by some evil vast right wing conspiracy, but by the workers of the United States.
CR
Why do you think it is that people don't want to join unions?
You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy. In America, the corporations run government, not the people and thus the corporations want to pay their people as low as possible and in the worse conditions as possible, for maximum profitability.
Ehm, you were implying that things like this could never happen today because companies are ethical now and therefore unions are unnecessary,
I would say companies are more ethical today simply because of public perception and outside pressure. You can't exactly work someone in dangerous conditions, without a break, and 6 days a week for minimal pay without getting bad publicity.
this is total nonsense seeing as Nike and other companies are using child labor in Pakistan and paying them close to nothing.
See my above comment. I disagree with third world sweat shops. This discussion isn't about that though.
NEWSFLASH: Companies didn't change a thing since the beginning of the 20th century, they are only doing it in countries with weak to outlawed unions without labour laws.
Stop trying to be a smart***... you are failing miserably. Did I ever say we needed less labor laws? In fact, these laws can act as very good subsitutes for most unions.
The auto industries did not fail because of unionized labor. They fell because they produced terrible cars that nobody wanted. But go ahead and keep blaming unions for bad management decisions.
Keep trying to simply the problem. Reread my post... here I'll post the important part for you.
Greed. It's as simple as that. To use the auto companies in Michigan as an example, the unions kept asking for more, and the car companies, not wanting to upset earnings in the short term, gave it to them.
Does this sound like I'm soley blaming the unions? BAD MANAGEMENT DECISIONS empowered the unions.
You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy. In America, the corporations run government, not the people and thus the corporations want to pay their people as low as possible and in the worse conditions as possible, for maximum profitability.And if you're unlucky enough (as I am) to work at a union shop in a state without right to work laws, you can be fired for not joining a union. I guess that's alot better though.....
Crazed Rabbit
08-10-2010, 03:35
You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy.
Any proof of this? Thought not.
In America, the corporations run government, not the people and thus the corporations want to pay their people as low as possible and in the worse conditions as possible, for maximum profitability.
Oh really? So that's why the minimum wage was raised recently.
Here's something else socialists and other economic illiterates don't seem to understand;
Treating Employees Terribly and having awful working conditions IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS.
Good grief, it's like you base how ideological opponents act on nightmarish strawman arguments.
Why do you think it is that people don't want to join unions?
Maybe they want to be promoted based on merit, and not have incompetent employees who've been there longer be promoted first. Maybe they don't want to be forced to donate to the political causes the union favors. Maybe they don't want incompetent and lazy employees to be protected by the union, which means they have to work harder to make up for it.
Oh, and from the other thread; what are those 'conservative anti-union laws' passed that caused unions to decrease?
CR
Treating Employees Terribly and having awful working conditions IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS.
CR
Yes...
This is why I'm probably going to go with the accounting firm that offers a good/work life balance, but doesn't abuse you like the large heavy hitters. So true
Here's something else socialists and other economic illiterates don't seem to understand;
Treating Employees Terribly and having awful working conditions IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS.
This is so astonishingly naive it blows my mind. Corporations have killed to keep people from unionizing, for God's sake.
Any proof of this? Thought not.
http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/antiworker.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2004/Wal-Mart-Labor-Record16feb04.htm
http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/wal_marts_last_stand_against_unionization/
Then there is first hand experience from working at Walmart, where they even try to con people into using their own special 'lawfirm' to take up law suits against them (lol?) opposed to real representation from a Union, and other measures. Then there are experiences from others, including Americans which have relayed stories of this happening to them, and the fact is it pretty much 'public knowledge' says a lot.
Oh, and CR? Remember when I asked you about your economics background?
I did that because of statements like the one you just made. I did that because you clearly have no grasp of history.
I mean, come on. If you didn't know that it was less than a century ago that companies were literally gunning people down in the streets rather than pay them a living wage in this very country, then you really haven't examined the history behind my argument at all.
Mind you this says nothing of the third world, where things like this still happen on a regular basis. Look up what happened to Coca-Cola employess in Colombia when they tried to unionize; the only reason that doesn't happen here is because of the unions you want to dismantle.
PanzerJaeger
08-10-2010, 04:55
The idea that the United States is somehow singularly affected by union issues is a bit off. South Korea, France, and many other developed countries have far more militant unions than those in America. It was big news in South Korea when the major auto manufacturers managed to secure a deal with the unions that gave them a year (2010) with no strikes. 2011 is almost guaranteed to revert to the norm of highly disruptive strikes.
Japan and Germany have unusually cooperative relationships between management, unions, and government when it comes to manufacturing and export policy. I believe it is mostly due to a higher tendency towards collectivism in their respective cultures versus the United States.
Oh, and CR? Remember when I asked you about your economics background?
I did that because of statements like the one you just made. I did that because you clearly have no grasp of history.
I mean, come on. If you didn't know that it was less than a century ago that companies were literally gunning people down in the streets rather than pay them a living wage in this very country, then you really haven't examined the history behind my argument at all.
Mind you this says nothing of the third world, where things like this still happen on a regular basis. Look up what happened to Coca-Cola employess in Colombia when they tried to unionize; the only reason that doesn't happen here is because of the unions you want to dismantle.The social, demographic, and regulatory structure of the US is worlds apart today than it was 100yrs ago. If the only difference you see is unions, then I'd be more worried about your own grasp on history. :dizzy:
Sasaki Kojiro
08-10-2010, 05:42
We should promote unions, give women the right to vote, and end segregation. That's my belief.
PanzerJaeger
08-10-2010, 05:49
We should promote unions, give women the right to vote, and end segregation. That's my belief.
That's dangerous thinking, son.
Crazed Rabbit
08-10-2010, 06:17
http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/antiworker.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2004/Wal-Mart-Labor-Record16feb04.htm
http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/wal_marts_last_stand_against_unionization/
Then there is first hand experience from working at Walmart, where they even try to con people into using their own special 'lawfirm' to take up law suits against them (lol?) opposed to real representation from a Union, and other measures. Then there are experiences from others, including Americans which have relayed stories of this happening to them, and the fact is it pretty much 'public knowledge' says a lot.
First hand experience? I didn't read anything there.
You said;
You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy.
and did not provide any examples of that. The links showed only that WalMart closed one store after 51% of employees signed union cards - not even 51% of employees actually voting for a union - and ending a department after one place in Texas unionized. That's not being fired - that's the jobs not existing anymore. Walmart didn't hire anyone to take the place of the fired employees.
Nor did you provide one iota of evidence indicating any other corporation in the US did anything like what you allege.
removed; edited by Cleggy in original Thought not.
Have you been able to provide any evidence of what you claim? Do you have any real idea of the union situation in the US? Or do you just get neat little talking points and links from your favorite socialist blogs, then run and parrot them without any comprehension or experience in what you're talking about? Have you ever been able to competently respond to my arguments? Or do you just ignore the facts that invalidate your farcical arguments?
I did that because of statements like the one you just made. I did that because you clearly have no grasp of history.
You have no grasp of the debate.
Did I say business did not act cruelly 100 years ago?
This is so astonishingly naive it blows my mind. Corporations have killed to keep people from unionizing, for God's sake.
Do you think whatever a company does is good business? Companies are made of people, and can be just as stupid as them. Just because a company has done something DOES NOT MEAN IT'S SMART.
Maybe this is the socialists problem. They see a company be immoral, and they assume that what they do is more profitable, so they blame the evils of capitalism for incentivizing companies to do it instead of the human stupidity of the companies.
I mean, come on. If you didn't know that it was less than a century ago that companies were literally gunning people down in the streets rather than pay them a living wage in this very country, then you really haven't examined the history behind my argument at all.
I never said anything that contradicts this. Perhaps you should understand what I'm saying. Yes, companies were cruel, in terms of conditions, wages, and responses to strikes. THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT GOOD BUSINESS.
Look at how Ford began paying $5 a day to employees, an unheard-of high wage at the time, and became more profitable.
And if you want to talk about what companies did 100 years ago, you should remember that unions aren't needed now for the reasons they were then.
CR
Ironside
08-10-2010, 10:46
I never said anything that contradicts this. Perhaps you should understand what I'm saying. Yes, companies were cruel, in terms of conditions, wages, and responses to strikes. THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT GOOD BUSINESS.
Look at how Ford began paying $5 a day to employees, an unheard-of high wage at the time, and became more profitable.
And if you want to talk about what companies did 100 years ago, you should remember that unions aren't needed now for the reasons they were then.
CR
Could you please define "good business"? Is that goal the same as what is driven through the stockmarket? Or a CEO employed for a few years while making a bonus on profitability? How are companies run today compared to what you consider good business?
As for Fordism itself, the top value for the median US household income was reached 1999. You sure it's still working properly?
It always perturbs me when the ones saying Fordism is the solution are celebrating reduced salary/working conditions. Yes I can understand the difference between one company and the whole market, but at some points, these two matters meet and yet it's ignored. See the salary slashing due to the recession.
