Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 91 to 104 of 104
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,301
    vCash
    1500
    Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but what else is there to do to help out Michigan? Instead of passing this what would other people have liked to be done?

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    It is my thinking that we will see those laws slowly rolled back over time. It won't be a blatant "ok now that unions are gone lets bring back sweat shops". It will be a slow move towards that type of environment. As you take away a groups right to bargain, it is only a matter of time. The businesses have lobbied this very successfully in not just this matter but also in class action lawsuits. If you eliminate unions and eliminate class action lawsuits, the divide and conquer strategy is very effective.
    There are far, far better ways of addressign that kind of issue that exist within our current government framework than to engage in the practice of forcing emplyees to join orgaizations in order to remain being employed. What happened in the left to the concept that citizens should have the freedome of choice? Oh, I get it. It only applies when it doesn't impact democratic party campaign contributions.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7
    Right...
    and both he and you lack the proper historical perspective, or indepth study on the matter to be making that suggestion.
    The suggestion comes from the fact that studies on the impact of right to work laws have been mixed, and that there is evidence for both sides of the argument. For example, the unemployment rate in right to work states tends to be lower, but wages also tend to be lower.

    It has nothing to do with "historical perspective" or the history of the labor movement, or Florida welfare drug laws, or Arizona immigration laws.

    Basically, why can't you succinctly address direct arguments? Why?
    Last edited by gcoll; 12-15-2012 at 02:27 AM.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,760
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    It is my thinking that we will see those laws slowly rolled back over time. It won't be a blatant "ok now that unions are gone lets bring back sweat shops". It will be a slow move towards that type of environment. As you take away a groups right to bargain, it is only a matter of time. The businesses have lobbied this very successfully in not just this matter but also in class action lawsuits. If you eliminate unions and eliminate class action lawsuits, the divide and conquer strategy is very effective.
    The thing is even with these laws the unions are not gone. These laws aren't taking away the right of collective bargaining. It is simply telling me that if I want to go work for a company that has union representation I have the choice of whether or not I want to be a part of them or not. It is my decision whether I am willing to pay dues to have their representation. It also takes the responsibility for collecting said dues away from the companies and puts it on the unions as it will no longer be coming out of their checks each pay period.

    And I just flat disagree with the idea that without unions all of the sudden federal labor laws are going to be rolled back. I feel pretty safe in saying that you will never again in the U.S. see a 10 year old chained to a sewing machine for 12+ hours a day. That being one of our more horrifying exports we have given to the rest of the world.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,767
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sota4Ever View Post
    Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but what else is there to do to help out Michigan? Instead of passing this what would other people have liked to be done?
    How about starting by doing no harm? Slipping a knife in the back of working people to benefit corporations solves nothing, and improves nothing but already-bloated corporate profits.
    I'm going to list ALEC in credits as associate producer of creating horrifying things for us to talk about -John Oliver

    People who think the least powerful members of society are responsible for most of its problems are deluded, at best.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,623
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosiercubsfan View Post
    Your first part is why I believe that unions at one point in history had a very vital role they played. And now all of their gains they got have been enshrined in laws they play a much less vital role in the world. That even before the RTW laws union membership was severely waning in the private sector.

    Who is fighting to do away with all of these laws? Who is fighting to send us back to the days of sweatshops?

    How are RTW laws killing unions? Or even attempting to for that matter?
    Thanks for asking HCF
    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...3L03yNZyJPW18Q

    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...mHuNPsW6ATQgVw


    look, initially in this country people were basically indentured servants to their employers regardless of the industry.
    they worked for however long they were told, they got paid what was decided by the employers, in many cases they lived where the employer told them to.
    The rise of unions slowly changed that dynamic but didnt change it overnight.
    Initially, all a Union was ,was an organization to protect people from getting beaten, hung, or murdered, for complaining about work conditions,wages, or work hours.
    This is why the correlation was drawn to organized crime , becasue all a union did was offer protection.
    If you complained by youself, you got beat down at best, killed at worst.
    If you were unionized, the murder option was removed becasue retaliation became an option..but beatings continued.
    Companies then hired private policing firms, or payed local police to administer the beatings and quell protests.People were being beaten by the police department that ws funded by their own tax dollars because companies were paying them on top of their wages(lol).

    lets fast forward past all the pain of union gains.
    The country then basically had become compartmentalized in employment options.
    If you worked in FOR a buisness , chances are you were unionized.
    If you were not Unionized,buisnesses had little choice to match union standards to attract workers.
    Or you worked for the Government.
    The government class of worker was a "protecetd class" to a higher degree then the union worker, better wages, better benefits.
    There obviously were other dynamics but this was by and large the entire country.
    Since that time their has been a systematic effort to return to that 19 century standard, and it can be traced by one effort after the other.
    The first step was to marginalize and diminsh Union power.
    This was easy becasue just like in Government and private buisness , people by their nature are corrupt, so it is simply a matter of shedding light on who is up to no good....there is always someone.
    then the free market agreements and other legislation that indirectly effected union numbers were written and adopted by Republicans who simply by a matter of choosing became the proxy of Buissness leaders(it just as easily could have been the democrats, it was a simple heads or tails prospect about who to buy).
    I wont publish another disertation because Ive been chided for the length of my posts but, the point is you can step, by step trace the efforts to :
    1) shrink union influence
    2) pit unions and and non union entities against each other(divide and conquer)
    3) repeal the legislation that limits corporate greed.

