wisconsin taking on gov unions.

[droski]

There was one good example about a public union and the City of Phoenix. A trial subscription is needed, but one can get the point.

Aggression, Peaceful Co Existence Mutual Cooperation It's Up To Us - Research and Read Books, Journals, Articles at Questia Online Library

I know adversarial relationships between the organizations have been the norm to both party's detriment. All I am saying is that in a global economy, both benefit from cooperation. Labor can't exist without companies. Companies can't exist without labor. It may be pie in the sky, but more and more cooperative voices are emerging and great successes are being achieved. Here is a prime example of what cooperation can do:


GM has plenty to cheer Tonawanda News
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Unions at gm would be broken if it wasn't for them paying off Obama. Gm is the worst example you could possibily use. Perfect example of unions running crazy and driving corporations to bankruptcy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[JayVols]

Unions at gm would be broken if it wasn't for them paying off Obama. Gm is the worst example you could possibily use. Perfect example of unions running crazy and driving corporations to bankruptcy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The UAW is a great example of unions run amok. That is why this development is substantial.

Did you even read the article or did you just see GM and automatically think 'GM, Obama, bad...'?

Damn, droski, things can change ya know.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

The UAW is a great example of unions run amok. That is why this development is substantial.

Did you even read the article or did you just see GM and automatically think 'GM, Obama, bad...'?

Damn, droski, things can change ya know.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Nothings changed. The unions were made whole while the true owners got screwed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[JayVols]

Nothings changed. The unions were made whole while the true owners got screwed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You asked for an example where management benefited from cooperation with a union. I gave you what you asked for. If your views are absolute, just say so and don't ask for examples to the contrary.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

He said "true owners" as in stock holders... who got screwed big time.

 

[droski]

You asked for an example where management benefited from cooperation with a union. I gave you what you asked for. If your views are absolute, just say so and don't ask for examples to the contrary.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I asked for an example of the company benefiting. You might as well as give hitler as an.example.of a humanitarian
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[JayVols]

I asked for an example of the company benefiting. You might as well as give hitler as an.example.of a humanitarian
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Wow, the Hitler card. Really? I would crack a joke about who only deals in absolutes, but I don't detect a sense of humor from you.

I was under the impression this was a discussion forum. My bad.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

You asked for an example where management benefited from cooperation with a union. I gave you what you asked for. If your views are absolute, just say so and don't ask for examples to the contrary.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

It's all relative though. I read the GM article and it sounds like the union reluctantly agreed to some scheduling changes which was still controversial among membership.

If it's that hard to adapt and change is this really an example of the organization being improved by having a union?

 

[volinbham]

First off, I truly appreciate your tone in our discussion. No smart alec comments or schoolyard insults. I have enjoyed the exchange. My hat is tipped to you, sir.

I do agree that the unions of the old days have gone the way of the dinosaur. Unions like companies must adapt to the global economy to survive. The GM link I provided earlier is a good example of how unions MUST operate to survive. If they keep fighting for the status quo, they will be left behind. They days of demanding the sky are over. Having said that, I still feel that when workers have a sense of input, they will be more productive.

As to stagnant wages, interest rates aren't the only consideration. Prices are rising while wages are stagnant. I am no class warfare proponent, but one can't deny the ever widening wage gap. This will eventually haunt the top wage earners. When workers' disposable income is reduced, they can't purchase the goods that company's produce. The top earners are making more and more while the middle class is floundering. Eventually, this will hit the top earners as well through the inability to sell their products due to lack of middle class purchasing power.

There are many facets to the problem, but I will just attempt to address the disposable income issue and I don't claim to be an expert on that. It seems upside down in a way, but it is imperitive to increase purchasing power. Eventually, goods will wind up in warehouses and cost large sums of money to the owners or production will be cut further or halted altogether if things continue as is. This is not in the interest of management or labor. Both will suffer. This is the paradox I see with outsourcing. Most of the outsourced products will be shipped to the US to be sold. The problem is that without jobs that produce disposable income, the products can't be purchased. I don't care how much management can save on labor costs. If the product isn't sold in the intended market, it is a net loss for management. We have lost a good portion of our manufacturing base. I very well could be wrong, but I really have a hard time believing that the US can sustain our place as a wealthy nation based off of mainly a service economy not based on tangible assets. It's late and I am exhausted. I hope this made at least a little sense.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

It makes sense but I still don't see how unions are the answer or how unions are essential to maintaining manufacturing or a middle class.