Might not be entirely on topic, but these are issues needed to be handled with.
Do unions in Europe and Japan have mob ties?
worse...they have political party ties.
over here the biggest union blocks are basically used as "force multipliers" by the political parties.
If you abolish workers' interest groups, then you should also abolish employers' interest groups, nature interest groups, gun interest groups, military interest groups, muslim interest groups, christian interest groups, jewish interest groups and any other lobby group there is, since they all work towards their own goals, every single one of them. And they all try to influence the government and get things done their way. I wouldn't be surprised if they have mob ties in many of them either, isn't the italian mafia kinda catholic anyway?
The problem is if you abolish the worker unions but not the labour laws, the employer unions will have more power to convince the government to abolish those labour laws in the long run, or at least erode them, so either you keep all your interest groups or none.
If you abolish workers' interest groups, then you should also abolish employers' interest groups, nature interest groups, gun interest groups, military interest groups, muslim interest groups, christian interest groups, jewish interest groups and any other lobby group there is, since they all work towards their own goals, every single one of them. And they all try to influence the government and get things done their way. I wouldn't be surprised if they have mob ties in many of them either, isn't the italian mafia kinda catholic anyway?
The problem is if you abolish the worker unions but not the labour laws, the employer unions will have more power to convince the government to abolish those labour laws in the long run, or at least erode them, so either you keep all your interest groups or none.
Why do you think America basically abolished unions? The Corporations run the government and didn't like it. It meant they had to possible pay people what they were worth.
a completely inoffensive name
08-11-2010, 08:39
I'm actually leaning more toward what CR has been saying about poor treatment being bad business. However, I think the reasons for this incentive of poor treatment=bad business have been from reasons other then purely free market interactions. I think that nowadays companies would not be interested in attempting to reduce wages back down to the Gilded Age style of pennies for hours. The reason for that is because nowadays the media is global, fast and most importantly interactive. A YouTube video can make the news, so people do have more inherent power in creating bad PR for companies then ever before. However, that doesn't stop the companies from attempting to keep wages as close the minimum wage as possible such as with Wal Mart.
Secondly, I agree that unions are no longer useful in their original role in protecting wages and jobs for their members through acting as representative for workers. Laws have been established that have cemented those protections in our country. However, I think we do still need unions which I will explain in my next point below.
Thirdly, the problem that seems to be arising in America stems from economic recession periods, where short sighted companies do attempt to save in the short run by drastically reducing wages and benefits to unacceptable levels for our standard of living (a modern western nation's standard of living just to clarify). The media factor doesn't come into play here, because in an economic downturn we often see the general attitude of Americans to be "don't complain at least you have a job". Technically, I guess you could call this what others have claimed (and CR has acknowledged) to be the "stupidity of humans who run companies". Theoretically, once the recession is over people should remember who treated their employers badly and who treated them right during the recession, so those who were attempting to save in the short run, fail in the long run. This would make it seem as if the companies that do survive would be the ones that treated their employers right. This would be free market capitalism solving our problems for us. However, you could argue that those that save in the short term are able to outlast the recession while those that keep wages up for their employers are likely to die in the recession, so those with the bad policies would survive.
In either case, if the good companies win the long run, we still need to be realistic here and see that those working for the short sighted companies still suffer from terrible wage cuts during a bad economic period, in which case asking your congress to react quickly by raising the minimum wage would be a somewhat ridiculous hope to bet on. So unions do help when those crisis moments hit, not by holding out for more money, but by serving as a lobby group to help push the bill through congress, speeding the process up faster then normally. Now if the bad companies win in the long run because their penny pinching lasted them through the recession when others didn't, then obviously we still have a need for unions to actively counter and reverse the companies hurtful policies.
I still haven't thought all this through I admit. But I will say, that there is a definite middle here. We don't need unions to holding out as greedy ********, (asking full dental and medical for grocery baggers when the company just cant afford it), anymore since we don't live in an age of blatant Rockefeller's and Carnegie's anymore. (To say that, would honestly be hyperbole.) But, workers need some sort of lobby group as do any other group in America. So I see unions to be more of a lobby group (or should be more of a lobby group) then anything else in this modern age, just as gun owners have the NRA, animal rights have PETA, workers have their unions.
Honestly, if it was up to me I would restructure/reclassify unions as an interest group and make it so that they only interact with the government and not be involved in company to worker contracts. If the company starts putting the hurt on workers, then give more union dues to the unions, the more fervent and wealthy the interest group is, the more successful it is, just ask the NRA.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-11-2010, 17:32
Dear Pro-simian:
I would assert that two themes provide a lot of explanative power for the difference in efficacy between unions in the USA and unions in the rest of the G8 (let's set the rest of hte top 20 aside for the moment). First, unions in the USA have not adapted to changing conditions in the global marketplace either in a business sense or a political sense, and second, there has always been a basic disconnect between the classic culture of unionism and US culture.
Efficacy and change:
The globalized marketplace heightens competitive pressure on organizations. In a world with nearly instantaneous communication and fairly inexpensive world transport for many goods, virtually ALL manufacturing concerns have to be able to be competitive with all other companies in a given industry. Caterpillar competes with Komatsu etc. Assuming roughly similar quality of product, anything that drives Caterpillar's production cost higher than the combined cost of manufacture/transport for Komatsu loses them business. Sneakers manufactured to equivalent quality levels by intelligent and hard-working Vietnamese laborers -- where the average per capita income is roughly 1 USD per day -- often cost less, AFTER shipping and importation fees than would the same product manufactured by a US labor force at 90 USD per day. Companies can easily compensate a Vietnamese employee at double or triple the local wage, getting the best of the best of the local workforce, while paying less labor cost for their products. Even companies that would have preferred to stay in the USA and employ that workforce were under pressure to quit doing so. Despite which the Unions often flatly rejected the idea of reduction in compensation and criticized company leaders for their unwillingness to decrease shareholder profits in order to maintain workforce numbers and compensation levels. This last is a complete disconnect with the raison d'etre of most companies.
In addition, US unions have failed to adapt to the growth of the service/information economy. Solidarity and Organizing were (and in some ways still are) the critical elements of union power in a manufacturing environment, but they fail to address the role of the individual or the individuals knowledge/skills that are absolutely central in an info-serv economy. Rather than adapting to the centrality of individual development and adopting some of the vital components of professional associations (a code of ethics, self-regulation/policing via peer review, continued education and skill improvement, etc.) that would have allowed them to alter to their new context, unions have continued with the same old mantra. Having used their political leverage to allow the unionization of public sector employees so as to protect those employee's rights (rather surprising really, as even in the bad old days of the 1940s it was rather difficult to view public sector bureacrats as "threatened"...) WITHOUT changing the basic model of power through numbers and all employees being "the same" and requiring help against the self-serving owners who would readily discard any employee who annoyed them or wanted to improve working conditions. Public sector employees (teacher's and civil service) now represent mor than 2.5 million of the AFL-CIO's 11 million members. Throw in the 3.2 million members of the NEA, and of the roughly 15.3 million union members in the USA (12.3% of total workforce) more than 40% are public sector employees....who were covered by civil service work rules even prior to their unionization. By the way, put in the words "code of ethics" on the AFL-CIO website. You'll be rewarded with multiple hits, exactly NONE of which lay out a code of ethics expected of AFL-CIO individual or organizational members. Unions in the USA have not kept pace with the times.
Culture:
The USA has, and always has had, a relatively flexible society. If you were the son of a Welsh coal miner in 1880, the chances of you not ending up in a coal mine were slim and almost all of them involved taking the Queen's shilling. Even at the height of the "robber baron" era in the USA, when Catholic immigrants were spat upon and U.S.-born blacks were faced with virtual serfdom, there was STILL more social and economic mobility than almost anywhere else in Europe, Asia, or Africa. In the USA, the odds against you becoming one of the real "haves" were pretty steep. In Europe the chance was almost non-existent.
Absent that chance for significant social mobility, Unionism was more or less vital. Without it, who would speak for workers at all? Labor unionism quickly became THE means for social equality, or at least the improvement of the standard of living for anyone in Europe's working class. It is little wonder that unions and unionism became such an integral component of the socio-political culture in Europe. Japan's unions were, and are, uniquely suited to the Japanese culture as a whole, where emphasis on the collective and the community takes a decidedly different turn than it does in the "West."
In the USA, there was a real frontier open to all until into the early 20th. Even after that, unionism never really took hold anywhere where work conditions were reasonable for those employed (some of the health and safety stuff that formed our strongest unions was every bit as 'life and death' as the issues in Europe and numerous companies were grossly negligent -- and sometimes actively exploitative -- of their workforces). The "wobblies" never could get enough groundswell in the USA. US unions have "international" headquarters, but never really were part of the "internationale." US workers were and are US first and union second. In contrast, unionism in Europe has always had more of an international character as well as a much more inimical association with Marxism and its emphasis on power vested in the proletariat.