    Look, Conservatives argue all the time about ficticious Job creators, or personal gain as the only proper motivation, and ive tried to impress this on you guys who repeat that sentiment

    YOU ARE RIGHT.
    there is no question about it.
    what you wont accept for some reason is that doesnt mean to stand back and let greed have its way.

    Opiate based medicine ushered in a new era of surgeoury and life saving measures which did more good than can be caluculated.
    That didnt mean everyone should go around shooting up heroin for every little problem they faced.

    These Job Creators, are really wealth creators, and the very trait which drives their effort is a cancer to everyone else.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,623
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    The suggestion comes from the fact that studies on the impact of right to work laws have been mixed, and that there is evidence for both sides of the argument. For example, the unemployment rate in right to work states tends to be lower, but wages also tend to be lower.

    It has nothing to do with "historical perspective" or the history of the labor movement, or Florida welfare drug laws, or Arizona immigration laws.

    Basically, why can't you succinctly address direct arguments? Why?
    And in Your opinion,these issues have no historical context?
    they havent been shaped or influenced by other forces?

    you are way to smart to believe that, and IMO once again are just trying to find some angle to make this about me.
    The results are mixed becasue leveling the playing field to the point where this argument could be made has been a 50 year enterprise.

    That argument could never have been made in the era of Union strength....trying to pass these laws using this "data' to support their effectiveness would have been laugh at, so CLEARLY, the first step was to reduce the effectiveness of Union participation.
    You did this by, raising Private sector wages and benefits to match Unions.
    Then, you shutter Union companies and offshore the jobs.then you slowly lower non union wages against a less prevelant Union Oversite.
    Then you divide and conquere.
    then you bring back the union jobs, but insist you cant afford the same deals as before, THEN you introduce laws like this, supported by a limited analysis of what the now weakened union offers compared to the now re stabilized lower non union jobs offer.

    all of which is only seen through a hostorical perspective rather than a direct comparison.

    If i chain and starve a body builder for six months and then drag him out and offer a comparison between he and I, there would be little diference.
    that is what you are asking me to do..sorry, If you want to fall for that little rouse, you go right ahead.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7
    And in Your opinion,these issues have no historical context?
    they havent been shaped or influenced by other forces?
    You were arguing over their impact today.

    You've already taken a position that right to work laws make people worse off. When someone presented information contradicting your view, you changed the subject to the history of unions.

    So, to recap: your position is:

    1) An exhaustive study by a PhD that compared right to work states with non right to work states shows that right to work laws make people worse off; and

    2) Any comparison of right to work states and non right to work states is invalid.

    Those points are inconsistent.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,623
    vCash
    1500
    comical....

    so what YOU are saying is
    1) it is somehow a false equivalency to compare Union Gains to their current level of effectiveness
    2)any support data shoud be ignored in favor of what best allows for a conclusionj youd like to be drawn.

    Once again, youve been trained well(LOL).

    The study Ive sited as well as others Ive offered you, was not as limited in scope or "time" reference as youd like the debate to be engaged in.
    I never said a comparison was Invalid, I said the intentionally limited scope of the papers you both are using is invalid, additionally they are intentional in their methodology, they begin with a premise and set about showing it to be acurate.

    Just as youve choosen to offer as if its impact is negligeble, the new jobs are for lower wages.that is ALL you need to understand in the dynamic becasue that is the staple accomplishment of Trickledown economics which is completely married to the concept of marginalizing Unions.

    HCF asked me to supply certain Other information and you, predictably have begun flailing about complaining ,that my offereings are some how not relevant, or out of context.

    Rt. to work laws help to futher dismantel unions, this inturn lowers overall compensation standards.
    So we as a people should be happy that Jobs are returning at all is the bottom line message.
    If these new artificially lowered standards are to difficult to manage , well then work two jobs, or three jobs...
    Just dont complain, because your lucky to have a job at all....

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7
    so what YOU are saying is
    1) it is somehow a false equivalency to compare Union Gains to their current level of effectiveness
    2)any support data shoud be ignored in favor of what best allows for a conclusionj youd like to be drawn.
    No. I am saying #1 has no impact on the economic analysis of right to work laws today. At best, it is an attempt to explain why they have a certain impact.

