Re: The Potential Longshoremen's Strike

[Fool]

On NPR last night, it was said that one of the main reasons that the longshoreman were threatening strike was that the companies they worked for wanted to get rid of the royalties system they had in place, which gave the workers a certain amount per ton of goods moved through the port, to compensate them for loss of wages due, at least in part, to the automation of the industry. Now, my question is, why did do the workers feel like the should be compensated for that? When we invented the computer, did they give royalties to all the workers that made typewriters? I know that's not close to a perfect analogy, but why should an employer have to compensate employees if their job is made obsolete?

This might not be the exact right place for this but it seemed the most appropriate.

[stephkyle7]

No worries Fl(im not gonna use your full handle,lol).
heres the deal, though, you can make that argument and it is fair to a certain extent, but you really just need to decide what kind of country you want?
I mean if you are a true Free market capitalist then your workers only desreve what you WANT to pay them,the demand for labor will continue to drop..so do you want people living in squallor because of economic principle,
do you want to duplicate th conditions that the framers tried to escape?
make no mistake about it,in the Fuedal system they came from, all the wealth was concentrated in the Ruling class.
The king ,the nobles, and the lords, below that? you were a peseants or slave, thats it buddy, no chance of upward mobility.
As wealthy is concentrated that is the exact situation that our country has been heading towards.King=owners Nobles=stockholder, lords= managers, everyone else that doesnt want anything but a simple life/ surfdom baby, that what you get.

I dont care what they deserve ,I care what is available ,and it is a LOT. more then they are getting Now.

We all follow sports.

No one really blinks an eye t the obscene prices of athletic contracts. We tend to say that is what the market supports, but owners have worked tirelessly to screw the players whenever they can, however they can.
Lockouts,new contract tactics, every time its the same thing
"guys, we cant afford to pay that much money,...we'll go out of Buissness"

athletes: really? hmmm show us the books and then we'll offer consessions.
Owners: the books?, uhh, no, no, you cant SEE the books, just trust us.
and around it goes until the owners once again accept that some is better then nothing and low and behold they are making lots of money once again.

The NBA offered their players a 50% share of revenue for contracts...50% tell me who else gets that?
Most buissness run @ about 15-25%,what they do is constantly try to shrink figure by taking from thier employees, im not gonna tell you how to think, It just seems to me that people with a lot already, dont have any reason to demand more.

[corralski]

On NPR last night, it was said that one of the main reasons that the longshoreman were threatening strike was that the companies they worked for wanted to get rid of the royalties system they had in place, which gave the workers a certain amount per ton of goods moved through the port, to compensate them for loss of wages due, at least in part, to the automation of the industry. Now, my question is, why did do the workers feel like the should be compensated for that? When we invented the computer, did they give royalties to all the workers that made typewriters? I know that's not close to a perfect analogy, but why should an employer have to compensate employees if their job is made obsolete?

This might not be the exact right place for this but it seemed the most appropriate.

The unions are like an aging professional athlete in a contract year.....