1 brb, readin the post

2 If this post is not treated as "first", the union will be filing a grievance against this blog.

Are these the only donuts you've got? They're all plain.

3 At least in the auto industry, Japanese unions are specific to a company, IIRC.  Toyota has one union and Honda has another.  That always struck me as a great improvement over the UAW-for-all system we have here.  The union, and more particularly the union's dues-dependent full-time management, have some skin in the game.  If they kill the company, they've committed suicide.

4 Samuel Gompers was once asked what he wanted for American union members.

His answer?

"More."

This is the problem.

5 Right to work states

6 Wagner style?

The Valkyries are unionized now??

7 Unions are political action committees are should be designated as such.

8 I'm not sure it's possible, as unions are self-interested organizations.  That's not a criticism of unions, but their entire purpose for existing is to advocate on behalf of a very particular group of people. 

9 How about workers manning the fuck up and negotiating individually on their own behalf like the rest of the non self-employed do? Unions have long outlived their usefulness.

10 Something like that is just an attempt to polish a turd. The choice shouldn't be union or else somewhat-less-union, the choice should be union or right-to-work.

11 Posted by: Beefy Meatball at August 10, 2011 01:53 PM (bZ8J6)

Can I come over to your house for dinner? I'd like to bang your wife.

Oh, I shouldn't treat my host that way?

12 I've always dreamed of riding Bo Derek doggy style with Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries playing full blast in the bedroom.

Was I wrong?

13 What would a model trade union bill look like, then?

hahahahahaha

How about that quote from Bachmann? "The mother of all repeal bills". The model bill would be a repeal of ALL labor laws and regulations and firing of all the union thugs in government.

14 beefy is an all-around genius, just ask him.

15 What I would like to see is that any damage done to any person or to any property by any union member during a labor dispute would be payable buy the union at ten times the loss.  This penalty would have priority over any and all other union spending priorities such as pensions, strike funds, fat cat salaries etc.

16 beefy's too fucking stupid to know that the "12% of tea partiers support obama" is not particularly odd -- most polls find something like that. He's an imbecile. He doesn't seem to realize that a certain amount of Democrats call themsevles "Tea Partiers" despite not really being very Tea Party-ish at all. But yeah, true, someone shouldn't be permitted to write on a blog, or its comment section, if his anger exceeds his knowledge base.

17 The model bill would be a repeal of ALL labor laws and regulations and firing of all the union thugs in government.

Posted by: Vic at August 10, 2011 02:02 PM (M9Ie6)

Well good grief, what would be left after that?

Oh, oh... that's sort of the point...

18 I've worked with trade unions a long time (at least before I was funemployed), and the rigidity of the construction trade unions depends enormously on the guy in charge of the union local. Most of the reps feel that anything that keeps their guys working is a good thing, and if it encroaches on another union's work area it's up to them to find out and beef about it. All the painters I worked with were willing to do just about any task they were asked to do, as long as they got paid scale, weren't obviously going to get themselves killed or injured, and could keep their clothes on. This changes where the same bunch of guys work together all the time and have enough time to waste spying on the other trades, i.e. house work for a large building or complex, or government facilities; that's when you get the 'only a carpenter can use a hammer' type crap. Industrial unions like the auto workers are another ball of whacky entirely. That's where work rules are king.

19 I think most unions are a century past due for reform.  A more bottom up election, no paid positions (get rid of the layers of corrupt entitled admin), and optional monthly payments (with other reforms also much lower) from workers would notably change the behavior of unions adapted to a modern society and I think everyone except the corrupt union bosses would happier.

20 Union goals are irreversibly inimical to the goals of the company.  More dollars/hr per worker and more union boss dollars/yr independent of the profitably of the corporation for the union, versus more dollars/unit sold and fewer production dollars/unit produced for the corporation.
Other than that there is no reason why unions are a problem! 
I, for one, welcome my union overlords.  Thank you NLRB, may I have another!

21 Unions shouldn't be allowed as an organization to lobby politicians. Hire lawyers and negotiate wages, pensions, fine go ahead. Lobby politicians to change laws...not so much.

22 beefy, why don't you take your My Anger Makes Me Pure stupidity and shove it up your stetchy ass?

