The teachers' union sucks, but still...
The House of Representatives will debate and hopefully pass a bill restoring American workers' right to freely choose whether or not to form a union.
Show your support for the Employee Free Choice Act.
Research shows union members earn 30% more than nonunion workers. Plus, union workers are 63% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are four times more likely to have a guaranteed pension.
The benefits of union membership are clear.
posted by kate @ 5:35 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
Unions have their place. But please remember that they are not the all-empowering all-wonderful things they used to be.
Today the bigger unions are full of "management" types at the top who "earn" their money off the hard (or not) work of the union members.
At one of our facilities in New Jersey we can't even throw away boxes by ourselves. We have to give them to the union trash guy. And if he's not around, the boxes pile up. Same goes for network or electrical work up there. Which is why our location here is much quicker to do installs because we can run the cables ourselves and we can have our electrician do work without having it approved by the union. I'm just sayin'...
Point well taken, but will you also castigate the “upper management” within corporations who also earn their money off the hard (or not so hard) work of the employees.
It seems people are quick to bash unions, which have made working conditions far better for employees, but won’t dare question why one or two people at the top make millions. I think it has something to do with learned helplessness: Workers rely on the favor of those above them to put food on their tables and, like my dog defer to their masters.
BTW, now that the minimum wage has increased, has anyone noticed any big (or small) businesses going under because of it?
GOADER,
The minimum wage has not increased. It has been passed in both houses, but they are not the same, so they will have to work it out before it goes to W.
Second, this act is anything but the free choice act. The unions are having trouble getting people to actually vote to unionize. the process is: They get signatures publicly, and many times, through coersion, to get enough signatures to have a "private" vote.
So many employees are coerced to sign the "public" petition, and then vote NO privately to unionize.
This bill eliminates the "private" vote, and just unionizes all employees once the "public" petition requirement is met. So employees will be coerced into signing the petition, and will have no chance to anonymously vote it down. Unlike me, many people give into co-worker and union pressure, where I would tell them to shove it. Many people just sign it so their coworkers dont get angry at them.
This bill is bad for the free market. Next thing unions will force union employees to publically show which politicians they vote for.
Just in case you were wondering, the last line was a sarcastic joke, but just showing how they just use their power to get what they personally want.
Rich,
Nice try and if this were FOX News or most of the other mainstream media, which openly cater the right-wing conservative types, it most likely would be left at that. However, I am interested in the whole truth, not just half truths so common in right-wing circles.
The half that you so conveniently left out was all the times employers (owners and their, wannabees, stooges and goons) have harassed, threatened, and in some cases, injured and killed employees who dared to stand up for fair working conditions.
Additionally, bosses in offices everywhere either openly browbeat their employees or subtly impose beliefs on a captive audience. The powers that be around the nation have at least eight hours per day five days a week to indoctrinate their charges.
Due to the power held over most employees it only takes a very few upper-level and owner types to convince many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of workers day in and day out—ever so slowly washing brains. See what has happened in this country over the last thirty years. Another advantage is that many workers today have no idea what public views have shifted over time, since they weren’t alive or were merely children during that time.
P.S. Thanks for humor alert, but I already know much of what you say is pretty funny;-)
Goader,
You are talking about things that have happened in the distant past. In the distant past, unions were much needed as companies hired/fired employees on a whim, had horrendous working conditions, etc.
That is far from the truth today. Unions are much more about power now than workers rights. And employers today are not brow beating, brainwashing, and injuring and killing workers. I dont know what world you live in that this still happens.
And i got NONE of this info from Fox News, in case you think so. I havent watched that channel in a long while, but if i did decide to watch national news in the future, it would likely be from either that channel or ABC.
"Additionally, bosses in offices everywhere either openly browbeat their employees or subtly impose beliefs on a captive audience. The powers that be around the nation have at least eight hours per day five days a week to indoctrinate their charges.
Due to the power held over most employees it only takes a very few upper-level and owner types to convince many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of workers day in and day out—ever so slowly washing brains"
The above is happening right now all over the nation, as I type and you read.
