Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

On STRIKE!

Recommended Posts

I don't know where you got this assumption that employeers are not unfair when it comes to pay in the USA?

Me? You obviously got me wrong. Employers are usually the most unfair. And we'd still be working our asses of for no pay if it wasn't for the unions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there was a time when unions were strong and good to have..

heck they were even giving the republican and democratic parties a run for their money with a candidate for president at one point..

that was when they were  really strong..

our company has no representation for it's employee's..so rightnow the place is half filled with temps and half employee's

it's taking 7 to 10 years to top out the pay for a position there..when really it should be only taking around 3 years..

and the pay is 5 dollars an hour lower than it should be..

the company is making more money now than it ever has..breaking records..

and they have failed to bring back the standard pay before the crash in 2008..

it wasn't union before..

 

the son stepped up as the father retired..

he was trying to take bonus's away as well..

something that the father had promised to give employee's to make up the difference in pay..

when the place almost went union the last time..

 

so the employee's settled for the bonus's which were quarterly and the pay which was 5.00 more an hour today..

so far the october bonus is gone..

and they have been shorting on the other 3..

if they are not careful..they may get the union sniffing around again..

 

i don't want union here..because it was nice when it was nice..

but i feel bad for the ones ut on the lines.. they are over worked and under paid and passed over for positions because of favortism rather than ability..

temps getting positions that employee's have built up time for to bid on get passed over..

that will get morale going for sure..just in the wrong direction..

 

a lot of companies have filled up with temps that stay temps for years..

our temps are supossed to stay temps for 90 days..if they don't work out..they are gone after the 90 days..

that policy hasn't been in effect since i've been there..

one guy was temp for 4 years and finally hired..all because his cousin was an emplyee there which the financial manager didn't like..

so this person worked 4 years as temp missing bonus's and vacation days and holiday pay..

right now he would have had 10 vacation days a year..instead being his first employee year..

he gets 3..

 

there needs to be something that is there to represent emplyee's in work places..

because companies will take advantage..

 

heck one man a couple years back had a heart attack and died ..rather than have the forklift back up and take the next closest route..

they dragged the man to the side so it could get past..

also the mans best friend had his head in his lap right after..

he was told to get back to work..just like everyone else around him that knew him..

it reminds me of movies i have seen with the great depression..the way workers were treated back then..

unsafe conditions and harsh enviroment. and people not making enough to get by..

they leave there to a second job ..or are going there from another job..

 

sorry for keeping going..but right when i am about to end it..something else comes to mind..

i could go on all day about safety issues there alone..

 

i don't know about unions..but there needs to be something there..something that employyes won't take advantage of and something that won't have the companies taking advantage of the employees..

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work ~70 hours a week, every week, and for over 25 years.  I work to pay taxes to pay union federal workers retirement plans... and now Obamacare.

Oh that's stupid. If your contract says you gotta work 70 hours/wk than your union obviously has some bad negotiators.

You pay taxes for retirement pans? You obviously live in the wrong country.

Obamacare? What has that to do with anything? I know, I know the USA is kinda struggling to grasp the concept of social insurances but I can tell you right now that Obamacare might be a step in the right direction but is still the wrong concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be perfectly clear, I'm a Libertarian. To us, the NAP(non aggression principle) is our guiding principle. It just so happens that capitalism, not corporatism, is consistent with the NAP. IMHO, Libertarianism is, by far, the most logically consistent political philosophy there is. We are the most fiscally conservative, and the most socially conscious. Most of us are supporters of the Austrian school of economics, which is similar to the Chicago school of thought, but more logically consistent. Mises and Hayek are hailed as libertarian heroes.

Now, unions can be consistent with Libertarianism, as long as it holds true to the NAP. In Detroit, this is not the case. You will quite likely get your butt handed to you if you dare to cross that picket line. The only way for their strike to work is to not allow new worker to come in, as they understand that most people can do their jobs, and would willingly work for the wages being offered.

I agree that the net is making government obsolete, but I would argue that it is more than just communication. The net is, and has always been, the closest thing to a truly free market. Entrepreneurs flock to the net with their ideas, because they know the net has less hurdles to jump over, and few ways to control it. There is no doubt that communication is a key factor tho. Heck, just go onto FB, you'll see pretty quickly that the people that are the most clueless, are those that still watch the boobtube, as every network simply parrots the government's lies.