Inflation has been minimal so stagnant wages haven't meant significantly reduced purchasing power. Off-shoring actually does put downward pressure on prices and makes up for increases in gasoline and HC costs (where we see the big increases).

I think the GM article you posted is a good example - it was a major achievement for the union to agree to different schedules and apparently it took the realization that the plant was in deep doo doo for them to budge.

Bottomline, I don't see unions as incentivized to improve the competitiveness of an organization; often times it is the opposite. It may work for the short term but eventually the company will succumb to competitive pressures and all the jobs are gone.

Thanks for the compliments on discussion tone and same to you. :hi:

 

[JayVols]

It's all relative though. I read the GM article and it sounds like the union reluctantly agreed to some scheduling changes which was still controversial among membership.

If it's that hard to adapt and change is this really an example of the organization being improved by having a union?

It's a step forward. Progress is good. I did see what you are talking about and found it to be childish as well. The UAW is out there, but that article does show a glimmer of hope.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

This is why non-union is superior to union. If business conditions dictate a schedule change in a non-union company, you call the employees together, let them know how and why things must change, try to work out any conflicts to preserve good employees, and you make the change. Done in about 2 weeks. If you need to change a process or work responsibilities, you can do it in five minutes. These types of changes take weeks or months with unions.

The union dinosaurs make their companies too inflexible to survive in today's competitive environment. If US workers want to compete with the Chinese, Indians, and other developing countries while maintaining or increasing wages and benefits then they MUST be more flexible, work smarter, and unfortunately sometimes work harder. Unions are an obstacle to ALL of these things.

 

[JayVols]

This is why non-union is superior to union. If business conditions dictate a schedule change in a non-union company, you call the employees together, let them know how and why things must change, try to work out any conflicts to preserve good employees, and you make the change. Done in about 2 weeks. If you need to change a process or work responsibilities, you can do it in five minutes. These types of changes take weeks or months with unions.

The union dinosaurs make their companies too inflexible to survive in today's competitive environment. If US workers want to compete with the Chinese, Indians, and other developing countries while maintaining or increasing wages and benefits then they MUST be more flexible, work smarter, and unfortunately sometimes work harder. Unions are an obstacle to ALL of these things.

I don't disagree with the vast majority of the post. The only thing I will say is that unions don't always have to be an obsticle. I will give you that much of that perception is of their own doing by poorly picking their battles.

Back more to the topic. I would like to float something for discussion. Let me start by saying both political parties are rotten to the core. Now, has anyone fancied the notion that this Wisconsin deal may have more to it than meets the eye. I am tryimg to be as objective as possible. Could this be an attempt to crush the main source of funding to the Democrats for political purposes? Without unions the Dems basically have nothing in the way of funding. Republicans have the corporate world and now have the Citizen's United decision. If this goes through, it very well could be a knockout blow. OR am I getting all Oliver Stone about this?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[KentheOrange]

Name one good thing a union has accomplished in the last 50 years. I find it amusing that unions force companies and government services to endure higher costs and then cry "management greed" when the company is forced to export jobs to remain competitive or even survive. Why don't they admit that "union greed" has caused many of the problems the unions are now facing?

 

[volinbham]

Back more to the topic. I would like to float something for discussion. Let me start by saying both political parties are rotten to the core. Now, has anyone fancied the notion that this Wisconsin deal may have more to it than meets the eye. I am tryimg to be as objective as possible. Could this be an attempt to crush the main source of funding to the Democrats for political purposes? Without unions the Dems basically have nothing in the way of funding. Republicans have the corporate world and now have the Citizen's United decision. If this goes through, it very well could be a knockout blow. OR am I getting all Oliver Stone about this?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I think you are being Oliver Stone about it.

1) on the Citizens United deal. It's still an interest group but it's not a collection of voters who are in effect voting themselves pay/benefit raises. Public sector unions have money (maybe the CU analogy) but they are also voters and boots on the ground to get out the vote etc.