23
What would a model trade union bill look like, then?






Not sure, but the prominent mention of tar and feathers would improve it immensely.

24 Presumably a model trade union would be something along the lines of IG Metal, which seems to be able to get German workers benefits without hindering Germany's status as an export powerhouse... er, Kraftpaket.

25
12% is awful high, though.
that's saying 1 out of 8 Tea Partiers (in their poll) support Obama.

26 No, Ace.  Kaus is just wrong.  Unionization- by its definition- is attempting to exert a monopoly on a particular resource: specifically a given segment of labor.  Monopolies are bad for efficiency.

The moment I, as an employer, cannot negotiate individually with employees; and the moment I don't have the authority to say, "I will build cars, but I will not hire any member of the UAW, and will fire all my workers if they unionize," I am subject to whims of a monopoly on my auto-building labor.

I believe that, even in right-to-work states, where some auto makers have built non-union factories, they are paying more for those workers (salaries + benefits) than would be required if the UAW didn't exist. 

If employers could elect not to allow them into their business, the UAW would at least have to guarantee something in return for the pain in the neck it is to deal with union employees.

If that happened, or the UAW just didn't exist, I believe that auto workers would be paid less (probably not a ton less, but less), would have less generous benefits, cars would be cheaper, and we wouldn't have one auto company owned by the UAW and another owned by the government.

27
btw, is Mickey going to answer this question?

28

Yes, by design the nation's labor laws create and maintain an antagonistic relationship between management and labor.  I was once told that part of this was to keep management from "capturing" the union and then having one that wouldn't protect workers.

So we end up where the 1937 Sit-Down Strikes have been made the perpetual default for all relations between management and labor.  Yes - that needs to be changed.  No - I don't know how to do that.

29 Unionism fails because the structure invites corruption in union leadership. With the opportunities for  rabble-rousers to achieve power through political action not necessarily endorsed by the rank and file -- and grab on to proceeds from the union's pension and health funds for a little extra pocket money -- the package is as inviting to the crooked as an unlocked door at a closed bank.

Moreover, the entire premise of a union is flawed, so long as it endorses the notion that collective action is the only response to employers. The rules that help the semi-skilled, lazy and incompetent help keep ambitious workers from achieving their potential and making more money.

Unions base their tactics on what members are "owed" as opposed to what they "earn." It's all Us-Versus-Them, with no accounting for business downturns and/or new technology. Unions operate as if they are above the law and, thanks to liberals in government, are in fact above the law.

Unless the current union structure changes -- or is involuntarily changed -- nothing will improve, for employers or employees.

30 The Wagner model is more often found in the older "trades" it's basically how the Guilds worked.  That Guild model is a key factor in why it took England so long to get modernized.

The roots go back to the Luddites whose reason for existence was to fight any development by owners that would reduce the size of the workforce in the mills.  Guildism prevented things like the assembly line. English "boffins" could make amazing devices getting them mass produced efficiently? Not so much.

31 I'm with Beefy Meatball, information that hurts our side should be ignored, burned, then raped.

32 Also, when a company loses money I don't know two or three quarters in a row, pick a number, the union should be dissolved, as they have become a problem that might destroy the company. Ps, beefy can I come over your house and fuck your sister?

33 May I request an open thread?

34 >>>The moment I, as an employer, cannot negotiate individually with employees; and the moment I don't have the authority to say, "I will build cars, but I will not hire any member of the UAW, and will fire all my workers if they unionize," I am subject to whims of a monopoly on my auto-building labor. I don't think you understand my question. I'm not suggesting we take away that right of employers. I am asking, however, if there is a less egregious and harmful form of unionization that employers might not resent and resist as much. So instead of two options -- awful union or no union -- there would be three, awful union, better union, or no union. I'm not looking to unionize everyone. I'm asking if there's a way those in unions or thinking about unionizing can select against the Wagner model (which Kaus says is particularly harmful) in favor of a better one.

35 The current comment #1 has the requisite amount of stupidity to be treated as a union comment and so will be treated as a "first" by the union so no grievance will be filed against this blog at this time.