A perfect overt example involved the Intelligence community; when members of the W’s Executive Office browbeat seasoned professionals to “see” things as the President and his cohorts did concerning all things WMD. Those who stood up to the influence peddling either resigned or spent the balance of their careers in some back office. When even long-time, steel-minded Intelligence Operatives can be persuaded what chance you think the masses have to resist.
How you say with a straight face, after seeing what the mainstream media did to Howard Dean and his infamous “scream,” that those with means do not sway public opinion? Although, the way you see it is exactly how those same powers that be get away with time and time again.
Howard Dean, while i could have cared less about his scream, was such an incredibly left cliff leaning liberal, he would have gone down one way or another. He was the Vermont governor, and if you know vermont, you know that it is about the only state besides MA that is run much like European countries, with restorative justice, incredible taxation, and socially extreme liberal policies.
He also comes off time and time again as an EXTREMELY blunt jack arse. The far left will love that, but the large majority of americans dont.
I think rich and goader need to get a room. ;-)
I think Goader has an appropriate name.
Again, all you can do is change the subject when exposed to the truth. We were talking (still are as far as I am concerned) about those in power—be they owner/employers or politicians in office—who use their power to unfairly influence those under them.
George W did it with Cheney in tow to the intelligence community, FOX News and other main-stream media e.g. New York Times do it and are complicit (yes, don’t kid yourself they cater to conservatives regularly), and owner/employers do it daily to those they employ.
As a matter of fact, I am preparing a post on that “other” web log talking about Sam Fox, who with red-faced embarrassment apologized to Kerry for the whole Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign of lies during the presidential campaign.
People will believe anything if it is said enough times. Just like my dog: If tell him to sit enough times, guess what, he sits. My dog does it for affection and a treat, while people do it for a paycheck.
BTW, Rich don’t look now, but I think people are watching us. People can be so damn nosey. Speaking of nosey, that guy with the “Hi, my name is Jeff” sticker on his shirt I’ll his nose has brown ring around it.
Im going to disagree with you across the board. There were no lies on Iraq, there was faulty intelligence WORLDWIDE.
The new york times is nothing but a liberal rag.
The swift boat vets, well, they probably lied. But, Kerry did slam and lie about what the soldiers in Vietnam were doing.
So if you really believe all that crap you just wrote, there is no need for me to even attempt to argue with you, for you see an alternate reality.
At least you know when to pick up your marbles and go home.
Maybe you are smarter than I gave you credit for.
To say Kerry slammed and lied about Vietnam is to say today's soldiers slam and lie about Iraq, whether they are saying how much good they are doing or that torture was going on at Abu Garaib. No individual soldier sees much beyond his or her lane, and what happened, or is happening in "the war" is much more highly individualized than most non-vets suspect.
But back on topic. Big unions are dead, they just haven't pulled the plug yet. I am so far to the left of Rich that we've come full circle to be on the same side of this one. No doubt there are entire industries, and
specific employers, who need to be reined in, but traditional big unions aren't the ones who will be able to do it at least not without substituting one form of subjugation for another.
In the case of teachers I think unionization has stymied the professionalization of the career and kept teaching a "pink collar" job. Every non-union job I've taken as a teacher has allowed more opportunities for leadership ("administrative burdens" in Union speak, self determination I say), better pay, and far better benefits than the union jobs I've been offered (and turned down, I just can't work like that).
Now, were there lies about the Iraq intelligence? No one here has anywhere near the knowledge required to make that determination. Were there intelligence failures? It doesn't take a CIA case officer to say yes. Were those failures a sign of systemic problems perpetuated by an administration bent on finding an excuse to invade Iraq? Well, I think you can see which way I'm leaning on that. But, we won't know for sure until the papers are released and the memoirs are written and sifted through.
Port—
I can’t disagree with you on the state of unions in general. Unions as an institution should accept much of the blame for their decline and loss of influence. I have a problem with pulling the plug though, how will the void be filled? Not to demonize employer/owners, but the employers’ interests are not the same as the employees’.