All in all, unions are a necessary component of the economic and political landscape. Without unions, there is a measurable segment of the business community that will exploit workforces in the name of profits. Collective bargainin, for all its abuses, is one of the better components of self protection available to a workforce. Unfortunately for unions however, if they continue to lag behind in adapting to the new "global" context of economics and politics, if they continue to devote themselves to defending the interchangeable "bean" worker being exploited by management as opposed to becoming the catalyst for a worker's own advancement and improvement, they will marginalize themselves even further and their influence will continue to erode.
Well, there are otherways of handling the situation. Force companies to pay a 'fair wage' akin to the 'fair trade' movement. Also, while the world ends up developing, the same demands will be in those places as they are in the West, so the two companies internationally will be paying a similar wage bill. The answer is not to re-inforce wage-slavery arguing that you can pay some one in Timbuktoo with shiny beads.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-13-2010, 05:40
Well, there are otherways of handling the situation. Force companies to pay a 'fair wage' akin to the 'fair trade' movement. Also, while the world ends up developing, the same demands will be in those places as they are in the West, so the two companies internationally will be paying a similar wage bill. The answer is not to re-inforce wage-slavery arguing that you can pay some one in Timbuktoo with shiny beads.
No, you just want us to equalize outcomes by law. Good luck with that.
a completely inoffensive name
08-13-2010, 05:46
No, you just want us to equalize outcomes by law. Good luck with that.
That seems like a baseless accusation. Support that please. (I'm just trying to absorb as many view points here since I've never actually been in a union).
Crazed Rabbit
08-13-2010, 05:56
Well, there are otherways of handling the situation. Force companies to pay a 'fair wage' akin to the 'fair trade' movement. Also, while the world ends up developing, the same demands will be in those places as they are in the West, so the two companies internationally will be paying a similar wage bill. The answer is not to re-inforce wage-slavery arguing that you can pay some one in Timbuktoo with shiny beads.
Fair trade is hogwash. Forcing foreign companies to pay higher wages just takes away from the main economic advantage those foreign workers have; the willingness to work for lower wages. Using law to force those wages up to parity with western workers will just result in those foreign workers not being employed at all. It's got nothing to do with helping foreign workers from the union's viewpoint, and everything to do with helping themselves. (Note: by foreign workers I'm refering to third world workers as in China, Asia, etc.)
Seamus, as usual, makes very good and eloquent points. I'll expand a bit on the fact that unions, unlike engineering associations (for example), don't try to increase the skills of their members in order to respond and adapt to a changing world. They just try to prevent the world from changing.
Oh, and as a prime example of US unions being messed up; Here we have a vide detailing what choice various California unions made between more money and power and epeleptic schoolchildren in danger of dying. The unions chose money and power, of course:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE9PkClweJc&feature=player_embedded
Congress has passed a $26 billion aid package that is intended to save the jobs of thousands of teachers, nurses, and other public-sector employees. To critics who call the measure a "special interest" bill, President Barack Obama says, "I suppose if America's children and the safety of our communities are your special interest, then it is a special interest bill."
In politics everyone claims to be on the side of the children, but who really is? Pat DeLorenzo is a parent whose daughter suffers from epilepsy. Like roughly 10,000 other epileptic schoolchildren in California, eight-year-old Gianna suffers from the type of prolonged seizures that, without immediate attention, can result in brain damage or death. After witnessing the response of teachers and school nurses to one of his daughter's life-threatening seizures, Pat DeLorenzo now believes that teachers and nurses care more about protecting union jobs than saving epileptic children.
DeLorenzo feared the worst when he receive a call from his daughter's school, informing him that she had suffered a seizure. Gianna survived that day, but DeLorenzo was outraged that school administrators had not given his daughter Diastat, a drug that stops seizures before they do permanent harm and is FDA-approved for use by laypeople. Today many schoolchildren must wait until an ambulance brings them to a hospital before they receive Diastat. That's much too long, says DeLorenzo who supports, SB 1051, a California bill that would allow trained non-medical volunteers to administer Diastat at schools.
Epilepsy advocates like the Epilepsy Foundation and physicians groups like the California Medical Association have lined up to support the bill. Unions representing teachers, nurses, and other public employees have lined up in opposition, claiming the bill would put children in danger. Their solution: hire more school nurses.
"The unions are not on the side of the kids," says DeLorenzo who believes unions are more interested in expanding their ranks than protecting epileptic children.
"It's exactly the opposite," says Gayle McClean, southern section president of the California School Nurses Organization and a member of the California Teachers Association. "We care deeply for children and we want them to receive the most appropriate care and that means they need a licensed medical person caring for them."
Sacramento lawmakers sided with unions and have refused to bring the bill up for a vote. The bill will officially expire on August 31.
Stay classy scumbags.
CR
a completely inoffensive name
08-13-2010, 06:13
Fair trade is hogwash. Forcing foreign companies to pay higher wages just takes away from the main economic advantage those foreign workers have; the willingness to work for lower wages. Using law to force those wages up to parity with western workers will just result in those foreign workers not being employed at all. It's got nothing to do with helping foreign workers from the union's viewpoint, and everything to do with helping themselves. (Note: by foreign workers I'm refering to third world workers as in China, Asia, etc.)
Seamus, as usual, makes very good and eloquent points. I'll expand a bit on the fact that unions, unlike engineering associations (for example), don't try to increase the skills of their members in order to respond and adapt to a changing world. They just try to prevent the world from changing.
Oh, and as a prime example of US unions being messed up; Here we have a vide detailing what choice various California unions made between more money and power and epeleptic schoolchildren in danger of dying. The unions chose money and power, of course:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE9PkClweJc&feature=player_embedded
Stay classy scumbags.
CR
It's stuff like that which makes lean toward your position CR. Out of all the unions, the teachers union is the worst, I have learned that from what little experience I have from talking with my high school teachers. Unions have become a business, and their business is workers so all they want is more union due paying workers.
EDIT: Also, I agree fair trade is backwards, don't ruin the free market by taking away what it does best, finding the best way to maximize capital gains through competitive advantages.
Fair trade is hogwash. Forcing foreign companies to pay higher wages just takes away from the main economic advantage those foreign workers have; the willingness to work for lower wages. Using law to force those wages up to parity with western workers will just result in those foreign workers not being employed at all. It's got nothing to do with helping foreign workers from the union's viewpoint, and everything to do with helping themselves. (Note: by foreign workers I'm refering to third world workers as in China, Asia, etc.)
Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week and you come in here talking about "competitive advantage" saying how Unions hate kids while you advocate exploitation and child labour? Because that is the reality of the situation, some one setting up a factory in an Indian slum, taking advantage of the people in desperate need there.
Nothing to do about "the willingness to work for lower wages.", it is unethical exploitation and wage-slavery of those in need.
Hilarious.
Oh, as for Fair Trade, it isn't counter-productive, since people are being paid far below the worth of those products for profit, and they don't have the choice in the matter, again, another place of unethical exploitation by Corporations.
Forcing an international minimum wage (doesn't have to be as high as the one in the UK or US), would greatly improve the situations of many.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voVgTkTUKFc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hotNa3RVks
Obviously, all part of "advantages of the free-market", :daisy:ing people over and unethical exploitation.
ajaxfetish
08-13-2010, 14:28
Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week
I admit I haven't studied this, so I'm open to correction, but I find this claim hard to believe without supporting evidence. Do you have any data to back this up?
Ajax
Tellos Athenaios
08-13-2010, 15:00
Hmm. Roughly speaking ever company that makes shoes has seen such a scandal in the not to distant past. Child labour is still very much a fact of 3rd world life, and employing child labour is still very much a fact of multinational manufacturer CEO life.
Personally I doubt the Fair trade “movement” idea, is hogwash. It's aims are not for a global, cutthroat free-market capitalist environment. Its aims are to improve the working conditions of those who are decidedly in the lower half of this capitalist food-chain (if you will), and raising awareness in the top-half. Which isn't a bad set of goals in and of themselves; and the practices they employ have a highly free-market touch to them (setting up your own companies to compete with mainstream, raising awareness so people can vote with their dollar or euro or yen).
Anyway. Fair trade is not just about “forcing companies” to pay higher wages to local workers. It is also about setting up own corporations with the aim of increasing the wage of the participants. For farmers it is like a reverse-union (and not unlike what farmers did in the 19th/20th century over here) except without a USA or EU pumping in vast amounts of money to prop 'em up, or a Japan to ban all that they didn't make.
I admit I haven't studied this, so I'm open to correction, but I find this claim hard to believe without supporting evidence. Do you have any data to back this up?
Ajax
Actually, it is even worse. In one of the videos, a child labourer was paid $3.25 per week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTIfY9SmJdA
Quota of 150 per hour, paid $3.25 a week, 12 hour shifts. They get physically and verbally abused on a good day.
As for evidence, there are absolutely tons of it. Google will fill you with hits.
It is a shocking and depressing state of affairs, and I think some posters in this thread sum up the ignorant attitude typical of the west perfectly.