36 Unions like to use the abortion-type argument: "If there's no union, workers will get docked a week's pay for dropping a box of tomatoes! And if they try to complain, the owners will polish their spats by kicking our ribs as we lay prostrate, having had our skulls stove in by company-hired toughs!" Unfortunately, there are LAWS that protect workers from the abuses of the past. How I long for the days when I could take a hickory mattock-handle to the clavicles, shins and skulls of fat, useless picketers.

37 Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at August 10, 2011 02:04 PM (2PTT7)

I had the pleasure of dealing with the Teamsters for about 10 years. In the bay area to boot (Local 70 and 315? Fuck you).

Work rules were designed for one thing; to protect the seniority of the members, and through that their paychecks. The senior members didn't give a rat's ass for the newer guys, and would happily grieve to get them sent home just for the chance at 20 minutes of overtime.

But, they are incredibly well organized, and the goal is well known. There is nothing magical about their short and medium term success.

38 I ask because it turns out that Vokswagon, in Amercia, is apparently going to permit a union. Kaus wrote about this last week, and suggested the UAW has a reason to put VW out of business in America (it would help protect the more important Government Motors). Anyway, based on that, I'm wondering if there isn't a less destructive form of union.

39 Why do we need a union bill? Why can't a free association of employees self-organize, hire lawyers and consultants to negotiate. Why do those associations need a special legal category? In my not so humble opinion, unions need to evolve into 1. employer specific, free associations - working with a single employer, not across or vertically thru an industry, 2. trade unions that certify skills, provide group insurance coverages, benefits, etc. to independent tradesman and professionals, and 3. bar associations/medical boards

40 The key to "new unionism" is giving the employees themselves a direct stake in the success of the company such as folks like Nucore Steel have done.  I don't mean giving the UNION a stake in the company such as was done with GM, but give the employees a stake directly through aggressive employee stock ownership plans while at the same time giving them very aggressive productivity incentives and pay a decent dividend on your stock.  Using Nucor as an example again, its stock yields over 4% which is better than you are going to get on many other investments.

In this way the employee gains a huge stake in the overall success of the company and helps to bond them as a team working toward a common goal.  The longer they are employed there, the bigger the stake they have in the success of the company.  Any decision that results in a reduction of corporate profitability hits the employee's bottom line with a reduction in dividends.  I would go a step further and encourage the employees to also own company debt though some sort of corporate bond purchase program, too.  That way if a decision must be made that leaves bondholders out in the cold (such as happened at GM) then they take a direct hit, too.

The way to fix the adversarial relationship is to give the employees a different sort of stake in the company.  Rather than their relationship being square at the end of every pay period, give them a longer term stake.

41 Also, when a company loses money I don't know two or three quarters in a row, pick a number, the union should be dissolved, as they have become a problem that might destroy the company.

I kind of like it, but it would mean corporations could engage in fancy accounting to get rid of the union.  Every time it happened the union guys would riot.

42 A model trade union would be one where the entire pension plan of each local was invested directly into the shop where they work. 

43 There's no way to fix unions. They're corrupt down to the core. 

44 How I long for the days when I could take a hickory mattock-handle to the clavicles, shins and skulls of fat, useless picketers.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at August 10, 2011 02:10 PM (lbo6/)

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

45

A couple of thoughts--any company that has even an inkling of what it takes to be successful is a good place to work.  Now the trick is defining "good."  Yeah, I'm one of those that thinks Wal-Mart is a pretty good place to work for unskilled, entry level employees.  Look at say, the Dow 30 and tell me if the key to their success is driving their employees into the ground.

The world has changed in the last 50 years...but unions have not.  The UAW (and by extension Detroit as a whole) is a vivid example of what goes wrong when one assumes ever-ascending lines and smooth curves on graphs years into the future.  The dominance of U.S. automakers until the mid-60s still colors the thinking of UAW bargaining tactics.  Sorry, but claming "management" for global economic trends is not only stupid, it's self defeating.

So, what does a good union bill look like?  Find me a good union and I'll let you know. 

P.S.:  If the ever-ascending lines and smooth curves ring a bell, that's what the President and his party want us to believe about future economic and budget trends, even with flawed assumptions.  History was not smooth, why should the future be?