As for your last statement, I'll just ask who decides what a crime is, and who's crimes have the potential to affect the most people? I would argue that government creates crimes by it's very nature. Any laws, outside of common law, is the state creating a new crime, which is solely based on biases. Many laws the state creates are all about legalizing or shielding corporate entities from prosecution for real common law crimes. Government creates volatility in the markets because no small business man knows when his business will be considered a crime. Government is Anarchy, as anarchy is defined today.

Here is an entertaining video that highlights the Hayek vs Keynes debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

I work ~70 hours a week, every week, and for over 25 years.  I work to pay taxes to pay union federal workers retirement plans... and now Obamacare.

Oh that's stupid. If your contract says you gotta work 70 hours/wk than your union obviously has some bad negotiators.

You pay taxes for retirement pans? You obviously live in the wrong country.

Obamacare? What has that to do with anything? I know, I know the USA is kinda struggling to grasp the concept of social insurances but I can tell you right now that Obamacare might be a step in the right direction but is still the wrong concept.

i'm thinking he is a business owner from the sounds of it..

a lot of businesses won't benefit from it.

in fact some that were giving employee's insurance may have to stop and start taking  part of the cost for insurance out of the employee's pay..

that or may end up cutting back on employee's so they can get the benefits of it..

if it wasn't a law that we had to have insurance..that would be one thing..

but now a lot of people that didn't get insurance until later..will be forced to either get insurance or be fined at the end of each year..

it's good for some..but not everyone..

 

ETA: Also Walmart the past year or so has been cutting it's people back on hours to keep from giving insurance.. because they seen this coming..

they've had employee walk outs over the hours to try to get them back to full time..

an 11 billion a year cleared profit this corporations takes home..that is after all the bills are paid..and they cut back on hours..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unionism is a rational response to feudalism; the USA was never a feudal society, so unions were an irrelevant aberration in the developing country

Unions are a rational response/counterweight to industrialism ... not feudalism. Unions were not formed in medieval times but around the turn of the last century. And the USA had theri industral revolution as well as any other country. And now that we have less and less "real" workers in the coalmines and heavy industry they spread out, of course. In germany we have unions for every kind of business, from gastronomy, education, public works, banks and insurances, farming, retail and wholesale, just about any kind of business that needs employees. They were and still are important as a controlling factor on employer/employee relations. A buffer zone if you so will.

 

I'm just disappointed that I won't be around to see the rise of collaborative anarchy, or as the Eastern Bloc call it, crime.

Huh? What eastern bloc? Haven't you watched any news the least 30 years? There is no eastern bloc anymore since kinda around 1989 or so. Which is kinda shame .... but oh my, so  be it.

Further, anarchy is a threat (and therefor crimatized) by any organised society. There are/were only a handful of selected people on this planet I'd share a true anarchist system with. Namely Mahatma Gandhi, Nestor Makhno, Che Guevara, Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez ... maybe Mother Theresa (if she promises to behave). These are good, uncompromised people with a free mind. But that's it. For the masses anarchy would end up in a giant bloodbath and is not recommended. Apply sparcely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

Unionism is a rational response to feudalism; the USA was never a feudal society, so unions were an irrelevant aberration in the developing country

Unions are a rational response/counterweight to industrialism ... not feudalism. Unions were not formed in medieval times but around the turn of the last century. And the USA had theri industral revolution as well as any other country. And now that we have less and less "real" workers in the coalmines and heavy industry they spread out, of course. In germany we have unions for every kind of business, from gastronomy, education, public works, banks and insurances, farming, retail and wholesale, just about any kind of business that needs employees. They were and still are important as a controlling factor on employer/employee relations. A buffer zone if you so will.

 

I'm just disappointed that I won't be around to see the rise of collaborative anarchy, or as the Eastern Bloc call it, crime.

Huh? What eastern bloc? Haven't you watched any news the least 30 years? There is no eastern bloc anymore since kinda around 1989 or so. Which is kinda shame .... but oh my, so  be it.

Further, anarchy is a threat (and therefor crimatized) by any organised society. There are/were only a handful of selected people on this planet I'd share a true anarchist system with. Namely Mahatma Gandhi, Nestor Makhno, Che Guevara, Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez ... maybe Mother Theresa (if she promises to behave). These are good, uncompromised people with a free mind. But that's it. For the masses anarchy would end up in a giant bloodbath and is not recommended. Apply sparcely.

I'd love to disagree with you Orca . . .

. . . but I know much of your post doesn't make sense in English . . .