Personally I doubt the Fair trade “movement” idea, is hogwash. It's aims are not for a global, cutthroat free-market capitalist environment. Its aims are to improve the working conditions of those who are decidedly in the lower half of this capitalist food-chain (if you will), and raising awareness in the top-half. Which isn't a bad set of goals in and of themselves; and the practices they employ have a highly free-market touch to them (setting up your own companies to compete with mainstream, raising awareness so people can vote with their dollar or euro or yen).
Anyway. Fair trade is not just about “forcing companies” to pay higher wages to local workers. It is also about setting up own corporations with the aim of increasing the wage of the participants. For farmers it is like a reverse-union (and not unlike what farmers did in the 19th/20th century over here) except without a USA or EU pumping in vast amounts of money to prop 'em up, or a Japan to ban all that they didn't make.
I think that is a good summary of the Fair-Trade movement. It is encouraging more ethical wages for farmers and workers and better working conditions.
You want to know how much extra cost this is on the big multinationals? If Starbucks adopted the Fair-Trade policy, and got all their products from Fair-Trade suppliers, it would cost them 1 cent more per coffee.
They would still be raking in the profits.
Crazed Rabbit
08-13-2010, 17:24
Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week and you come in here talking about "competitive advantage" saying how Unions hate kids while you advocate exploitation and child labour?
Ah, how convenient. You ignore my deconstructing of your previous arguments and then jump back in with more wild accusations. An anecdote about one child be treated badly is not proof that the majority of foreign labor is child labor being paid a pittance for extremely long hours.
If you're angry about child labor, you should be scolding India for not banning it, or not enforcing said ban.
Because that is the reality of the situation, some one setting up a factory in an Indian slum, taking advantage of the people in desperate need there.
Nothing to do about "the willingness to work for lower wages.", it is unethical exploitation and wage-slavery of those in need.
So, better to not give those desperate people any job? Better they remain even more desperate and poor and hungry than they would be if they had even a terrible job? Just what do you think would happen if you managed to get some sort of international minimum wage? That the poor third world workers would cheer your name for making them lose their jobs?
Also; we're talking about the US here, and why unions went bad here. Don't you have any thoughts on the video I posted? Or would that put a wrinkle in your 'unions are perfect' world?
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
08-13-2010, 17:39
Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week and you
Looking at the wages is a shallow point
http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369
In 9 of 10 nations, average apparel industry income exceeds the national average at only 50 hours per week. Apparel workers in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua earn 3 to 7 times the national average.
a completely inoffensive name
08-13-2010, 18:12
How we be realistic and drop the stupid rhetoric and admit that companies use child labor but that without the competitive advantage child labor brings, we would all be paying much more in prices which lowers our standard of living since we would be paying more for the same goods. Besides that, the flaw in talking about how low little child labor or any labor in 3rd world countries makes is that compared to what they were making before the factories (AKA jobs) opened up (zero) they are doing much better then before. We all like to call China the factory of world, pumping out lots of cheap toys and such for Americans, Japan and Europe and now after 20 years of opening up this massive industrialization (for very small wages) we have seen the slow build up of the Chinese middle class.
You don't go from 3rd world to 1st world in a matter of years by instituting a "universal minimum wage"; wealth is built on the creation of stuff and all post-industrialized nations have built up their wealth with years of sacrifice from their grandfathers, great-grandfathers, great-great grandfathers etc, down the line until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Factories bring wealth, more importantly, the creation of wealth, the people will eventually reach a point where their wealth is sufficient enough to overcome basic problems such as "Will I be able to eat today?", when those problems are gone from the publics head, then like any other nation, the public finds something else to be worried/angry by. So the next generation not having been subjected to poverty at any point will be angry at their government and for not being paid as much as Europeans or Americans, so they will fight for workers rights and higher wages through the government just as every other industrialized nation did from the US to Europe.
This is why in my opinion you should respect the generations before you. If we are to say that all this hard work and this path to success could be bypassed by putting wages on an "equal" level worldwide, then that simply makes our elders idiots for not doing that in the 1800s.
You don't go from 3rd world to 1st world in a matter of years by instituting a "universal minimum wage";
Nope, but you accelerate the growth significantly.
This is why in my opinion you should respect the generations before you. If we are to say that all this hard work and this path to success could be bypassed by putting wages on an "equal" level worldwide, then that simply makes our elders idiots for not doing that in the 1800s.
Why does it make them idiots? In 1800 there wasn't a world economy outside of Europe and its colonies. Also, there weren't any international institutions like the UN.
Even by insituting an international minimum wage of $1 per hour, you will significantly improve conditions across the world in the matter of years as the changes are done. Even then, parts of the world will still have a competitive advantage for buisnesses to invest it. Also, it will build up the infrastructure and economy of those nations as well, as the people there will have money to spend within their own country.
Pretty simple to do, however, reality is harder due to resistence from certain groups of people who simply have no regard for humanity.
a completely inoffensive name
08-13-2010, 18:55
Nope, but you accelerate the growth significantly.
Why does it make them idiots? In 1800 there wasn't a world economy outside of Europe and its colonies. Also, there weren't any international institutions like the UN.
Even by insituting an international minimum wage of $1 per hour, you will significantly improve conditions across the world in the matter of years as the changes are done. Even then, parts of the world will still have a competitive advantage for buisnesses to invest it. Also, it will build up the infrastructure and economy of those nations as well, as the people there will have money to spend within their own country.
Pretty simple to do, however, reality is harder due to resistence from certain groups of people who simply have no regard for humanity.
Please stop calling people who don't agree with you about economics as people who have no regard for humanity. CR and every other right wing person in here has family and friends that they love as human beings. so just because they go about tackling the issue of poverty differently then you doesn't make them monsters. I guess I'm trying to say stop being an ass. I'm left leaning but I can't stand leftists who attempt at demonizing the right instead of attempting to win them over.
Now, let's go over what you said. "Nope, but you will accelerate the growth significantly." Yes, you will accelerate their growth significantly, at the expense of our growth or the growth of others. If you force them to receive more money through higher wages then those paying for the goods will need to pay more of their wealth to get the product so they will have less wealth now. For a person so concerned about the well being of others you seem to forget that poor people rely on Wal-Marts cheap prices to maintain the bare minimum to survive in an advanced 1st world nation, and having Wal Mart raise prices because they have to pay more for labor isn't going to help them.
By 1880s there was a world economy but instead of instituting a worldwide minimum wage, Americans during the Guilded Age fought just to have Unions legalized.
Yes, you are correct they will have more money. But you seem to think that these nations being exploited will take that money and put it to good use and not have corruption of any sort. That's flaw one of your idealistic view. Secondly, there will still be competitive advantage but it will be lesser or weakened, which means that it is not as cheap then it was before.
You are basically artificially raising prices for all industrialized people so 3rd world countries can have more money which you seem to think will solve all their problems. Having a giant money funnel to poor countries has shown to be inefficient or not quite regulated enough to provide proper growth and development. Your proposal I will grant at least has the benefit of giving Americans cheap manufactured goods in return for sending off all their money, but just like how the US already dumps billions of dollars into Afghanistan with no viable returns on the countries well being I doubt that everything will turn out in tip top shape if we just make labor more expensive around the world.
EDIT: The people there must fight for additional money otherwise they will have no respect for it and not care when corruption starts becoming rampant among the government.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-13-2010, 19:06
Why does it make them idiots? In 1800 there wasn't a world economy outside of Europe and its colonies. Also, there weren't any international institutions like the UN.
Even by insituting an international minimum wage of $1 per hour, you will significantly improve conditions across the world in the matter of years as the changes are done. Even then, parts of the world will still have a competitive advantage for buisnesses to invest it. Also, it will build up the infrastructure and economy of those nations as well, as the people there will have money to spend within their own country.
Pretty simple to do, however, reality is harder due to resistence from certain groups of people who simply have no regard for humanity.
Even if they are incorrect, do you really think they have no regard for humanity?
we met a 40-year-old woman named Nhem Yen, who told us why she moved to an area with particularly lethal malaria. "We needed to eat," she said. "And here there is wood, so we thought we could cut it and sell it."
But then Nhem Yen's daughter and son-in-law both died of malaria, leaving her with two grandchildren and five children of her own. With just one mosquito net, she had to choose which children would sleep protected and which would sleep exposed.
In Cambodia, a large mosquito net costs $5. If there had been a sweatshop in the area, however harsh or dangerous, Nhem Yen would have leapt at the chance to work in it, to earn enough to buy a net big enough to cover all her children.
:shrug:
The question is clearly about how much unemployment would result from bumping wages for 1-2$ a day to 10 dollars a day. Economics is not my field, but if I had to guess I'd say that the point this article makes is good:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html
Some managers are brutal in the way they house workers in firetraps, expose children to dangerous chemicals, deny bathroom breaks, demand sexual favors, force people to work double shifts or dismiss anyone who tries to organize a union. Agitation for improved safety conditions can be helpful, just as it was in 19th-century Europe.
...
