Waitrons, Walmart workers, and others. They cannot send you job to Mexico.
You Unionize and you can improve the entire country.
Holy shit what?
Just stunned by the statement. Looking at what unions have done to other industries - airline pilots, air traffic controllers, etc - I'm guessing this won't work out so hot in the long haul.
The unions have helped those professions....the corporate owners have done the damage.
Over the years thousands of employees have voted to unionize. Companies ignore the votes and continue in business.
What's a "trade-able" job?
A job that can be outsourced like customer service, a non trad able job is one that must be done in the US.
Yes it is! I'm a member of the UFCW.
[quote]Looking at what unions have done to ...air traffic controllers
Wow. Just wow. What does one do to rid themselves of any sense of pride so they could display their ignorance so openly?
Unions are a relic of the past. They will never come back.
R9 Yes. The amount of time spent negotiating contracts with unions keeps the domestic airline industry from being competitive. Do you read the news about their constant restructuring, bankruptcies, mergers, etc. It's not because they are in a business friendly environment.
R10 - right on.
Unions just take bonus money away from the senior executive management.
Unionizing would impede a bloody revolution.
If you want heads on sticks, you can't have industrial relations.
I don't want unions until we have a BiffTad body count.
[quote]Unions are a relic of the past
So why do conservatives hate them so much? Conservatives love things from the past. The more irrelevant something is, the more they are into it. Look at how they go ape shit over other relics from the past, like religion or John Wayne.
People--OP is making a funny. You can't send those jobs to Mexico, can you?
Oops. nevermind ^ Should not post before coffee.
R15 - that was his point exactly.
Because unions used to ensure that companies paid fair wages and provided safe facilities and reasonable working hours.
They are irrelevant to Republicans because the unions infringe on the top 400 richest American people's 'right' to enslave, abuse, and abase the employees.
R18 - I happen to work for one of those 400 and can honestly say I have never felt enslaved, abused or abased. On the contrary, I am paid well, have great benefits (which by the way started including domestic partner coverage back in 1999). On top of that, if I do feel enslaved, abused or abased I know where the door is and can leave.
R19 and feel free to leave this thread at any time. You know where the door is.
R10 = jerks off to Ayn Rand
Dissenting opinions unwelcome? Usually the sign of an insecure mind.
R20. Fucking really? No opinions aside from your own. Again, point proven
I love people who think they have proven a point when they have done no such thing.
I put an ice cube on my ingrown pube.
[quote]Dissenting opinions unwelcome? Usually the sign of an insecure mind.
Welcome to Datalounge, where all dissidents are told to die in a grease fire.
It's a known fact that, in the industrialized countries, the higher the rate of union membership the smaller the gap between rich and poor.
If unions are relics, that must mean corporations are treating workers better now then when unions were strong, say 1955, making unions irrelevant in today's society.
In 1955 one-third of the work force was in a union. Today it is one-tenth. Every economist on the left says that unions help the average person and that helps the country because good wages support consumption -- my wages are your income, my taxes pay for your public services, yours mine.
Economist on the right, the honest ones, admit that unions help the working class. They just think it is better to help corporations and the rich than help working people.
Are working people better off today or in 1955? What is the middle class share of wealth in this country, larger or smaller? Have real wages gone up? Do we get more vacation time? Do we work shorter hours a day and fewer hours per week? If we lose a job is it easier to get another?
Do we retire earlier? Do we have seniority protection at our jobs? When we retire do companies stand behind the pensions, or have our pensions become 401Ks, toys for Wall Street speculation?
How about education? Do we have affordable higher education? There used to be a union program that helped pay tuition for members' children. How many corporations today pay for the tuition of the children of their employees? Is college within reach of the average working family without incurring massive debt?
College debt wasn't an issue in 1955 because corporations paid more in taxes to support public education. Corporations did that mostly because a strong union movement put progressive politicians in office and got a more progressive tax structure.
Forget college. How many corporations today train new employees to do the work for which they were hired? It was that way when unions were strong. How many corporations tell applicants to train themselves at their own expense, taking out massive loans with loans whose interest goes right back to the same people who own the corporations?
How many companies retain and retrain current employees when new technology makes old job skills obsolete? That's what used to happen. Know why? The employees had seniority protection written into their contract, and the union enforced the contract.
In 1955, a corporation's stock dropped in value when they laid off employees because investors thought something was wrong. Today stock value goes up when companies fire people.
Europe doesn't have this problem with corporations and unions. They have a much stronger union movement and corporations do both -- give better wages and benefits and make satisfactory profits.
WalMart has many stores with unions, just not in the US. They do all right. Six Waltons have more wealth than the bottom 30% of our population. There no unions in U.S. WalMarts. That is no coincidence. They work with Koch brothers to make sure unions never come back.