In short, I don't think the CU ruling will amount to any real significant change in electioneering.

2) there may be some attempt to diffuse D power but the unions aren't being disbanded. They are simply saying the union can't collectively bargain on pensions. They are still a union and can still negotiate pay, working conditions, etc. What they won't be able to do is negotiate deals that put future generations on the hook (as is currently the case).

3) if this is an attempt to solidify R political power then ACORN, any number of "community grant" programs, etc. are ongoing attempts to solidify D political power.

4) R's don't have companies/corporations locked up. This varies by industry. Hell, Obama got the majority of Wall Street Support along with several other industries. GE, one of the biggest corporations in the world, was and is solidly behind Obama.

I do agree that both sides suck for the most part though...

 

[JayVols]

I think you are being Oliver Stone about it.

1) on the Citizens United deal. It's still an interest group but it's not a collection of voters who are in effect voting themselves pay/benefit raises. Public sector unions have money (maybe the CU analogy) but they are also voters and boots on the ground to get out the vote etc.

In short, I don't think the CU ruling will amount to any real significant change in electioneering.

2) there may be some attempt to diffuse D power but the unions aren't being disbanded. They are simply saying the union can't collectively bargain on pensions. They are still a union and can still negotiate pay, working conditions, etc. What they won't be able to do is negotiate deals that put future generations on the hook (as is currently the case).

3) if this is an attempt to solidify R political power then ACORN, any number of "community grant" programs, etc. are ongoing attempts to solidify D political power.

4) R's don't have companies/corporations locked up. This varies by industry. Hell, Obama got the majority of Wall Street Support along with several other industries. GE, one of the biggest corporations in the world, was and is solidly behind Obama.

I do agree that both sides suck for the most part though...

Cool. This just hit me and I wanted other views. The last statement gave me a good chuckle. Thanks.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

I don't disagree with the vast majority of the post. The only thing I will say is that unions don't always have to be an obsticle. I will give you that much of that perception is of their own doing by poorly picking their battles.

Other than the trade unions, unions do not make companies better.

I would like to float something for discussion. Let me start by saying both political parties are rotten to the core.

Yes... which means the only reasonable thing someone can support is the shrinking of gov't.

Now, has anyone fancied the notion that this Wisconsin deal may have more to it than meets the eye. I am tryimg to be as objective as possible. Could this be an attempt to crush the main source of funding to the Democrats for political purposes?

Yes. Beyond the philosophical reasons, there is some political pragmatism here. The Teacher's Unions have been to Dems what the US Chamber of Commerce (small business) has been to the GOP but much, much bigger.

Without unions the Dems basically have nothing in the way of funding. Republicans have the corporate world and now have the Citizen's United decision.

You have been sorely misinformed. Dems have many groups funding them and get about half of the contributions that come from "big business". Generally speaking liberals/Progressives favor the centralization and concentration of power in the hands of a relative few "elites" who have a calling to care for the rest of us. Big gov't, big business, big labor, big education, the truly "rich", lawyers, environmental groups, and the main stream media aren't the adversaries they are often portrayed to be. They are far more like members of the same football team trying to work out who gets to play which position and get the most glory. They've already agreed to trample the other team... just not how to divide the spoils.

Liberals/Progressives are a force in both parties. The conservative voice has now been pretty much concentrated in the GOP but has to fight the establishment Republicans first.

If this goes through, it very well could be a knockout blow. OR am I getting all Oliver Stone about this?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

No. I think you are confused about the players but not about the game. The game is between those who would decentralize power by taking it away from the gov't and unions to return to the "people" and statists. Those interested in returning us to our more libertarian and responsible roots are very much interested in "knocking out" labor unions.

This IS a manifestation of the Tea Party grass roots movement demanding that fiscal responsibility return to gov't.

 

[JayVols]

Other than the trade unions, unions do not make companies better.

Yes... which means the only reasonable thing someone can support is the shrinking of gov't.