46 Posted by: ace at August 10, 2011 02:09 PM (nj1bB)

In any union state, that right has been taken away.  Actually, the right has been taken away in the entire country.  What the NRLB (or it's predecessor that I can't remember) did was to say that "If your employees want to unionize, you have to let them." 

I'm saying that, once that happens, I'm subject to the unions for my labor- in one way or another.

As others have already stated- the purpose of a union (the expressed purpose, no less) is to create an adversarial relationship between "labor" and "management."  There is no "good" way to do that.

47 Well ace the first ever form of "union" was marriage and we can all see how that turned out. I doubt 10000 years of practice is going to find one form of "union" that doesn't end up turning everything to shit in the long run.

48 You know we are talking about 8% of the workforce here? Just let them do what they have been doing: turning off Americans and bankrupting Companies and States. They will soon be 4% of the workforce and only in employed in corrupt union states (see NY, CA, PA, MA, MI, etc.). BTW, they don't create any jobs, unless featherbedding is considered a good thing.

49 Most union members overlook the dues deductions out of their weekly paychecks when it's auto deducted

Where it's paid by the member directly to the union monthly , then the union bosses hear a lot of shit from the rank and file about where the money is going, especially when the union pisses at them about being behind on dues

That was actually one of the biggest issues the Wisconsin Thugs and Thiefs Guild had with the state, the elimination of automatic deductions from the members checks for dues

50 Posted by: union thug at August 10, 2011 02:09 PM (oUG6f)

I have seniority and was not offered the position of #1 commenter. I am grieving for a full day's pay at holiday rate, plus a written agreement that I will be offered all premium pay work based on my seniority.

And...I'm going to smash your headlights, and there isn't fuck-all you can do about it.

And..I'm on break, so are you going to get out of my face or do I have to grieve your sorry ass?

51 The way to fix the adversarial relationship is to give the employees a different sort of stake in the company.  Rather than their relationship being square at the end of every pay period, give them a longer term stake.

That's what GM tried to do with Saturn.  Part of the workers' pay was dependent on profit sharing, and they had more  of a say in how the line was run.  It all worked great as long as Saturn was making money, but after a few quarters of losses the union guys decided they liked the old system better.

52 44 We do have laws on the books against phony accounting, and the union would still have audit rights.

53 I'm not suggesting we take away that right of employers. I am asking, however, if there is a less egregious and harmful form of unionization that employers might not resent and resist as much.

So instead of two options -- awful union or no union -- there would be three, awful union, better union, or no union.
Posted by: ace at August 10, 2011 02:09 PM (nj1bB

Working with Unions like the Communication Workers of America and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers you don;t see that rigidity...because the field changes so fast. They are more about what the average person thinks a Union should do instead of the Teamster style which exists to protect the _size_ of the Union.

The original strike against Boeing was because the IAMAW thought Boeing was going to close or downsize the Washington plant and seek to reduce their pay.  An additional point is that the IAMAW has stated to the court hearing the NLRB case that they would prefer to settle then continue the action. They do not wish to kill the Golden Goose.

54 Fat lady?  Singing?

55 The "third way" won't work. Even in non-union blue-collar shops, new workers are pressured to "slow down" so they don't make the slackers "look bad."  It doesn't matter what the structure of the union is - when workers can deflect personal responsibility from themselves, they will.

This is a negative but omnipresent part of human nature.

56 Did someone fart?

57 What noone thinks my crack on marriage is funny? Fuck y'all! /

58 If I have this right, Wagner-style unionism promotes workers deliberately thwarting companies' efforts to be more efficient and productive.

When lefties who know union stuff say "Wagner," they usually just mean "public." (The reference is to Robert Wagner, NYC mayor & fascist asshole (but I repeat myself).) And if they're critical of it, it's because it represents a situation where the union and management share an interest in screwing a third party (you)—so "Wagner-style" means something like "pseudo-union," because of its non-adversarial relationship w/ management.

That's pre-FDR, old-school lefty thinking, from back when lefties had thoughts. You don't hear it much anymore, except from, like, Camille Paglia.

(And Kaus's response to your question is: "You're a racist.")

59

I've worked with the Carpenters Union quite a bit (I was a member when going to college) and they are pretty reasonable. They even left the AFLCIO because they were giving them heat on consessions they were making.