Unions have always been the only organization made up of working people that draws its membership only from working people, whose only purpose is to protect working people, and that lobbied only for working people. It was their success that supported the living standards of the middle class.
When we live in the richest country in the world and the economy cannot provide decent jobs for all who want them, then something is seriously wrong with the way it is run. If it has been that way for 40 years, we can forget the help of politicians in both parties, they obviously are not up to the job. They do what Wall Street wants.
If your job doesn't pay living wage so you can eat and have a few nice things in life, why complain that unions are outdated and their members overpaid? Why not ask, "How can we get what they have?"
Nothing good will happen if you go hat in hand and ask the boss, "Please sir, may I have some more?" They only give you what you are strong enough to take.
We have to organize and fight back. The way to do that is through the union movement.
Do you have seniority protection? No? Then what happens if:
Your skills are no longer current?
Your boss wants your spot for his son-in-law?
You get older and not as productive?
What happens if you catch blame for a serious issue, but you have no right to a fair and impartial hearing?
Your work gets doubled when the fellow in the next office leaves and you get his work?
Excellent post R28, the anti union shill will be back to scream his vitriol I am sure.
...and it sounds like Amazon should be one of the first to Unionize from the other posts.
I'm sure those people at Hostess were happy with their union too.
[quote]You get older and not as productive?
You get paid according to your contribution, which is entirely appropriate. Why would a company want people who are not productive burning up payroll when there are hundreds waiting in line to take their place who WILL be productive.
If your skills are in demand, you never have to worry about getting axed--young or old. The problem is with lazy, entitled unskilled workers. They have little to offer that a can't be provided by a hundred others. So, they can't expect to slack and stay employed.
Poorly run businesses that indulge and protect unproductive workers can't stay in business for long. Eventually no one will have a job.
R33, you do realize it was Hostess' management that ran the company into the ground, not the union?
R33 if you turned off Fox News and actually went to a legit news source, you would know the unions had nothing to do with the failure of Hostess. It was the the hedge fund company that owned Hostess who did them in. They basically raided the company, looted everything of value and paid their executives tons of money for doing nothing except running it into the ground.
Exactly my point.
If someone can no longer contribute, no matter what he did in the past, no matter how much he has contributed to its bottom line, no matter how many opportunities he has passed up out of loyalty, the moment he cannot make them money he is out the door.
Suppose your father is a janitor, a firefighter, a sanitation worker, a police officer, a construction worker, a carpenter, or works in a dozens of other jobs that require strength and agility, somebody who can't do that work at fifty. How would it make you feel if the employer said to your father:
"You can't do the work. There are hundreds of people 20 who have to work cheap because investors ruined the economy. Not your fault of course. Take two weeks pay and get out."
That's something to hear when you are fifty and North Carolina has just reduced unemployment to 12 weeks.
All over the nation states are cutting back on unemployment. Now the rich want to raise the retirement age. Does that mean they will create jobs for people at fifty? Not according to you. Not according to them either.
What does the janitor do? Maybe has children who want something nice in their lives, like music lessons or a fun vacation. Maybe the older one is in college? How will that work out?
Maybe he wants to keep his house, he doesn't want to move in with a son like you, because he knows his son is selfish.
The idea that workers in this country are lazy or unskilled has been discredited over and over again. Labor productivity has increased in a steady line over the last 40 years, so much for your laziness.
How have wages fared? We have got nothing, not a single increase. Where did the wealth we created end up -- in the pockets of the rich.
In 2010, Bloomberg reports, the top one percent got 93% of income growth. On what planet is that fair -- productivity goes up and the rich steal it all? In what country is that right when other people are going hungry, when people are driven into bankruptcy because they can't get health care?
Unskilled workers? Are you serious? If we are unskilled, where did your increased profits from increased productivity come from?
Maybe you think buying new machine or creating new software to put us on the street makes you productive?
No. It means you are putting workers on the street and getting more value out of those who are left. Besides who created the machines and the software that increases productivity? Not a single rich person, that's for sure.
Unskilled workers? If that is true, then why aren't the few that have skills getting outrageous wages, endless job offers, and incredible benefits?
That's not happening, is it? Why isn't it? Because all the wealth from increased productivity the investors have stolen has been stashed where it does no good for anyone.
That wealth, trillions of dollars, could open new public schools so we could be educated just as you want. It could expand public employment in teaching, postal service, transit, health clinics, and a dozen similar jobs.
It could rebuild the infrastructure putting thousands of skilled construction workers who are crying for work back on the payroll. Guess what. Those people pay taxes but only when they work. The recession ends and government revenue increases.
None of that is happening because the rich investors can't get the return on their investments that they want. They can never get what they want, that's impossible. They won't be satisfied until we work for nothing, and then that won't be enough either.