Yes. Beyond the philosophical reasons, there is some political pragmatism here. The Teacher's Unions have been to Dems what the US Chamber of Commerce (small business) has been to the GOP but much, much bigger. You have been sorely misinformed. Dems have many groups funding them and get about half of the contributions that come from "big business". Generally speaking liberals/Progressives favor the centralization and concentration of power in the hands of a relative few "elites" who have a calling to care for the rest of us. Big gov't, big business, big labor, big education, the truly "rich", lawyers, environmental groups, and the main stream media aren't the adversaries they are often portrayed to be. They are far more like members of the same football team trying to work out who gets to play which position and get the most glory. They've already agreed to trample the other team... just not how to divide the spoils.

Liberals/Progressives are a force in both parties. The conservative voice has now been pretty much concentrated in the GOP but has to fight the establishment Republicans first.



No. I think you are confused about the players but not about the game. The game is between those who would decentralize power by taking it away from the gov't and unions to return to the "people" and statists. Those interested in returning us to our more libertarian and responsible roots are very much interested in "knocking out" labor unions.
This IS a manifestation of the Tea Party grass roots movement demanding that fiscal responsibility return to gov't.

Interesting.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VOLatile]

Koch bros. are running the show for Walker.

 

[volinbham]

A few of the changes being proposed.

1) stop automatic deduction of union dues. Currently the state government collects the dues out of the pay check (700-1000 annually) then turns around and returns it to union management. this proposal would make the union collect it's own dues

2) reverse a recent change (2009) by Dem legislature that expanded public unions collective-bargaining rights and lifted existing limits on teacher raises.

3) change annual recertification rules from majority of members voting to majority of members in total.

4) make members contribute 5.8% to pension (national average) and 12.6% towards health insurance (about 50% of the national average).

5) limit collective bargaining rights on pensions/HC.

This is the scope of the legislation that sent the Dem legislature fleeing across the border.

 

[volinbham]

Koch bros. are running the show for Walker.

Organizing for America (the successor to Obama's campaign organization) is running the show for the union. It helped fill buses with protestors and ran phone banks urging people to call state legislators.

:neener:

 

[Tenacious D]

A few of the changes being proposed.

1) stop automatic deduction of union dues. Currently the state government collects the dues out of the pay check (700-1000 annually) then turns around and returns it to union management. this proposal would make the union collect it's own dues

2) reverse a recent change (2009) by Dem legislature that expanded public unions collective-bargaining rights and lifted existing limits on teacher raises.

3) change annual recertification rules from majority of members voting to majority of members in total.

4) make members contribute 5.8% to pension (national average) and 12.6% towards health insurance (about 50% of the national average).

5) limit collective bargaining rights on pensions/HC.

This is the scope of the legislation that sent the Dem legislature fleeing across the border.

I'll defy anyone to argue that these are anything but entirely reasonable terms.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[JayVols]

Organizing for America (the successor to Obama's campaign organization) is running the show for the union. It helped fill buses with protestors and ran phone banks urging people to call state legislators.

:neener:

All special interest money needs to be removed from the political process. Legalized bribery. The worldly Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VOLatile]

Organizing for America (the successor to Obama's campaign organization) is running the show for the union. It helped fill buses with protestors and ran phone banks urging people to call state legislators.

:neener:

They're fighting back, so what? The unions didn't start the fight.

All special interest money needs to be removed from the political process. Legalized bribery. The worldly Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

This.

Without special interest money, then there would most likely be more than just a two party system in the US. It would keep politicians more honest. The public would also be more involved in the election process than it is now. They'll be forced to read up on issues rather than decide by on who can talk the most sh*t on TV/radio commercials. No more "Paid for by..." crap.

 

[volinbham]

They're fighting back, so what? The unions didn't start the fight.



This.

Without special interest money, then there would most likely be more than just a two party system in the US. It would keep politicians more honest. The public would also be more involved in the election process than it is now. They'll be forced to read up on issues rather than decide by on who can talk the most sh*t on TV/radio commercials. No more "Paid for by..." crap.

The Koch Bro.s are the new lefty boogie man replacing Haliburton.

If you are concerned about a political machine influencing this issue then you should be concerned about Organizing for America as well.

 

[NEO]

The Koch Bro.s are the new lefty boogie man replacing Haliburton.

If you are concerned about a political machine influencing this issue then you should be concerned about Organizing for America as well.

Boogie Man sells cubicles pretty cheap and is easy to deal with.

I'm just saying.