Sweatshop monitors do have a useful role. They can compel factories to improve safety. They can also call attention to the impact of sweatshops on the environment. The greatest downside of industrialization is not exploitation of workers but toxic air and water. In Asia each year, three million people die from the effects of pollution. The factories springing up throughout the region are far more likely to kill people through the chemicals they expel than through terrible working conditions.
By focusing on these issues, by working closely with organizations and news media in foreign countries, sweatshops can be improved. But refusing to buy sweatshop products risks making Americans feel good while harming those we are trying to help.
Doesn't this seem like a better thing to focus on than wages? Now who has no regard for humanity :mellow:
Now, let's go over what you said. "Nope, but you will accelerate the growth significantly." Yes, you will accelerate their growth significantly, at the expense of our growth or the growth of others.
I am not selfish, I don't mind paying the insignificant amount for them not to be in wage-bondage.
If you force them to receive more money through higher wages then those paying for the goods will need to pay more of their wealth to get the product so they will have less wealth now. For a person so concerned about the well being of others you seem to forget that poor people rely on Wal-Marts cheap prices to maintain the bare minimum to survive in an advanced 1st world nation, and having Wal Mart raise prices because they have to pay more for labor isn't going to help them.
America has a minimum wage, so that point is rather null.
Yes, you are correct they will have more money. But you seem to think that these nations being exploited will take that money and put it to good use and not have corruption of any sort. That's flaw one of your idealistic view.
It is not a flaw. It is a separate issue. If the money went straight to the workers, the workers then decide what to do with it.
Secondly, there will still be competitive advantage but it will be lesser or weakened, which means that it is not as cheap then it was before.
The difference between the production of Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Fair-Trade Coffee is 1 cent per cup. It will not break the bank.
You are basically artificially raising prices for all industrialized people so 3rd world countries can have more money which you seem to think will solve all their problems. Having a giant money funnel to poor countries has shown to be inefficient or not quite regulated enough to provide proper growth and development. Your proposal I will grant at least has the benefit of giving Americans cheap manufactured goods in return for sending off all their money, but just like how the US already dumps billions of dollars into Afghanistan with no viable returns on the countries well being I doubt that everything will turn out in tip top shape if we just make labor more expensive around the world.
There is also a difference between India and Afghanistan. Having your money basically pay for Indian products which you receive will be an obvious gain for their economy and yours as they could afford the more expensive American products like the IPhone more easily.
In Afghanistan, you are funnelling money in a sand-pit and you get no return from it.
Two completely different situations.
Doesn't this seem like a better thing to focus on than wages? Now who has no regard for humanity
Non-sequitur? Especially since I spoke out about the cruelty in the post I made the same statement about the wages.
Not like I conducted any hypocrisy by posting "Think of the Children!" while advocating de-facto Child Labour in the same post.
a completely inoffensive name
08-13-2010, 19:56
I am not selfish, I don't mind paying the insignificant amount for them not to be in wage-bondage.
What's insignificant for you is very significant for an illegal immigrant Hispanic mother of 4 living in LA.
America has a minimum wage, so that point is rather null.
How so? Those that are poor have a bare minimum of wealth they get from working, and now more wealth is required for the same amount of stuff so their ability to buy more is limited and in fact may have to cut back on spending on certain things because they are now too expensive for them. By inflating workers wages, you are creating inflation which hurts the poor the most since the minimum wage doesn't move with the inflation rate but instead whenever Congress decides to raise it.
It is not a flaw. It is a separate issue. If the money went straight to the workers, the workers then decide what to do with it.
A corrupt government won't let the workers decide what to do with the money. They will take the money through force or taxes.
The difference between the production of Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Fair-Trade Coffee is 1 cent per cup. It will not break the bank.
A) Like I said before, for someone who is advocating for the less fortunate you seem to dismiss the value of even a penny for them. Besides, coffee is a luxury that is already too expensive (at Starbucks at least) for many poor people. So that's a poor example.
B) The coffee market is very different from the toy market which is different then the toothpaste market etc...
There is also a difference between India and Afghanistan. Having your money basically pay for Indian products which you receive will be an obvious gain for their economy and yours as they could afford the more expensive American products like the IPhone more easily.
In Afghanistan, you are funnelling money in a sand-pit and you get no return from it.
Two completely different situations.
That situation (India) already occurs without needing to inflate worker's prices. The growth of these nations is naturally stable, but shoving in inflation (I'll say may) may destabilize the growth.
Crazed Rabbit
08-13-2010, 20:24
Pretty simple to do, however, reality is harder due to resistence from certain groups of people who simply have no regard for humanity.
Yup, that's me. That's why I only volunteered at one week long trip to help collect and distribute food to migrant workers this summer. You, being so full of your regard for humanity, probably volunteered for a month or more to help feed the hungry. Right?
Nope, but you accelerate the growth significantly.
No, you absolutely do not. By decreasing the incentive for companies to use foreign labor, you decrease the amount of jobs those companies will offer and the number of foreign factories they'll build. That means less jobs, more unemployment, or more going back to lower paying jobs. ANd that's not even counting the job loss from domestic companies employing less people.
This 'wage slavery' is nonsense. Sasaki showed that apparel workers get paid more than average. So, often sweatshop jobs are better than the other jobs available.
Look at China; decades of low paid workers making stuff for the west. After all those years we see a middle class emerging and better pay for workers. There is no magic fix to leap a third world country into the first world.
The difference between the production of Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Fair-Trade Coffee is 1 cent per cup.
Source?
What's insignificant for you is very significant for an illegal immigrant Hispanic mother of 4 living in LA.
Heh, that's a good point. Cheap goods helps the poor in America and other countries who can afford more basic necessities like clothes and food.
EDIT: Again, Beskar, why don't you share your thoughts on the video I posted? Or does the fact that unions are choosing more jobs for themselves over the safety of ill children conflict with your worldview too much?
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
08-13-2010, 20:52
The difference between the production of Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Fair-Trade Coffee is 1 cent per cup.
Source?
Best I can tell from google, starbucks pays top dollar for it's non fair trade coffee--not surprising that their costs don't go up much from buying fair trade coffee (6% of the coffee they buy apparently). I don't think this helps whatever point beskar is trying to make--something like "increasing sweatshop wages 5 fold will only lead to a 1 cent increase in price"? I hope that's not the point he's trying to make...
a completely inoffensive name
08-13-2010, 21:27
No, you absolutely do not. By decreasing the incentive for companies to use foreign labor, you decrease the amount of jobs those companies will offer and the number of foreign factories they'll build. That means less jobs, more unemployment, or more going back to lower paying jobs. ANd that's not even counting the job loss from domestic companies employing less people.
This 'wage slavery' is nonsense. Sasaki showed that apparel workers get paid more than average. So, often sweatshop jobs are better than the other jobs available.
Look at China; decades of low paid workers making stuff for the west. After all those years we see a middle class emerging and better pay for workers. There is no magic fix to leap a third world country into the first world.
CR
I would say the first paragraph is a bit hazy. Depending on exactly how much you raise the wages, the effects could be different. The demand for the products might not decrease drastically if the prices increase a tiny bit, so companies might just eat the loss in profit if they are still making a healthy profit in satisfying the demand. However, the problem is that judging what is the "right" amount of wage inflation is tricky even from a purely economical view point not to mention you would have people in politics like Beskar making absurd demands that would jack up prices and have demand and thus supply collapse (AKA higher wages=no jobs as you said).
Everything else you said CR I agree with.
Best I can tell from google, starbucks pays top dollar for it's non fair trade coffee--not surprising that their costs don't go up much from buying fair trade coffee (6% of the coffee they buy apparently). I don't think this helps whatever point beskar is trying to make--something like "increasing sweatshop wages 5 fold will only lead to a 1 cent increase in price"? I hope that's not the point he's trying to make...
It was an article I read a while ago. When Starbucks first started releasing a 'Fair-Trade' range locally, and there was a big hoohaa, because it only cost Starbucks 1p to do Fair-Trade, and they charged an extra 10p per cup.
You, being so full of your regard for humanity, probably volunteered for a month or more to help feed the hungry. Right?
You probably was sarcastic when you wrote this, but it actually correct. I been doing charity work since 13, which involves assisting with the homeless, providing food, collecting/performing and community work.
Again, Beskar, why don't you share your thoughts on the video I posted? Or does the fact that unions are choosing more jobs for themselves over the safety of ill children conflict with your worldview too much?
Actually, no. I pretty much shrugged it off as something minor. It was a very biased article. From what I skimmed read, there is a bill which will allow non-trained medical professionals to administrate this drug. However, the unions said they oppose it, most likely due to complications, legal risks, etc and that a trained professional should deal with it, aka, just hire a school nurse to deal and look after the patient.
Makes sense. The alternative is, to simply train teachers to a certificated first-aid standard then there would be no issues then either. But I am guessing this costs money and school don't want to pay for that.
There isn't enough in the article for me to give a more meaningful answer.
