Unions: Where did the U.S.A. go wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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
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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Take education out of the government's hands entirely. Have parents purchase their children's education.

---

Maybe we could start with vouchers. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You took a California standardized test?

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

No doubt another union demand.

---

Standard office politics.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or horribly dull and boring naming conventions of their children. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

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.

Strikes in France, London foreshadow more protests

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."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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....

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

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