A few of the things they did were to increase the number of labors to carpenters which lowered the workforce wage for laborers to $12 from $19, they worked with me on a company project to recruit inner city kids, they cut Saturday overtime to 1 1/2 from 2 x base pay and they agreed that if someone was on the job that we didn't like we could fire them. We were also able to request foreman and carpenters we were familiar with.

All in all they worked with us and in the end the wages weren't that much different than hiring non union and we were assured of getting trained, experienced carpenters and laborers.

Bottom line is we weren't adversaries but more like partners. The plumbers can go fuck themselves though.

60 I'm wondering if there isn't a less destructive form of union. No. The unions want to have partner-level control over the business. They also want a partner-level share of the profits. What they DON'T want is partner-level investment, or a partner-level share in the losses, when they occur. It's all upside for them. No investment, no downside risk. Do you see them offering to invest money in the company or accept a cut in compensation when the company posts a loss? Fuck, no! But the owners* have to get their pay cut. That's why unions are the most pernicious form of cocksuckerism extant in America today. Thank you. *replace "owners" with "shareholders" where appropriate.

61 So instead of two options -- awful union or no union -- there would be three, awful union, better union, or no union.

Posted by: ace at August 10, 2011 02:09 PM

Cool, like three choices of gangs; awful gang, gang with better PR, or no gang

62

My first job out of college was at a big, evil oil company in Texas. A guy, I'll call him "Guy",there decided he wanted his desk against a different wall of his cubicle. So he moved it. When a manager noticed that the desk had been moved, the manager asked Guy who moved it, and replied that he had moved it himself. Hearing this, the manager insisted Guy put the desk back where it had been, and then submit a request to Facilities (or whatever) requesting the desk be moved. The reason? Because if someone from the union noticed it had been moved, and knew that the work hadn't been done by a union facilities person, then the union would file a grievance.

63 Mandate union competition.  There are things they could compete on, after all.  Lower union dues, less use of dues for political campaigns, more use of dues to help, you know, the union members. 

I'd like to see it.

Plus, there would be the added benefit of wanton violence as territory is infringed.  Hey.  I'm down with good entertainment.

64 Exit question: Is there a single union that votes conservative?

65 The unions want to have partner-level control over the business. They also want a partner-level share of the profits.

What they DON'T want is partner-level investment, or a partner-level share in the losses, when they occur.

Raaaaaaaacist!

66 but after a few quarters of losses the union guys decided they liked the old system better. Well, no shit, how about that

67

Poor blondes.  Just when they think the myth is dead, up pops another bubble headÂ…

Â…who gets swatted like the obtuse whackamole she is.

68 This is a negative but omnipresent part of human nature.

I doubt that's really true.  In Japan, instead of slowing everyone down to match the slackers, they put pressure on the slackers to work harder.  And in Japan, your coworkers can exert a lot of pressure.  If they take you to the utility closet and beat the hell out of you with  broomsticks nobody, including the cops, will want to hear about it.

69
is Pelosi afraid to reveal her 3 picks during market hours?

70 Speaking of financial fun - Bank of America deathwatch is on, conference call with investors today. Are they too big to fail?

71 is Pelosi afraid to reveal her

Good God.  My brain just about died before I saw the rest of the comment.

72 beat the hell out of you with broomsticks Feature, not bug

73 Ace, If unions ran themselves like businesses, there could be a place for them, as the product they would supply would be high quality, skilled labor. And if businesses knew they could get said product they would clamor for it, but they don't. They run themselves like government and are therefore inefficient, unskilled (their training programs really only train them to be better unionistas, real skill training they expect from the employer and to be paid handsomely to do it) and a bureaucratic boondoggle. I have worked on union construction projects where the contractor is nutsackless and impotent because of the PLA s that are put in place without the contractors consent which helps breed this environment which then spills over everywhere.

74 It's like asking if there is an alternate form of nice socialism. Sounds good on paper and in fiery speeches to smoldering sheeple, but then human nature comes in to play.
There will always be a certain number of week minded collectivists and scammers  to "organize" them.

75 @ 75 We dropped two A-bombs because we we sick and tired of the fucking Japanese. Do you see us eating with chopsticks and bowing to neighbors? Fuck those people.