. . . and so I can't be sure that the bits that might make sense are actually what you wanted to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

Unionism is a rational response to feudalism; the USA was never a feudal society, so unions were an irrelevant aberration in the developing country

Unions are a rational response/counterweight to industrialism ... not feudalism. Unions were not formed in medieval times but around the turn of the last century. And the USA had theri industral revolution as well as any other country. And now that we have less and less "real" workers in the coalmines and heavy industry they spread out, of course. In germany we have unions for every kind of business, from gastronomy, education, public works, banks and insurances, farming, retail and wholesale, just about any kind of business that needs employees. They were and still are important as a controlling factor on employer/employee relations. A buffer zone if you so will.

 ...

Part one: "Ahh, that's just what I thought when I read Awe's post" - but what about the Guilds that were established in pre-industrial times?  I'm not sure where to place them since they were for self-employed, 'skilled' workers in the main.  In any case I'm not sure if it translates to German.  Your thoughts would be appreciated because ...

"In Germany we have unions..." - Aha!  That explains a LOT.  In Germany your unions are nothing like as militant as the ones in the UK (let's not even mention France ^^) and tend to concentrate on what is good for the market and the companies in which their members work, not just on selfish, short-term benefits that are generally destructive and, ultimately, self-destructive too.  Germany's model was exactly what I had in mind when I said "Yes to employee representation".  Collectively we are all in the same boat - your unions want to make sure it is navigated properly, ours want to sink it to drown the captain.

On anarchy I more or less agree with you - it only takes one bully to bring the whole thing down - but there's no way I'd want dictators like Castro or Chavez around, let alone warriors like Guevara and Makhno.  Even Mandela is a bit dodgy; yes he was magnanimous in victory and no totalitarian but let's remember he was another "armed and violent" (his quote) revolutionary.  [Yes, one of the best and he was right, but I'd have to look at him twice before letting him into Utopia].  That only leaves Ghandi and Mother Theresa and I hope they get on OK because I'm pretty sure I shouldn't be let in either!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, industrialisation was merely feudalism with a monetary exchange system rather than barter, augmented by a civil police force which stopped intransigent vassals from being slaughtered by the Lords of the Manor when they tried to skim something off the top of the milk production.

The Germanic unions do little to protect their workers from their employers; they operate to protect a closed shop, rather like the Guilds you mention. They are failing, of course, as the rapid reduction in the reduction in the unionised proportion of the workforce demonstrates - it was down to less than 20% by 2010.

ETA Of course, in East Germany, which apparently doesn't exist any more, it is completely different . . .

ETAF: To explain, in 1991 when East Germany was "integrated", union membership shot up, then the following year it fell back down again as the ex-Eastern Blockers realised that their union dues were actually a waste of money.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we all know (ie; what follows is highly contentious and partially tongue-in-cheek) the only country that lost WW2 was Great Britain.

After the war the USA took one the most liberal lines of any country and boomed throughout the 1950s and, of course, the 1960s.

Most of Europe followed a 'social democratic' principle and got on well enough once they'd rebuilt everything.

Great Britain still lived with the heirarchical, Empire, mindset, followed Keynesian economics and didn't even end rationing until 1954.

The Soviet Union followed an even more controlled and centrally-planned economy ... enough said.

======

Amusingly enough, while I was checking the date rationing ended I found this quote on wikipedia, "... with many British men still mobilised in the armed forces, an austere economic climate, and a centrally-planned economy under the post-war Labour government, resources were not available to expand food production and food imports. Frequent strikes by some workers (most critically dock workers) made things worse." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom)

Which says it all really.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

 

Amusingly enough, while I was checking the date rationing ended I found this quote on wikipedia, "...
 with many British men still mobilised in the armed forces, an austere economic climate, and a centrally-planned economy under the post-war Labour government, resources were not available to expand food production and food imports. Frequent strikes by some workers (most critically dock workers) made things worse." (
)

Which says it all really.

 

The Labour (Socialist) government were, of course, attempting to emulate the Communist model . . .

. . . except in Britain they couldn't shoot the strikers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:

To be perfectly clear, I'm a Libertarian. To us, the NAP(non aggression principle) is our guiding principle. It just so happens that capitalism, not corporatism, is consistent with the NAP. IMHO, Libertarianism is, by far, the most
logically consistent political philosophy
there is.

Medhue, I might have agreed with you, and even laughed at the Hayek v Keynes "Big Fight" (with Milton Friedman as referee?) but I couldn't get past the highlighted phrase.

Politics and philosophy, two concepts composed of meaningless posturing, juxtaposed to an epithetical phrase like "logically consistent" - it sounds like something my Sociology tutor might have said. And he was absolutely full of dynamic drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ETA: " industrialisation was merely feudalism with a monetary exchange system rather than barter" - you're replying too fast for me to keep up! :-)] Eh?  While I sort of know what you mean I don't really think you can equate industrialism (or capitalism or consumerism) with feudalism, per se.  The big difference comes with the growing individual independence within those systems - from none at all to choice of place, to choice of lifestyle, to choice of phone (to put it whimsically, which I am wont to do).

Concomitant with freedom from the land has been rising social mobility and participation in the political system.  It is inteersting - although I don't know what, if anything, it means - that (in the UK) the places with greatest trades-union support are the ones with the least mobility in physical, economic or social terms.  Perhaps someone knows a bit more about that?  (Apart from military and computers my own studies have been in political, not social, economics).

Unfortunately, I think, the collapse of consumerism seems to have us sliding back to early Victorian moralities which seek to restrict the poors' opportunities and then punish them for being not buying the latest toys, "Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy **bleep** we don't need." (Fight Club), as someone remarked here recently.

[Like Medhue I worked to be better, in the Army (and got computer skills and qualifications for it).  Those made me rich(ish) once I'd left.  Then I chucked it in to mess about on yachts and now I live on almost nothing on an organic farm, which is a bit like - but isn't - a commune.  Talk to me about social and economic mobility, hehe]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Awe Thor wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:

To be perfectly clear, I'm a Libertarian. To us, the NAP(non aggression principle) is our guiding principle. It just so happens that capitalism, not corporatism, is consistent with the NAP. IMHO, Libertarianism is, by far, the most
logically consistent political philosophy
there is.

Medhue, I might have agreed with you, and even laughed at the Hayek v Keynes "Big Fight" (with Milton Friedman as referee?) but I couldn't get past the highlighted phrase.

Politics and philosophy, two concepts composed of meaningless posturing, juxtaposed to an epithetical phrase like "logically consistent" - it sounds like something my Sociology tutor might have said. And he was absolutely full of dynamic drivel.

Well, the translation from greek for philosophy is "love of wisdom". Philosophers are the original truth seekers. Without philosophy, it would be difficult to see through all the propaganda that the Dem and Rep parties push. Logically consistent is not just a fancy word device used to sway an argument. It is a quantifiable measure of an ideas reliance on logical fallacies. I would agree that the phrase, as I used it, sounds like the typical propaganda we are all used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germanic unions do little to protect their workers from their employers; they operate to protect a closed shop, rather like the Guilds you mention. They are failing, of course, as the rapid reduction in the reduction in the unionised proportion of the workforce demonstrates - it was down to less than 20% by 2010.

 

Not completely true. Unions are there in the fisrt place to negotiate fair wages and protection for their members. Once the tarif contract is done everybody in the business will gain from it, not only the members. In that regard they are completely different from medieval guilds since their power is much bigger, it even reaches into the legislative. Most of the labour related and social laws you find in germany where created for big parts due to strong unions. The unions are acting as lobbyists same as their counterparts from the corporate world and have influence on a country's politics.

The reason for shrinking membership has rather to do with fashion and mindset of the younglings these days. My grandpa, my dad ... and to some extent even me were always proud of our working class status. But nowadays they all seem to be afraid to be recognized as workers, everybody wants to be something better, everybody wanna be a popstar. So becoming member of a union would be like a stigma for them.

Also as the working force shrinks, and we already have all the fancy contracts and laws in place, many people think it's not necessary anymore to engage in the struggle. Once I get my unemployment benefits why should I be member of any union? And that's the sad state of mind of major proportions of the general population. That is the sad truth.

One more word about your false (imho) use of the term germanic. Germanic is a genealogy term (in which most of us whities fit more or less) and has nothing to do with the political construct of Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

 

Oh that's stupid
. If your contract says you gotta work 70 hours/wk than your union obviously has some bad negotiators.

You pay taxes for retirement pans
? You obviously live in the wrong country.

Obamacare? What has that to do with anything? I know, I know the USA is kinda struggling to grasp the concept of social insurances but I can tell you right now that Obamacare might be a step in the right direction but is still the wrong concept.

I am not a member of a union.  My work habits are not all financially related as my remuneration is a constant; 70 hours is the same as 20 hours.  

Taxes are how the Government operates.  Taxes are collected at three levels: City, State, and Federal.   Many, many Federal government employees belong to a Federal Employee union.  They have outstanding retirement and health benefits.  Many either contribute a very small percentage of their relative pay into these 'plans' or don't contribute anything at all--they are funded through taxes. The same applies to city and state government.  Needless to say working at any level in government is a pretty good job (except, of course, employees of Detroit.) 

The economy was broken when President Obama took office.  Pres. Obama turned his focus toward health care.  The U.S. spends within the health care system 18% of our GDP.  Why mess with 18%... especially with very flawed legislation.  Why?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

The Germanic unions do little to protect their workers from their employers; they operate to protect a closed shop, rather like the Guilds you mention. They are failing, of course, as the rapid reduction in the reduction in the unionised proportion of the workforce demonstrates - it was down to less than 20% by 2010.

 

Not completely true. Unions are there in the fisrt place to negotiate fair wages and protection for their members. Once the tarif contract is done everybody in the business will gain from it, not only the members. In that regard they are completely different from medieval guilds since their power is much bigger, it even reaches into the legislative. Most of the labour related and social laws you find in germany where created for big parts due to strong unions. The unions are acting as lobbyists same as their counterparts from the corporate world and have influence on a country's politics.

The reason for shrinking membership has rather to do with fashion and mindset of the younglings these days. My grandpa, my dad ... and to some extent even me were always proud of our working class status. But nowadays they all seem to be afraid to be recognized as workers, everybody wants to be something better, everybody wanna be a popstar. So becoming member of a union would be like a stigma for them.

Also as the working force shrinks, and we already have all the fancy contracts and laws in place, many people think it's not necessary anymore to engage in the struggle. Once I get my unemployment benefits why should I be member of any union? And that's the sad state of mind of major proportions of the general population. That is the sad truth.

One more word about your false (imho) use of the term
germanic
. Germanic is a genealogy term (in which most of us whities fit more or less) and has nothing to do with the political construct of Germany.

Ah those younglings, eh . . .

. . . and you have the temerity to incorrectly attempt to criticise my use of English? Silly girl!

PS Don't give up your day job to try to become an economist either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many, many Federal government employees belong to a Federal Employee union.  They have outstanding retirement and health benefits.  Many either contribute a very small percentage of their relative pay into these 'plans' or don't contribute anything at all--they are funded through taxes. The same applies to city and state government.  Needless to say working at any level in government is a pretty good job (except, of course, employees of Detroit.)

Oh, poor country. Well, I don't know much about the US but where I come from you pay into social insurance when you have a job, any job. It's the 3 pillars of the social system: health care, unemployment, pension. You work, you pay your due, you benefit. AFAIK you and your employer each pay 50%. There's no way around that system, no cheap way out for neither you nor your employer. I don't need to work for the gov'ment to receive a pension or get my hospital bills paid. And it's a system that won't touch taxes in any way. Nothing outstanding at it, it's just logical and has always been that way. Not even the nazis dared changing anything. That system works great ... or used to work great until legislation turned the American way and allowed to substitute your public insurances with private health insurance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah those younglings, eh . . .

Yes, terribly stupid. They are young, they make lots of money. they are healthy and they are selfish. So they get out of public health insurance and join some private insurance. Then they get older, marry and have kids and they realize oopsy, their wife and kids aren't included in my health care. Then they lose their jobs and can't pay their high insurance premiums no more. And then they become ill, heart attack or cancer or whatever. Too bad.

 

. . . and you have the temerity to incorrectly attempt to criticise my use of English? Silly girl!

Yes, silly me. But I reallly don't have the foggiest where you got that term "germanic" from. When talking about the FRG just german should do the job quite fine ... if you're not on any agenda that is. And with your reputation as a slightly hilarious forum troll I'm not so sure about that agenda part.

 

PS Don't give up your day job to try to become an economist either.

Naaaw, why should I? Economy is boring. My field of expertise is Russian history and I'm a trained user support/hardware technician and Unix operator. I also worked as press photographer, windsurf instructor and sailyacht crew. My dayjob since 13 years, as a semi-retired (not officially unemployed but not on pension neither) housewife/ useless person/caretaker, is fullfilling enough. There is nothing in economy for me. :smileyhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

...
windsurf instructor and sailyacht crew...:

Yeaahhh for us professional* yachties :-)  (You never mentioned that before)

[*Well, maybe I was more a boat-bum a lot of the time]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...