So, better to not give those desperate people any job? Better they remain even more desperate and poor and hungry than they would be if they had even a terrible job? Just what do you think would happen if you managed to get some sort of international minimum wage? That the poor third world workers would cheer your name for making them lose their jobs?
Oh stop it. That they do that horrible work out of necessity doesn't make it any more right.
Crazed Rabbit
08-13-2010, 22:33
Actually, no. I pretty much shrugged it off as something minor. It was a very biased article. From what I skimmed read, there is a bill which will allow non-trained medical professionals to administrate this drug. However, the unions said they oppose it, most likely due to complications, legal risks, etc and that a trained professional should deal with it, aka, just hire a school nurse to deal and look after the patient.
Makes sense.
No. It. Doesn't. Did you even read the article? Schools can't afford to hire more people now. The medical professionals -
Epilepsy advocates like the Epilepsy Foundation and physicians groups like the California Medical Association have lined up to support the bill. - support allowing lay people with some training and not just nurses to administer the drug. The union claims about concern for medical issues have got nothing to back them up; the people who actually know something about the medical issue support this bill.
And just because something makes a bunch of greedy idiots look like a bunch of greedy idiots doesn't mean it is biased.
The alternative is, to simply train teachers to a certificated first-aid standard then there would be no issues then either. But I am guessing this costs money and school don't want to pay for that.
The alternative this bill provides for is to let teachers get some simple training - they don't have to have a certificate in first aid - to administer this drug. That's what the schools, doctors, and parents want.
The unions oppose that simple, effective solution because it doesn't result in them getting more jobs.
The bottom line is that unions are opposing a bill that makes it much easier to care for children with potentially deadly conditions because it doesn't let them make more money. Can you give a meaningful response to that?
Oh stop it. That they do that horrible work out of necessity doesn't make it any more right.
Everyone works because they need to. And it being right isn't the point. The point is that Beskar's plan to force a minimum wage would result in those desperate workers losing their jobs. How will taking the jobs from them help their situation?
And in the apparel industry, those jobs usually pay more than the local average.
CR
ajaxfetish
08-14-2010, 00:08
Actually, it is even worse. In one of the videos, a child labourer was paid $3.25 per week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTIfY9SmJdA
Quota of 150 per hour, paid $3.25 a week, 12 hour shifts. They get physically and verbally abused on a good day.
As for evidence, there are absolutely tons of it. Google will fill you with hits.
It is a shocking and depressing state of affairs, and I think some posters in this thread sum up the ignorant attitude typical of the west perfectly.
You misunderstand me. I am sure there are child laborers working some of these jobs, and some of their working conditions are likely horrible. The part I find hard to believe without backup is the 'vast majority' part. A simple majority would mean that over half of the workers employed by international companies are unethically exploited, and if a majority of those were children, then over 25% of the total would be child labor. If a 'vast majority' are unethically exploited, and these are 'mainly' children, that suggests that well over 25% of the labor force employed by international firms is exploitative child labor. Do you have data that shows this to be the case?
Ajax
Crazed Rabbit
08-14-2010, 02:50
Look at China; decades of low paid workers making stuff for the west. After all those years we see a middle class emerging and better pay for workers. There is no magic fix to leap a third world country into the first world.
I would say the first paragraph is a bit hazy. Depending on exactly how much you raise the wages, the effects could be different. The demand for the products might not decrease drastically if the prices increase a tiny bit, so companies might just eat the loss in profit if they are still making a healthy profit in satisfying the demand. However, the problem is that judging what is the "right" amount of wage inflation is tricky even from a purely economical view point not to mention you would have people in politics like Beskar making absurd demands that would jack up prices and have demand and thus supply collapse (AKA higher wages=no jobs as you said).
Everything else you said CR I agree with.
Yes, that statement is terribly generalized and short of detail. What I tried to convey was my belief that turning a country from a second world economy with lots of cheap manufacturing into a first world one like in the west is a long process. I don't think setting a minimum wage as Beskar recommends will speed up that process at all.
You are correct that, depending on price elasticity, an increase in the price of a product via increased labor costs may not result in people buying less of the product.
I think the best, or least worst, way to determine wage levels is simply through the free market. To return to the example of China, I've been reading lately that wages have been increasing for a variety of reasons. I'm confident that situation can be extrapolated to other countries with cheap labor, like Vietnam. Having the wages be determined 'naturally' will be free of the problems that would be caused by imposing a wage. Namely, people wouldn't suddenly be out of work as companies looked elsewhere for cheap labor.
CR
Seamus Fermanagh
08-14-2010, 04:41
That seems like a baseless accusation. Support that please. (I'm just trying to absorb as many view points here since I've never actually been in a union).
Very well.
Prima facie, Beskar's point seems innocuous enough. Legislate to force companies to pay a "fair wage" akin to "fair trade."
He doesn't define "fair wage." Will he legislate to have workers payed a "living wage" in all jobs? Will he slap a tariff on foreign goods that are produced by companies with significantly lower wages in order to "even the playing field?"
EDIT: Later discussion allowed Beskar to clarify his point.
He then goes on to suggest that, as other parts of the world develop, these salary disparities will even themselves out. This is more of a "radiant future" state concept. Nothing in human history suggests that such a parity is in the offing or even likely.
EDIT: A universal minimum wage would be simply a soley a tool for wealth transfer. FORCE developed economies to pay much more for a given good or service so as to transfer wealth to the underdeveloped. The basic premise is that only equality of outcome is a worthwhile goal.
Taken together, he's advocating the classic mantra of "have the government decide what's fair and enforce it." However nice the intention, this sort of recipe never seems to work out.
I prefer the market as free and open as possible, with a minimum of regulations to prevent fraud and to promote public health and safety. NOT leaving the rest to sort itself out is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
This seems relevant to the thread:
L.A. teacher's union pitches a fit because the LA Times published a report on the effectiveness scores of teachers (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers-react-20100816,0,6701929.story)
They're public employees- being paid by the tax payer. But heavens forbid that they might be accountable to... anyone.
As I've said before, the fact that the majority of union employees are government employees is insane.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-17-2010, 04:16
Testing is an awful way to measure teachers. Good scores don't mean good teacher. They mean "teacher who sold out and did jack all but teach to the test". And it's the teachers who know they aren't that good that'll do that.
The focus on teacher accountability is hamstringing education reform. Lazy kids and lazy parents. If they want to reform education they should assassinate miley cyrus and cancel american idol.
a completely inoffensive name
08-17-2010, 04:28
Testing is an awful way to measure teachers. Good scores don't mean good teacher. They mean "teacher who sold out and did jack all but teach to the test". And it's the teachers who know they aren't that good that'll do that.
The focus on teacher accountability is hamstringing education reform. Lazy kids and lazy parents. If they want to reform education they should assassinate miley cyrus and cancel american idol.
100% correct. My AP Physics teacher was the best teacher I had in high school, and because his classes were two AP Physics and three general 9th grade science (AKA slack offs and dead on arrivals) I'm sure the scores would have severely underrepresented his ability to teach.
Testing is an awful way to measure teachers. Good scores don't mean good teacher. They mean "teacher who sold out and did jack all but teach to the test". And it's the teachers who know they aren't that good that'll do that.
The focus on teacher accountability is hamstringing education reform. Lazy kids and lazy parents. If they want to reform education they should assassinate miley cyrus and cancel american idol.So you didn't even click on the link did you? Thanks for playing.
After a single year with teachers who ranked in the top 10% in effectiveness, students scored an average of 17 percentile points higher in English and 25 points higher in math than students whose teachers ranked in the bottom 10%. Students often backslid significantly in the classrooms of ineffective teachers, and thousands of students in the study had two or more ineffective teachers in a row.
The district has had the ability to analyze the differences among teachers for years but opted not to do so, in large part because of anticipated union resistance, The Times found.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-17-2010, 06:15
I did read it Xiahou. But "effective" teachers are defined as teachers that get them to score better on the test. aka teaching to the test.
Also, I took one of these tests. It was terrible.
Many schools have it set up so that teachers with seniority have the pull to get the smartest kids in their class.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-17-2010, 13:39
I did read it Xiahou. But "effective" teachers are defined as teachers that get them to score better on the test. aka teaching to the test.
Also, I took one of these tests. It was terrible.
Many schools have it set up so that teachers with seniority have the pull to get the smartest kids in their class.
Take education out of the government's hands entirely. Have parents purchase their children's education. Provide subsidies to those families who are truly destitute in a welfare/wic fashion. Might even wish to cease the mandatory education requirement -- since it is impossible to teach someone who is unwilling to learn anyway. You either see the need yourself, wish to please/fear your parents enough to do as told, or you have already learned that nobody can "make" you learn unless they are willing to physically punish you for not doing so -- NONE of these conditions require "mandatory" education and "mandatory" education wastes resources on those who have already decided they're done with learning.
Also, I took one of these tests. It was terrible.You took a California standardized test?
That aside, if we can't evaluate teachers on the ability of their students to demonstrate knowledge- what can we evaluate them on? Can you think of anything that the teacher's union wouldn't cry foul on?