76 Unions SUCK.  Period.  That is all.

77

Someone on here the other day pointed out that the same S&P that downgraded our ratings were big Obama contributors. I need a link to that source. My son is trying to play me with a link from the DailyKos claiming they were Bush contributors.

 

 

78
...her barb-wired muff?

79

Here's some good news for a change:

 

TBS canceling comic George Lopez's talk show

80 AARARAAGAGAHHARGAHAGAHGH *splort*

81
This economy will never recover. Why? Because we have leftist dolts working hard every day to find news to ruin private business.

What happens when good intentions clash with social engineering regulations?
Read and find out:

"Small beer brewers in Massachusetts were shocked this week, when the state alcohol commission announced a new rule that any "farmer-brewers" in the state must grow at least 50 percent of their beer's hops and grain themselves, or get them from a domestic farm they've contracted with for the purpose."

Why? To develop the state's domestic farms.

There was so much backlash from this idiotic rule that it was canceled.

82 75 This is a negative but omnipresent part of human nature.

I doubt that's really true.  In Japan, instead of slowing everyone down to match the slackers, they put pressure on the slackers to work harder.  And in Japan, your coworkers can exert a lot of pressure.  If they take you to the utility closet and beat the hell out of you with  broomsticks nobody, including the cops, will want to hear about it.

Maybe we need to turn Japanese then.  That's not how it works in blue-collar union USA though (and in plenty of non-union shops, too).

83

Bernanke has thrown in towel on economy

All Keynsians weep at the final death throes of monetary policy. Now its down to fiscal policy to float the boat - understandably, Wall Street panics.

84 TBS canceling comic George Lopez's talk show

They forgot the quotes around "comic".

85 77 Speaking of financial fun - Bank of America deathwatch is on, conference call with investors today. Are they too big to fail?

Not if my grocery store is any indication, they had a small branch  there with a couple of  tellers and they not only shut it down but completely tore it out about a month ago.

86

Modern work-rules make all unions unnecessary. Get rid of them. Unions drain productivilty, fairness, and profitability. Don't like your job? Go find another one.

 

87 And like others have mentioned there is no incentive to do better than the weakest link. And union leaders always protect their weakest link ( usually because it is a son or a nephew or a friend of the family, which always seem to get the good jobs while the productive ones are relegated to starve 'on the bench'. The only way to make unions work for you, if you are an employee, are in right to work states, where if they are n't doing anything for you, you can opt out of the union dues.

88 Posted by: oblig. at August 10, 2011 02:20 PM (xvZW9)

Not really. The difference is what sector the Unions came from. During the 30's the AFL was concerned about many of the provision of the Wagner Act while the CIO was all for it. This is because the CIO mainly represented grunt and assembly line workers and AFL represented crafts.

The AFL supported Taft-Hartley because it changed the way collective bargaining was voted on.  They did not want to be hamstrung by CIO Unions...for example having the janitors hold up up the machinists. No "wall to wall" approval of collective bargaining.

89 Maybe we need to turn Japanese then.  That's not how it works in blue-collar union USA though (and in plenty of non-union shops, too).

Agreed.  My point was it's not part of human nature.  At least, it's not an insurmountable part of human nature.  Culture changes in response to the economic and legal environment - I think there's probably a way we can get there from here, but I don't know what it is.

90 What my male version of Kathy Griffin schtick wasn't doing it for you? Or was it all the racist humor tinged with "your not a real latino if you don't hate Republicans and Sarah Palin is the stupid" monolouges?

91 Speaking of financial fun - Bank of America deathwatch is on, conference call with investors today.

What's going on with BofA?  I hadn't heard anything (not that I bank there, or am am employee, or investor- so I suppose I don't have a reason to have heard anything.)

92
my post above is not OT

The Democrats and unions concocted this thing called a Project Labor Agreement (PLA). I think it originates from Sarbanes-Oxley, I dunno.

The PLA is used in blue states/blue municipalities anytime state, local, or federal funds are used for building projects such as schools. What it means is that only union labor can be used on the project.

So of you're a political careerist and you want to send jobs/money to your union friends or your farmer friends, just make a rule or law for especially for them.