We live in the richest country on earth, the richest country that has ever existed. If that country cannot provide jobs for everyone who can work, health care for all, decent housing, food, recreation, art and music, then the system is broken and it has to be changed.,
One more fact. There is history to consider. When the rich turn the screws too tight, the people at the bottom will fight back. You might just get bit on the ass.
It used to be that rich people and their lackeys knew that if they didn't share what they had, they might lose it all.
We all need to unionize but Republicans won't let us.
R29 (and I assume R37), I have mixed feeling about unions. At your post at R29, you get three out of five.
[quote]Your skills are no longer current?
This is difference between American union and European unions, or at least German Unions. It is the union's responsibility to make sure its members skills are current and the unions take this responsibility very, very seriously. If an employer were to go to the union and say that a worker skills were not up to current standards, the union would replace him immediately. Though that really wouldn't happen as his fellow union members would probably have turned him into the union long before the employer made a fuss. This is probably a hold over from the old guild system, which never really existed in the USA. Also, I bet most Americans would shout "communism!" at such "group think" American workers do NOT, for the most part, take pride in their work. Their goal is to get the most for the least amount of work. The unions are only interested in making sure their members have swimming pools and 80" TVs, not that the members skills are current or that the work is of the best quality.
[quote]You get older and not as productive?
Nobody should have to keep an unproductive employee. In the old days of Paternalism, you might have had a job for life, but you had "A" job, not necessarily the same job. You might be in the accounting department in your 50s and sweeping the factory floor in your 70s. The employer found work for you if you were still willing to work; however, it was work at which you could be productive. You were not allowed to deal with complicated accounting if you mind was just not able to process equations as well due to age. It is great that unions want to keep their members employed, but they also have to realize that old wood is not just unproductive, it is preventing a younger and more skilled union member from moving up. Unions need find a way to keep older members employed, but not at the expense of productivity.
The issue that nobody is dealing with is that we are all living longer. It is just not possible to work and save for 40 years and have enough to live on for another 40 years. It is also just not realistic to assume that people in their 60s-80s will be able to function in the job market. Somehow, we have to find a solution to this.
[quote]Suppose your father is a janitor, a firefighter, a sanitation worker, a police officer, a construction worker, a carpenter, or works in a dozens of other jobs that require strength and agility, somebody who can't do that work at fifty. How would it make you feel if the employer said to your father: "You can't do the work. There are hundreds of people 20 who have to work cheap because investors ruined the economy. Not your fault of course. Take two weeks pay and get out."
Uh, why would someone who can't do a job expect to be allowed to keep on doing it? I'm a supermodel and I know I only have a short shelf life. Should I expect to continue working as a supermodel when I'm 50? After all, my kids will want vacations and new clothes. I guess my employer should just suck it up and continue letting me work as a supermodel until I'm toothless, paunchy, wrinkled and gray, huh?
No of course not, I know I will need to retrain and expand into other areas to stay viable. And I will not expect my employer to take care of that for me as though I were a helpless child. I'm an adult and I'm fully aware that the path I've chosen is not a life-long career. It's MY responsibility to diversify as I age.
R3 is one dumb fucker.
There never would have been a middle class without unions.
How could anyone expect trash like R3 to know that?
[bold]I happen to work for one of those 400 and can honestly say I have never felt enslaved, abused or abased. On the contrary, I am paid well, have great benefits (which by the way started including domestic partner coverage back in 1999). On top of that, if I do feel enslaved, abused or abased I know where the door is and can leave.[/bold]
You're so full of shit.
ITA with R3
Not everyone is a factory worker in a sweat shop, R42.
I didn't make that assumption, Freeper R43/R44!
How lovely for you.
You think that we can generalize from your experience to gather insight as to how to resolve problems for the entire disappearing middle class?
Do you have any model for upscaling your solution for, say, a the hundreds of thousands of mothers of young children who become early widows and have no money, support or time to get an education?
Do you have any suggestions for a man in his fifties with a high school education who has busted out his knees working in a factory that closes?
How about the millions of people who have had secure jobs and a secure wage then find the company closing because it can make better profits overseas. What do you say to them:
"Tough shit. Next time learn to be a fortuneteller before you take a job"?
If they could do that they would be at the track, not working for some dick of a boss.
You can't take your fortunate situation, born on third and think you hit a triple, and apply it across millions of people who need to find jobs and can't get them.
I hope that you never have an accident to your fortuitous good looks or catch a stroke that makes you unemployable and untrainable. That will give you a quick lesson in reality.
What gives you the right to consider yourself a meritorious example of self-sufficiency when you were born with your looks just the way some men are born with knees that wear out early?
Totally agree, OP. It's way overdue. The people that are in non-union jobs are being treated like slaves and it is ruining the country.
The conservatives like to say the 1950s were great? Well, in the 1954 the percentage of workers belonging to a union was 35%. Now it's 11%.
I guess they don't really want to talk about that. A strong workforce with decent paying jobs makes a strong, decent country.