Many schools have it set up so that teachers with seniority have the pull to get the smartest kids in their class. No doubt another union demand.
Take education out of the government's hands entirely. Have parents purchase their children's education.Maybe we could start with vouchers. :yes:
Skullheadhq
08-17-2010, 15:17
Take education out of the government's hands entirely. Have parents purchase their children's education. Provide subsidies to those families who are truly destitute in a welfare/wic fashion. Might even wish to cease the mandatory education requirement -- since it is impossible to teach someone who is unwilling to learn anyway. You either see the need yourself, wish to please/fear your parents enough to do as told, or you have already learned that nobody can "make" you learn unless they are willing to physically punish you for not doing so -- NONE of these conditions require "mandatory" education and "mandatory" education wastes resources on those who have already decided they're done with learning.
I would love to see that happen, that would effectively relocate even the jobs that require brains to India and China who are improving their systems. No compulsatory school, imagine!
Not only that, it would also mean the parents decide the fate of their children, plus the wealthy would always get the better education (they kinda do anyway but even more with that system), sounds like modern aristocracy to me, maybe the USA will become a monarchy after all. ~D
Skullheadhq
08-17-2010, 15:49
Not only that, it would also mean the parents decide the fate of their children, plus the wealthy would always get the better education (they kinda do anyway but even more with that system), sounds like modern aristocracy to me, maybe the USA will become a monarchy after all. ~D
King W. the Second of Dixie-Texasshire and Queen Sarah I of Alaska benevolently ruling their realm from the comfort of the White Palace :laugh4:
The new country will be renamed by Royal Decree: The Kingdom of Jesusland and the old motto will be replaced by this one: Yee-Haw!
I've even been as kind as to design a flag for it:
https://img836.imageshack.us/img836/6817/lolflag.png
There is one positive thing, there will be no taxes and roads just grow like plants.
Only one question remains, how should Dick Cheney call the inhabitants of his Duchy: Slaves or Serfs?
GUESS WUT: Saemus' education system is implented by Royal Decree in 2023 and the literacy rate in 2067 is 0,02%! That's how our aristocrats like their serfs: Illiterate. Hè,that's one more thing the free market fixed. And now back to church everyone, and don't forget... tomorrow we'll raid the castle next door, so don't forget your rake and torch!
For those who didn't get it, it's a parody and just meant as a joke;). No offence to anyone (not even to King W the Second and Sarah the First).
Sasaki Kojiro
08-17-2010, 17:36
You took a California standardized test?
:rolleyes:
That aside, if we can't evaluate teachers on the ability of their students to demonstrate knowledge- what can we evaluate them on? Can you think of anything that the teacher's union wouldn't cry foul on?
Evaluations by the principals office. Tests can even be used as red flags, although many school districts simply can't afford them.
No doubt another union demand.
Standard office politics.
Centurion1
08-17-2010, 18:15
Lol are you europeans serious? Your education process has plenty of flaws and their is more chance of getting a higher level education in the us
ajaxfetish
08-17-2010, 18:20
For those who didn't get it, it's a parody and just meant as a joke;).
The preferred method for making a joke recognizable is to make it funny.
Ajax
Ironside
08-17-2010, 18:50
Lol are you europeans serious? Your education process has plenty of flaws and their is more chance of getting a higher level education in the us
Not sure about higher chance, even if you do have more top universities. But a big point of mandatory education is to encurage the lower classes to get a decent education and also to ensure that the youths gets at least some exposure to science instead of a pure creationist religious education. So that suggestion would further drop the US social mobillity.
Not only that, it would also mean the parents decide the fate of their children, plus the wealthy would always get the better education (they kinda do anyway but even more with that system), sounds like modern aristocracy to me, maybe the USA will become a monarchy after all. ~D
William Jefferson Blythe III (later known as Bill Clinton), Al Gore Jr (aka II), George Bush II, John McCain III, Obama II.
Naming conventions tells of elective monarchy...
Or horribly dull and boring naming conventions of their children. :juggle2:
Centurion1
08-17-2010, 18:53
Not sure about higher chance, even if you do have more top universities. But a big point of mandatory education is to encurage the lower classes to get a decent education and also to ensure that the youths gets at least some exposure to science instead of a pure creationist religious education. So that suggestion would further drop the US social mobillity.
that would be fabulously in your favor if you knew anything about what you were talking about
Skullheadhq
08-17-2010, 19:25
Lol are you europeans serious? Your education process has plenty of flaws and their is more chance of getting a higher level education in the us
HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Is that what they tell you?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Phew, that was funny...
Ironside
08-17-2010, 19:45
that would be fabulously in your favor if you knew anything about what you were talking about
As in that the numbers or the general idea? From the data comparing US and Sweden, the US had more people taking higher education 25-30 years ago, but the gap is pretty much eliminated by now. US got way more universities in the top 100 list than Europe.
Or are you arguing that education is not important for social mobillity? That thing is quite important for the "American dream" concept.
Or that religious fundies won't go for a more "pure and proper" education if given the chance?
a completely inoffensive name
08-17-2010, 21:49
Education is not important guys. I mean, I haven't really thought about it because thinking hurts, but my great-great-grandfather did just fine without it.
Take education out of the government's hands entirely. Have parents purchase their children's education. Provide subsidies to those families who are truly destitute in a welfare/wic fashion. Might even wish to cease the mandatory education requirement -- since it is impossible to teach someone who is unwilling to learn anyway. You either see the need yourself, wish to please/fear your parents enough to do as told, or you have already learned that nobody can "make" you learn unless they are willing to physically punish you for not doing so -- NONE of these conditions require "mandatory" education and "mandatory" education wastes resources on those who have already decided they're done with learning.
Rather than continue the hyperbole that's been levelled against you (which I admit is pretty funny), I'd just like to respectfully point out that privatising education would, on top of everything else, cause the quality to plummet. You've mentioned in the past that you want the market to be as free as possible, but I really don't know why, as every single time the market has taken over a service, that service inevitably beomces far less efficient and far more expensive.
You've mentioned in the past that you want the market to be as free as possible, but I really don't know why, as every single time the market has taken over a service, that service inevitably beomces far less efficient and far more expensive.
Such as the "Schools for the Future" programme. :sad:
Handing things over to the private sector is like entrusting your bank account to dodgy car salesman instead of your bank manager.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-18-2010, 02:33
Rather than continue the hyperbole that's been levelled against you (which I admit is pretty funny), I'd just like to respectfully point out that privatising education would, on top of everything else, cause the quality to plummet. You've mentioned in the past that you want the market to be as free as possible, but I really don't know why, as every single time the market has taken over a service, that service inevitably beomces far less efficient and far more expensive.
My point was that it would NOT plummet. The key component in education is wanting to learn. If you have that, nothing can prevent you from learning. Lacking it, nothing -- compulsory or not -- will make any lasting difference.
I would like compulsory education gone because I believe it would be rapidly self-correcting. Some folks would opt out in droves...and then return even more quickly but with a will to learn. Moreover, folks react to the suggestion as though half of the parents in the USA would say ''oops, even with the subsidy I'd rather go on vacay this year then send young Allen to 2nd grade." Won't work that way. I'd send my kids, you'd send yours etc.
Would some educations be better than others? Of course. Of course, they are already. There is a reason I live in York County Virginia and not Hampton or Newport News. Paid more for the lot too. People too readily assume that public education means that everyone gets the same education, which is bollocks of course.
De-regulation has had largely positive results (though it has not been a panacea either). Most costs in most areas, post regulation, are down and service is usually similar (though the better service for less money that often was touted for it was hyperbole or prevarication).
I take it back, I take it all back (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQrpHSj04kAyLv7ViNf4wUEbx2cwD9I37AP81).
Strikes in France, London foreshadow more protests (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQrpHSj04kAyLv7ViNf4wUEbx2cwD9I37AP81)
PARIS — French strikers disrupted trains and planes, hospitals and mail delivery Tuesday amid massive street protests over plans to raise the retirement age. Across the English Channel, London subway workers unhappy with staff cuts walked off the job.
The protests look like the prelude to a season of strikes in Europe, from Spain to the Czech Republic, as heavily indebted governments cut costs and chip away at some cherished but costly benefits that underpin the European good life — a scaling-back process that has gained urgency with Greece's euro110 billion ($140 billion) bailout.
In France, where people poured into the streets in 220 cities, setting off flares and beating drums, a banner in the southern port city of Marseille called for Europe-wide solidarity: "Let's Refuse Austerity Plans!" The Interior Ministry said more than 1.1 million people demonstrated throughout France, while the CFDT union put the number at 2.5 million.
Some commuters were annoyed by the disruptions — even in strike-inured France.
"I'm just getting tired of this because this is not the first time," said Henda Fersi, a passenger at the Part-Dieu train station in Lyon in southeast France. "I understand the strikers' point of view but, still, they put us in a difficult situation and we're penalized."