93 Damn it.  Does this mean I'm a Democrat now?

94
Maybe we need to turn Japanese then. 

Posted by: grognard at August 10, 2011 02:31 PM (NS2Mo)

NOW?  In the middle of the afternoon?

95 O/T - Anyone know Maet's email? (without me wading through The Group)

96

Question For Mickey Kaus

Huh? Oh. Kaus.

I can go back to humping Pluto.

97 OT but, gold above $1800 now. Glen Beck looking less crazy by the day.

98 87 AARARAAGAGAHHARGAHAGAHGH *splort* Posted by: blue star's brain at August 10, 2011 02:30 PM (MLZxF) Ew. Clean that up.

99 Couple of quotes I'd like to comment on...

Right to work states

I believe that, even in right-to-work states, where some auto makers have built non-union factories, they are paying more for those workers (salaries + benefits) than would be required if the UAW didn't exist. 

California is a right-to-work state, yet Unions run rampant. That's not a solve-all proposition.

And as to the second quote above, CA also has a prevailing wage law. This rigs all state bidding in the favor of unions. Companies are not allowed to be more competitive, because on jobs where public funds (tax dollars) are used, EVERYONE gets paid union scale. And that union scale goes up 5% per year, at least, year after year. So yes, every taxpayer is paying more for every employee.

And why should public employees be allowed to unionize? Is this not an anti-trust issue? The taxpayer doesn't not have a choice on where he gets his services. (DOT, DMV, etc) Why should he have to pay, with no exceptions, a premium on labor for  inferior, often surly service.

100 105, I never thought Beck was crazy, but he certainly put forth the worst case scenarios. I think we are smack in the middle of the worst case scenarios.

101 Maybe we need to turn Japanese then.  That's not how it works in blue-collar union USA though (and in plenty of non-union shops, too).

Well, okay then.

102

I've had this problem for a while now. I hold about 5 lbs of scrap gold with now clue how to sell it and cash in without loosing 80% of it's value to the gold dealers in the process. MANY companys in the refining/trade but everyone I've tried so far are gold thieves.

 

103 I've had this problem for a while now. I hold about 5 lbs of scrap gold with now clue how to sell it and cash in without loosing 80% of it's value to the gold dealers in the process. MANY companys in the refining/trade but everyone I've tried so far are gold thieves.

pounds? five pounds of "scrap"?

104 >>And why should public employees be allowed to unionize? Is this not an anti-trust issue? The taxpayer doesn't not have a choice on where he gets his services. (DOT, DMV, etc) Why should he have to pay, with no exceptions, a premium on labor for  inferior, often surly service.

Posted by: Gunslinger at August 10, 2011 02:41 PM (Zi+FQ)

That's why I gag every time that I hear someone say if JFK were alive today he'd be Republican.
Yah, right.

105   111 I've had this problem for a while now. I hold about 5 lbs of scrap gold with now clue how to sell it and cash in without loosing 80% of it's value to the gold dealers in the process. MANY companys in the refining/trade but everyone I've tried so far are gold thieves.

pounds? five pounds of "scrap"?

Posted by: They Call Me Mr. Tibbs at August 10, 2011 02:44 PM (piMMO)

Holy crap, that's $144,000 worth of gold at current price per ounce!

106 Posted by: MrObvious at August 10, 2011 02:42 PM (H87Hu)

80% of the value?  Really?  Since it's scrap, have you tried some of your local exchanges?  There a few here in DFW that claim to buy gold (not that I have any to sell).

BTW- at current rates, that's nearly $145,000 of gold you've got, if I'm doing my math correctly.

107 I hold about 5 lbs of scrap gold with now clue how to sell it Insure it for 2K an oz and email me your address, put a yellow sticky on anything you don't want broken.

108 ace, do you really type faster than you think??

Does 'beefy meatball' like gladiator movies???

109 110, Unless it's bars or coins odds are you have a lot of alloy. Different degrees of gold purity. This must all be refined and seperated to acheive the per ounce price you see on TV. Once everyone involved is paid, you will be lucky to get 40%. Or, you can pay a Goldsmith to turn it into bars.

110 I hold about 5 lbs of scrap gold with now clue how to sell it Insure it for 2K an oz and email me your address, put a yellow sticky on anything you don't want broken.