For example, the owner is happiest when unemployment figures are greater than zero, while the employee holds more cards the closer that number is to zero. The owner wants employee to have some debt, while the employees prefer to have sufficient pay to stay debt-free. The owner needs employees to fear of losing the job just enough to keep him or her showing on time, while the employee prefers to feel empowered by some control of the schedule. The owner needs for the business to support a certain lifestyle, while the employee is the biggest drain on maintaining that lifestyle.
For the most part, people are like sheep and that is a good thing—it’s even in the bible. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians cause turmoil. However, because people tend to want to follow, a long time can pass before the pendulum swings far enough to reach critical mass for significant changes to occur. Collective bargaining is a way to allow people the comfort of just going along and not rocking the boat, yet provide a better standard of living. Therefore, when we finally pull the plug on the concept of unions, will we be in danger of slipping backward until we find ourselves in a hole too deep out of which to easily climb?
On the subject of misleading intelligence, I believe even the President has acknowledged that people were leaned on to find the “right” intelligence. However, you are correct that some time must pass before we know the whole truth.
"Speaking of nosey, that guy with the “Hi, my name is Jeff” sticker on his shirt I’ll his nose has brown ring around it."
Are you speaking to/of me? If so, please explain yourself.
Oh, now I see why you were wearing the name tag.
If I explained it then it wouldn’t be funny.
Now, put this cone on your head and go sit in the corner.
Ah, I see. You're one of those.
The type of person who think that anyone who thinks different from them is some kind of imbecile.
Gotcha.
I'm afraid I don't see who it is exactly I was trying to brown nose.
It's surely not Kate. As she and I are constantly locking horns over issues she brings up here.
And it can't be on this topic right here. Unless you take my silence on your accusation of my love for CEOs to be confirmation of said accusation. I had planned to respond, but once I saw how you had a "right" type response in the thread about FCAT and then a "left" type response in this here discussion I figured you to be a "goader", and left it at that.
But, allow me to retort. CEOs who earn millions and fly around in corporate jumbo jets should die in the same fire as big-union organizers. I believe that the largest problem facing firms in this country today is the short-term investor. This person forces a company to be more cognizant of their quarterly performance than just about anything else. Thus leading to many of the other problems now seen across the board. Including sky-high compensation for CEOs. These people are being rewarded for screwing the customer and the employee in order for today's stock price to tick up $0.75. And when it all falls apart for whatever reason, they are sent on their way with tens of millions of dollars in severance for their trouble. Often times with thousands of hard working middle-class employees also out of work.
Then again, your reference could simply be scatological in nature. In that case, please forward me your address so I can get you a year subscription to "Internet Tough Guy Monthly".
Now, Jeff I never accused you thinking different from me;-)
“Scatological,” I had to look that one up, good word. And, thank you for the “goader” compliment—I’m blushing.
I am a little confused (no surprise) concerning your reference to CEOs and, what I guess is, the day-trader. I am not sure how the short-term investor is to blame for a company’s downfall.
Here is my take on it. Trading stocks is a sort-of forgone conclusion in that the corporation has long since received its money’s worth. Other than an IPO, trading is mostly a psychological exercise in building confidence in a company’s future earnings. (Though many make trading decisions based on projections several months in the future.)Big brokerage houses can manipulate the market by putting out buy and sell recommendations, and so, can make or break some day traders.
It is also true that maintaining a stock’s value enriches those who own its stock, and it preserves a company’s image; however, there is no direct effect on the corporation, since it has already has banked its share of the money.
CEOs are another matter. To whom does the CEO owe fiduciary responsibility? Is it the stockholder, the employee, the customer, or, more likely, some combination of all stakeholders? Conventional wisdom favors the stockholders it seems, to the exclusion of all other stakeholders.
I believe CEOs owe allegiance to all stakeholders, after all they do receive the largest compensation packages, certainly enough to represent all parties. It will take a paradigm shift, though, to level the field so the progressive CEO can stay competitive while implementing the new business model.
CEOs do owe all stakeholders. But the problem is that they are more concerned with how the stock is performing than how the company is performing. A company can layoff 3,000 workers, and the net effect on earnings two months in the future will be positive. And the stock holders will see that and buy more. Thus increasing the stock price. And the stock holders are the ones who are really in charge. They are the owners of the company. Day traders (here comes the connection) are the ones who are able to push the stock up and down by full dollars on a daily basis. They trade huge quantities by the minute. When a firm has a good earnings report, the DTs buy until they are satisfied with their profit (stock goes up). Then they sell to realize that profit (stock goes down). When the stock goes down, people start to wonder what the CEO is doing wrong. So the CEO (and the executives) try to figure out how to make earnings look good again. Hence more layoffs, less hiring to back-fill, essentially increased pressure on the little guy without regard for his contribution.
Basically, the execs are more concerned with how this quarter looks as compared to last quarter and this quarter last year. When the should really be concerned with how the firm is doing over time. Maybe the 2Q2007 comes in a little weak on earnings (compared to the artificial "last quarter" and "year over year" metrics), but if the past 5 or 10 years have been steady increases, why worry?
I don't want to turn this into a stock market primer, but day traders are not the primary reason for CEOs responding to "short term investors." Day traders are not looking at a company's year over year performance, or even quarter to quarter-what they do is more like a video game trying to time market trends over the course of a single day. Warren Buffet, and my mother-in-law, would both say a 5-10 year investment horizon is short term but I think it is less a matter of time than orientation-investments are made with a buy and hold philosophy or market timing strategy. Many individual investors think they get into the market committed to buy and hold, then discover they don't have the stomach for it and jump out. They usually turn out to be excellent reverse market timers, buying high and selling low. If you combine the intentional market timers with the relatively clueless folks who jump in and out the impact is quite large.
As I type this, the S&P is down 24 points in early trading. Some will see this as a buying opportunity and I would bet Exxon will continue its aggressive stock buy back program. The company increased its holdings of its own stock by buying back 381 million shares in '03 and '04. I mention this because Goader implies that once an IPO is over the company has only a peripheral interest in the stock price. If companies did not continue to hold, buy, and sell their own stock the major benefit of being a share corporation would be lost. At their core, shares are a perpetual financing device.
Jeff—
Your point concerning the CEO that comes in to streamline the company by cutting the payroll is well taken. Even though severance payouts cut into profits in the short run, the goal is increased profits later on.
Port—
Companies buying back there own stock is function I neglected to consider. You are correct that it is essentially perpetual financing. However, it does not diminish the importance of the “new” money created by the initial offering. As I observed, all money that changes hands after the IPO originates out of a kind-of confidence game. Trading depends on financial fundamentals with big dose of faith thrown in to the calculations.
The thread concerned the broader issue of owner/employer interests contrasted with worker/employee interests. We were talking about unions, as you recall, and what, if any, roll they will play in the future.
My question was where we go after the final union bites the dust. Clearly, in our capitalistic, free market economy, which is driven by the workers having sufficient funds to spend freely, an inherent conflict exists between the one with the master key and everyone else. Since we know that a balance of free market and social spending is what seems to work best, how do we balance the two? Unions have helped fill that roll, so what happens when they are gone?
Goader,
I could answer that question partly. When unions are gone, people will do what they have been doing for the last 15 years, leave the company if they dont like their pay, benefits, or conditions. Generation X and Generation Y workers are leaving companies much more often, and it is b/c if they dont like where they are working, they leave, like people should.
I have been out of college for 6 years, and i am on my 4th job, and every company i left for mostly appropriate reasons. And my income and benefits are much higher now than when i got out, FAR FAR exceeding inflation since 2001.
If an individual has job skills or an education, they will easily be able to negotiate for a good wage. If they have little or no job skills, well, then they better get truckin on some job skills, for they wont have much negotiating power.
Post a Comment
<< Home