French protesters are angry about the government's plan to do away with the near-sacred promise of retirement at 60, forcing people to work until 62 because they are living longer. The goal is to bring the money-draining pension system back into the black by 2018.
As debate on the subject opened in parliament, Labor Minister Eric Woerth said the plan was one "of courage and reason" and that it is the "duty of the state" to save the pension system. He has said the government won't back down, no matter how big the protests.
Prime Minister Francois Fillon reminded the French that it could be worse: In nearly all European countries, the current debate is over raising the retirement age to 67 or 68, he said. Germany has decided to bump the retirement age from 65 to 67, for example, and the U.S. Social Security system is gradually raising the retirement age to 67.
That sense of perspective was missing from many of the French protests, where some slogans bordered on the hysterical. One sign in Paris showed a raised middle finger with the message: "Greetings from people who will die on the job."
Amid the Paris mayhem, European Union finance ministers meeting in Brussels agreed to create new financial institutions in hopes of preventing a repeat of the government debt crisis that nearly left Greece bankrupt and brought the European banking system to its knees. Market jitters remain — though the most apocalyptic scenarios discussed a few months ago, such as the collapse of the euro currency, have been put on the back burner.
In London, Underground workers unhappy about job cuts closed much of the city's subway system — the first in a series of 24-hour strikes planned for the fall. The thousands of London maintenance workers, drivers and station staff who walked out say the cuts will hurt service and safety.
With the underground train service shut, buses had to take on extra loads, while vehicular traffic was heavy and city sidewalks were teeming with walkers and bikers.
"The bus system has been a mess today, but I got here," said Anita Prazmowska of South London.
In France, some post offices shut down, schools were hamstrung and public hospitals were hit with a nearly 18 percent staff cut for the day. The strike also blocked the Atlantic coast port at Saint-Nazaire, including vessels that feed into the nearby Total refinery.
Civil aviation authorities asked airlines to cancel a quarter of their flights at Paris' airports. Only two out of every five of France's famed high-speed trains operated during the strike, which ran Monday evening through Tuesday night.
Some Paris commuters had to resort to the city's rental bicycle system, Velib, and not all were happy about it. One commuter, Antonia Gilles, tried it for the first time: "It was a success but it was dangerous."
Similar protests are set for elsewhere in Europe in coming weeks.
A general strike was planned in Spain for Sept. 29 over labor market reforms, and in the Czech Republic, a massive protest against proposed austerity measures, including 10 percent salary cuts for state employees, was set for Sept. 21.
In Greece, all public transport workers in the Athens area are to stop work Wednesday for five hours to protest planned reforms to the indebted railway company. Rail and suburban rail workers are to repeat the work stoppage Thursday.
The French strikes come at a time when conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy's approval ratings hover in the mid-30 percent range.
On top of that, an unfolding tax and party financing scandal centered on the fortune of the L'Oreal cosmetics heiress has left many wondering if the government cares more about the interests of the rich and powerful than ordinary workers.
"If we need money ... we know where to find it," said Guy Gamet, a 55-year-old representative of the Workers Force union as he marched in Lyon, in the southeast. "When it was necessary to bail out the banks not so long ago, we knew where to find the money."
a completely inoffensive name
09-07-2010, 21:29
So it looks like the US and Europe are both using broken systems. Obviously their broken system is more broken then ours so we must keep our broken system.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-07-2010, 22:37
So it looks like the US and Europe are both using broken systems. Obviously their broken system is more broken then ours so we must keep our broken system.
Or both should dissolve both? Nevermind....
rory_20_uk
09-08-2010, 10:16
The Underground needs automatic trains to replace the drivers on 35k a year for a 35 hour week.
Automated tickets are a boon in stations and I'm sure that in some stations in non-peak times having staff there doing nothing isn't worthwhile.
But the Underground Unions have sensibly grabbed the safety bandwagon and linked all cuts in staff to endangering the lives of all - rather than mindlessly protecting their members as is their reson d'etre.
~:smoking:
Goofball
09-10-2010, 00:46
I can't format my reply because of the forums downgrade that happened recently, so this will be a little disorganized.
1. Screwed up is a very vague term. What does it mean to you?
2. Because their emplyers won't stop exploiting them right to the edge of what society will bear.
3. Absolutely.
4. Short answer: the rich would flouirish to unimaginable levels and the poor would be stripped of what little protections they have at work.
5. No. Without unions those laws will be eroded.
Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.
1. Because North American Unions operate more on the "protection racket" model than on the collective approach to a better deal.
2. It's just like your politics. No how matter how reasonable a policy may be, if it was proposed by the "other side" the opposition is required to say how crappy it is.
3. No and no.
4. Higher productivity; younger workers treated fairly out from under the thumb of seniority; merit-based reward; profit-sharing, etc...
5. They already have been. That's why unions have had to become so much more aggressive and unreasonable, making demands (in some cases) that any sane person can see will bankrupt the hand that feeds them and put them out of jobs.
You're absolutely right, jabarto. There is absolutely no "good" in unions.
way to ignore 200 years of economic history there sport
Seamus Fermanagh
09-10-2010, 13:09
Somewhere betwixt the two of you is likely to be an accurate answer. Neither of your arguments is without merit.
I don't even know what to say anymore. On one hand you have the people who will not desist from their holy crusade to veiw the truth as always being in the middle despite any and all evidence to the contrary. On the other, you have the people who, when confronted with fact that exploitation is still a real and serious problem, proclaim, "OH PSHAW THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN A MILLION MILLION YEARS" despite the fact that it can, has, does, and will happen unless measures are taken to prevent it. This thread is like a melting pot for bad arguments.
This thread is like a melting pot for bad arguments.
And mixed metaphors. But I have personally contributed to other melting pots of bad arguments, so I wouldn't want you to go away with the impression that it's exclusive to this thread. We can do bad arguments anywhere.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-11-2010, 06:39
I don't even know what to say anymore. On one hand you have the people who will not desist from their holy crusade to veiw the truth as always being in the middle despite any and all evidence to the contrary. On the other, you have the people who, when confronted with fact that exploitation is still a real and serious problem, proclaim, "OH PSHAW THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN A MILLION MILLION YEARS" despite the fact that it can, has, does, and will happen unless measures are taken to prevent it. This thread is like a melting pot for bad arguments.
Crusading for the middle? Pal, have you got the wrong idea about me.
a completely inoffensive name
09-12-2010, 09:53
Or both should dissolve both? Nevermind....
I was being sarcastic. I would like a middle ground between what Europe has and what the US has. So yeah, both should scrap their models.
Britain is not that bad. It is only a certain Underground Rail Union that is a problem.
Though a problem is, they want to dismantle the Royal Mail, which is facepalm worthy. Even the USPS is nationalised.
rory_20_uk
09-12-2010, 13:54
The Royal Mail needs to radically change from the current system it's got. I don't view privatisation as the answer in and of itself, but I doubt else it will adapt.
~:smoking:
There was the issue that they privatised the most lucrative aspects of the postal service, which made it significantly more difficult for the Royal Mail to get money, as they get forced to have supply lines to 'No Where Ville' while other couriers just actually hand it over to the Royal Mail to deliver so they don't have to.
rory_20_uk
09-13-2010, 11:54
Yes, that was inane, especially as there was no requirement for others not to cherry pick as they have done. The idea was to make Royal Mail compete. But how is that possible when the Unions view every publicly owned entity as a course of infinite money?
But the inefficiencies in such as areas as the sorting offices should be addressed - although of course it would mean reducing staff numbers.
That there is a one price for all areas is a system which needs to change (or, alternatively reduce the frequency of deliveries). Yes, you might like living in the back of beyond. Good for you. A side effect of that should be less access to services that cost a fortune to keep going.
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
09-13-2010, 22:22
Britain is not that bad. It is only a certain Underground Rail Union that is a problem.
Though a problem is, they want to dismantle the Royal Mail, which is facepalm worthy. Even the USPS is nationalised.
Actually, the USPS is only partially nationalized. It has a monopoly on first class mail (letters) but competes on the rest. USPS employees are unionized and semi-government at the same time. As usual, this means that the USA has managed -- with the exception of Kukrikhan -- to combine the worst of both approaches.
a completely inoffensive name
09-14-2010, 05:24
Actually, the USPS is only partially nationalized. It has a monopoly on first class mail (letters) but competes on the rest. USPS employees are unionized and semi-government at the same time. As usual, this means that the USA has managed -- with the exception of Kukrikhan -- to combine the worst of both approaches.
Postal service is self sufficient from government money and does a very good job at what it does. My netflix DVDs are always delivered within a day of them shipping it out.
http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/selfsufficient.html
Yeah, I really don't know why people keep ripping on the postal service, especially since the private mail couriers are the most salient example of private companies abandoning non-lucrative markets I could possibly come up with.
Crazed Rabbit
09-24-2010, 01:59
The Daily Show, of all things, does a segment on the cruel hypocrisy of American unions:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-20-2010/working-stiffed
CR
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.