    And for #2 I am saying that there is evidence for both sides of the argument over right to work laws. Hence, it is not a matter of fact, but a matter open for debate.
    Last edited by gcoll; 12-15-2012 at 07:54 PM.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,623
    vCash
    1500
    that is a skewed perspective.
    right to work laws today, are simply an effort to force people to accept a lower wage structure.
    As you insisted on over and over in our previous discussions, GPD has continued to rise...so why the urgent need to lower wages?

    Its amazing to me how young men like yourself can argue for opposites of the same dynamic depending on the topic, or how it relates to a narrow ideology.

    If as youve insisted, GDP has continued to grow, and per capita has continued to grow, how then does lower wages inpact that reality, without being exactly what I had claimed in the DEMOCRATIC thread?

    You want it both ways, and are infact arguing an Ideology, not facts.

    The lower wages are not reflected in the gdp/per capita analysis for a very simple reason, the loss of wage hasnt been lost, it has been redistributed upwards, that is what free market capitalist do, those with money attempt to leverage their power over those that dont have it , to their own benefit regardless of the coloateral damage, then when they cause a collapse of the market, or Bubble, they hop in a plane and ride out the storm in monacco,or dubai.

    WSF, (I believe) has stated that Republicans will have no credibility until they break up the Big Banks(Sorry if that wasnt your post WSF).
    His point is valid, but it doesnt stop with Banks.
    Every corporation whose wealth, power and influence grows to a point where they can operate with impunity from social retaliation is infact a defacto mini dictator.
    The market forces no longer effect their behaviours as wed like.
    they simple change laws, or destroy competition illegally, or various other unethical methods to pervert the market.

    These laws are simple an expression of the same dynamic.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7
    If as youve insisted, GDP has continued to grow, and per capita has continued to grow, how then does lower wages inpact that reality, without being exactly what I had claimed in the DEMOCRATIC thread?
    There aren't lower wages. All the analysis that concludes that wages have stagnated (nobody concludes they have been lowering, by the way, just that they've been stagnating), fails to take into account benefits:

    http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4...00/wages.3.jpg

    Your analysis is based on an untrue assumption.
    Last edited by gcoll; 12-16-2012 at 02:58 PM.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,623
    vCash
    1500
    once again you present a intentional misrepresentation of facts, produced through an average across sector regardless of benchmark standards.
    as an example, Internists, anthestsiologists, trial lawyers,chemical engineers have seen their base rates quintuple in some cases, throwing the scale out of kilter which is over and over once again the game you for some reason seem content to play.

    The truth seems to be unimportant to you.
    As is almost Universally true, high wage professions generally require no union representation. and as such are unimpacted by these laws.


    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://a...nop_WCDUaSKIKA

    this chart shows the increase in federal wages as compared to the private sector, this is how the adjustments have been made since the 60s.
    As it points out,in many cases it has increased by 265%.

    In the segment of the market I was working it was calculated as about 28.00 an hour starting for a Aviation Technician and that is what a federal technician makes in his first year.
    This compensation was based on Union wages from a baseline point in time, and factored based on Inflation and cost of living.

    Since Union "highs" the redistribution of profits upwards and away from employees has withered the unions gains to where in some cases a starting aviation rate is somewhere around 12-13 dollars an hour.

    The Fed.However, doesnt take away compensation, but simply continues to adjust upwards based on Cola.
    Your chart, like the last one you supplied is meaningless because once again it takes averages,so when a company like walmart, cuts wages to minimum scale, and then in turn increases the upper managements compensation ,no discernable change occurs in Per capita on your chart....I have a strong feeling you already understand this truth but for your own amusement you continue to argue empty points.

    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...8Lf6Bcs88u9_6g


    Without Unions, Wages Haven't Come Close to Keeping up with Productivity or Inflation
    Prior to the 1980s, productivity gains and workers' wages moved in tandem. But from 1980 to 2008, nationwide worker productivity grew by 75 percent, while workers' inflation-adjusted average wages increased by only 22.6 percent.

    This means that over the course of the last 30 years or so, workers were compensated for only 30.2 percent of their productivity gains.

    If American workers were rewarded for 100 percent of their increases in labor productivity between 1980 and 2008, as they were during the middle part of the 20th century, average wages would be $28.53 per hour--42.7 percent higher than the average real wage was in 2008.
    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...8d--gqSoNChGqQ

    workers averaged 11.17 an hour in 1950.
    Today about 60% of the workforce is paid hourly, and close to 30% of them are paid within a dollar or two of each states prevailing minimum wage which winds up being substantially lower then the 11.17 average compensation from 1950.

    About 7% are tied directly to or are actually BELOW minimum wages standards...
    while GDP and Per capita has done nothing but steadily grow.....

    standards of living as described by income and time sacrficed to earnings are in a downward spiral.
    and have been for 30 years.
    These types of laws hasten the process.
    Last edited by stephkyle7; 12-16-2012 at 09:44 PM.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Eh, **** it.
    Last edited by gcoll; 12-17-2012 at 02:31 AM.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •