Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not in the bizarro world of public employee unions. If you are teacher, cop, firefighter, streets & san guy,transportation dept worker or any one of dozens of others roles and you work for a municipality, county or directly for the state the way unions run things is how you have to deal with it. Technically if you try to opt out of the union they still take most the money you'd pay in dues but you don't get any say in who the shop steward is, they call that "fair share" for the privledge of having your wages set by collective bargaining...
Anybody that does not thing their union pension is investing in the market by "advisors" that skim even more off the top than the 401k/IRA managers also has not reads the disclosures they are supposed to be sending out. How do you think crooks like Stuart Levine were living large???
The leaders of unions are leaches and the biggest juicest most puss filled ones are the scum that have Madigan and Cullerton write special loopholes into the Illinois Code so that their lazy heinies make out at the expense of the working stiffs.
For you to decide how many people should belong to unions is an infringement on the free market and people's rights to associate, strike bargains and make contracts. Unions are not a monopoly because they deal with individual employers not entire industries. In every industry there are employers that are unionized and those that aren't.
So then you think monopoly laws should be struck down? Corporations are people too, they have rights to associate, strike bargains, and make contracts as limited liability entities.
So you then agree that monopoly laws should be struck down?
I am really interested in this argument, because I think monopoly laws should be on the books to protect industries from ravaging, power crazed singular organizations (sound familiar)??
How many CEOs actually took a risk and started a company? And how many took over going concerns and took (and take) no risks themselves?
Ford makes pretty damned good cars (and this is generally agreed upon among auto enthusiasts and journalists) so you're evidently not very well informed on this subject. Note too that the German car companies people hold up as paragons of automotive virtue are heavily unionized.
How many employees take risks that CEOs take? When a CEO starts a company its a small business, small businesses put EVERYTHING on the line, and if it fails, the CEO/Proprietor is left with nothing. How can you even compare that to a risk that an employee takes. That employee can just walk away. And if you think every Dry Cleaners, or Gas Station gets a government bailout, then you are sadly misinformed. The folks that got the bailouts are a very small population (this is why they are called the 1%), so making an argument based on 1% minority is not something I am interested in discussing.
RE: Ford vs GM thats a silly debate.
But German car companies operate under different standards and actually you know...produce instead of double dipping and collecting wages for non existent individuals, so that is a poor example. Look at the profit margin of a German car company, and its output, and you know that even if they have unions everyone makes money so there is little conflict.
Companies like Google might have a union, but the folks there are high producers and have the right to be high earners. I cannot accept that you argue for folks that double dip, and do 1 day of work in an entire WEEK and expect to be paid 100K per year. Thats a ludicrous argument, only surpassed by your assertion that CEOs and founders dont take risks.
Not in the bizarro world of public employee unions. If you are teacher, cop, firefighter, streets & san guy,transportation dept worker or any one of dozens of others roles and you work for a municipality, county or directly for the state the way unions run things is how you have to deal with it. Technically if you try to opt out of the union they still take most the money you'd pay in dues but you don't get any say in who the shop steward is, they call that "fair share" for the privledge of having your wages set by collective bargaining...
Anybody that does not thing their union pension is investing in the market by "advisors" that skim even more off the top than the 401k/IRA managers also has not reads the disclosures they are supposed to be sending out. How do you think crooks like Stuart Levine were living large???
The leaders of unions are leaches and the biggest juicest most puss filled ones are the scum that have Madigan and Cullerton write special loopholes into the Illinois Code so that their lazy heinies make out at the expense of the working stiffs.
The point is that union "skimming" is nowhere NEAR comparable to the private sector. If you think otherwise it would be nice if you could back it up with facts. Corporatists attempt to beat up on unions because they limit their power. Last time I checked, unions weren't main players in the economic downfall.
How many employees take risks that CEOs take? When a CEO starts a company its a small business, small businesses put EVERYTHING on the line, and if it fails, the CEO/Proprietor is left with nothing.
Sounds like the free market at work to me. I thought risk takers loved it?
Quote:
How can you even compare that to a risk that an employee takes. That employee can just walk away.
Yeah, or be fired and lose everything when the company is not going to make enough for its shareholders.
Quote:
The folks that got the bailouts are a very small population (this is why they are called the 1%), so making an argument based on 1% minority is not something I am interested in discussing.
Of course not, because you can't logically justify why 1% of the population owns over 70% (and that's probably being conservative) of the wealth...when the rest of the population does the REAL labor. Boo hoo, you're taking a "risk" in your business suit from the comfort of your large office. Making decisions that affect people whose LIVES depend on every check they ear.
RE: Ford vs GM thats a silly debate.
Quote:
Companies like Google might have a union, but the folks there are high producers and have the right to be high earners. I cannot accept that you argue for folks that double dip, and do 1 day of work in an entire WEEK and expect to be paid 100K per year. Thats a ludicrous argument, only surpassed by your assertion that CEOs and founders dont take risks.
High producers of what? Whose value system are we using? I think we all can live in a world without Google. It has been done before. Trying living in a world where you are responsible for your own education, protection, trash pickup, library, etc.
The leaders of unions are leaches and the biggest juicest most puss filled ones are the scum that have Madigan and Cullerton write special loopholes into the Illinois Code so that their lazy heinies make out at the expense of the working stiffs.
I made more money than non union people doing the same work and paid about 4% in dues. I retired at 55 and draw a pension from a fully funded and well managed pension run by a board of trustees representing both the union and the contractors. If you can convince me that's not in my interest I'll call you Aristotle.
Listen Chet, you talk about YOUR interest here and I'll respect that. But don't give me any crap about you looking out for the working man and his interests.
Sounds like the free market at work to me. I thought risk takers loved it?
I take the risk, I get the benefit. Thats called risk/reward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRise
Yeah, or be fired and lose everything when the company is not going to make enough for its shareholders.
Guess what happens to a CEO if he isnt making enough for his share holders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRise
Of course not, because you can't logically justify why 1% of the population owns over 70% (and that's probably being conservative) of the wealth...when the rest of the population does the REAL labor. Boo hoo, you're taking a "risk" in your business suit from the comfort of your large office. Making decisions that affect people whose LIVES depend on every check they ear.
Yup, exactly. I do not support bailouts, but I have NO PROBLEM with CEOs getting paid in large sums. Its their company, dont like it, start your own. Free market right?
And if we want to even out income, Americans have the highest salaries in the WORLD. Are you willing to even out income with a poor farmer in South America that gets 20 bucks a month??? I dont think so.
So how are you any better than a CEO that keeps his own income?
Crabs in a barrel. If the situation were reversed, I bet the amount of philanthropic donations from executive officers would go down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRise
High producers of what? Whose value system are we using? I think we all can live in a world without Google. It has been done before. Trying living in a world where you are responsible for your own education, protection, trash pickup, library, etc.
Sure lets all go back to the stone age!
The only value system that matters is the one that turns profit. Google, Apple and other companies have VERY high profit margins, so they dont have walkouts and strikes and crap like that. Compare that to GM, and Crystler.
So then you think monopoly laws should be struck down? )
No, nor have I have implied they should. I explained that unions aren't monopolies. Which you ignored as it doesn't fit your scheme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicnice
Corporations are people too, they have rights to associate, strike bargains, and make contracts as limited liability entities.
I don't think corporations are people. But they have rights to strike bargains including the right to strike bargains with unions. Just as one company has the right to strike a bargain with another to be it's exclusive supplier of goods so a union has a right to strike a bargain to be an exclusive representative of labor; a supplier of goods.
I think you'd do best to just couch your arguments in terms of naked and honest self interest; you conservatives are just too inconsistent to make a coherant philosophical case (such as the ban on unions using secondary boycotts; a clear case of interfering with people's right to associate). I always respect a guy looking out for his own interest even if it conflicts with mine. Just be honest about it.
I take the risk, I get the benefit. Thats called risk/reward.
Yes and if your risk doesn't work out, you get nothing. That's called the free market. No sympathy there.
Quote:
Guess what happens to a CEO if he isnt making enough for his share holders.
He gets fired? No more six-figure salary? Boo hoo.
Quote:
Yup, exactly. I do not support bailouts, but I have NO PROBLEM with CEOs getting paid in large sums. Its their company, dont like it, start your own. Free market right?
Ever thought that some of us are happy being worker bees? The difference is, this isn't a monarchy and we don't have to bow to the queen. So because I don't want to start my own company I shouldn't have an opinion about how unbalanced the system is and being taken advantage of? Ludicrous. We live in America where we have a right to do these things.
Quote:
And if we want to even out income, Americans have the highest salaries in the WORLD. Are you willing to even out income with a poor farmer in South America that gets 20 bucks a month??? I dont think so.
What does South America have to do with the price of tea in China? Stay on topic please.
Quote:
So how are you any better than a CEO that keeps his own income?
Who said I was better? This isn't about better. This is about fair. If the CEO didn't have a workforce he wouldn't be able to get his lofty rewards. Workforce should be compensated accordingly.
Crabs in a barrel. If the situation were reversed, I bet the amount of philanthropic donations from executive officers would go down.
Quote:
The only value system that matters is the one that turns profit. Google, Apple and other companies have VERY high profit margins, so they dont have walkouts and strikes and crap like that.
They don't have walkouts and strikes because their workers' belongings would be packed and shipped at lunch and they'd have another person willing to work 80+ hour workweeks in two seconds.
But German car companies operate under different standards and actually you know...produce instead of double dipping and collecting wages for non existent individuals, so that is a poor example. Look at the profit margin of a German car company, and its output, and you know that even if they have unions everyone makes money so there is little conflict..
In other words well run companies do fine with unions. Hardly an argument against unions on principle then is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicnice
I cannot accept that you argue for folks that double dip, and do 1 day of work in an entire WEEK and expect to be paid 100K per year. Thats a ludicrous argument, only surpassed by your assertion that CEOs and founders dont take risks.
Nor am I, I hate those people far worse than you possibly could because they do me, as a trade unionist, far more harm than they do you. It's the notion of unions I'm defending.
Founders take risks but CEOs who walk into going concerns often don't and are often rewarded for running a company into the ground with bonuses and golden parachutes. It's as though CEOs are an entitled class protected from their folly, like nobles in the Middle Ages who were protected by the other nobles from the common people (though the nobility often enough killed each other. But that was OK as long as it was another noble doing the killing, not a commoner).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Corporatists attempt to beat up on unions because they limit their power. Last time I checked, unions weren't main players in the economic downfall.
Making decisions that affect people whose LIVES depend on every check they ear.