Clearly a win-win scenario. This is what the Republican party needs more of: People with the ability to think outside the box.

111 Holy crap, that's $144,000 worth of gold at current price per ounce! Posted by: Insomniac at August 10, 2011 02:46 PM (DrWcr) Gold is measured and sold in Troy ounces, not regular ones. Closer to $130,000.

112 103 O/T - Anyone know Maet's email? (without me wading through The Group)

Posted by: RushBabe at August 10, 2011 02:38 PM (Ew27I)

If you're still reading, check the end of the ONT he writes it there.

113 So of you're a political careerist and you want to send jobs/money to your union friends or your farmer friends, just make a rule or law for especially for them.

Posted by: soothsayer at August 10, 2011 02:37 PM (sqkOB)

Dear Sooth
I simply cannot believe that any US politician would stoop so low as to carve out exceptions to the rules just for financial benefits to his cronies.  After all, we are a nation of lawyers, not men.

114

I was vehemently anti-union before I worked for a unionized trucking company in a non-union office. If we were even 1 second late clocking in, 3 times in 3 months - no pay raise for the year. I worked with a guy that was the top salesman for the year. He got to go to the company meeting and play a round with the company president, CEO etc. He won an award and sat at the president's table at that dinner. But he didn't get a raise that year because he worked through lunch and didn't clock out.

They treated us like union employees only we didn't have the union behind us. I only lasted 10 months but I got to experience what it's like when management and non-management are adversarial. It was me against a $5B company and they put me through hell. So, I called the SEIU and told them what was going on. I also photocopied 3 months of my pay stubs and time cards side by side and sent them off to the NLRB to show that they weren't paying us OT when we clocked in early and left work late. 

A week later I was fired. About 6 months later, I was working at another company, and a new training class walked by and there were 7 of my former co-workers. They told me that they voted to start a union on a Friday and on Monday the whole salesforce of 40+ people were locked out, they had cleared out the office furniture and equipment over the weekend. They praised me, in front of everyone, for making a stand, fighting back and for getting them a nice chunk of OT money the company had cheated us out of. Also, the company had to pay ~$500K in fines, the NLRB nailed their crooked asses.

So my whole point is that unions do serve a beneficial purpose. The company human resources hierarchy is there to protect the company so why should the employees be at their mercy when it comes to policy and pay? In the case of GM, the UAW is less to blame than the GM management who put the company into an untenable position and let GM become a health care company that made cars. But unions in the control of marxists are a cancer. From my experience, I would have no problem joining a union if I thought that it was a win-win for the company and the employees. That's not the case today because most union thugs are marxists who, at the least, want to strong arm companies into giving them more and more control over the company; they're legal mafiosi.

115 In the past when a single company could dominate the employment market of an area unions had a role to play. With the current competition between companies for employes and the greater mobility of the work force Unions are like the appendix, vestigial.

116 They Call Me Mr. Tibbs, Thx, Liddy was always my favorite Republican.

117 104

Question For Mickey Kaus

Huh? Oh. Kaus.

I can go back to humping Pluto.
Posted by: Mickey Mouse at August 10, 2011 02:38 PM (QKKT0)

At least you're not f'n goofy...

118 Ace, I'm not really clear what you're looking for here.  If an employer has to be dealing with union labor, by default you're limiting their options.  If what you're after is giving them a choice of unions, isn't that basically government dictating the terms of competition?  It's like saying you can buy Ford or Chevy, but Honda isn't allowed in the market--you're establishing limitations on the ability of a potential competitor to enter the market.  Which, now I think on it, restricts the potential worker's rights too, forcing them to join a union to get a job.

I'm not even going to go into the possibility of cartels or other forms of collusion, which quite frankly is the very foundation point of the AFL-CIO and similar organizations.  Unions should only be optional, as in ultimately having to compete with non-union labor.

119 125

He may not be f'n goofy.  He may be eccentric.

120 The intent of Wagner was to prevent restraint of trade.  Labor unions are restraint of trade on steroids.  So, Roosevelt carved out a spot for them in Wagner.

121 Sorry I meant Sherman.  Wagner was for the unions.

122 This is an excellent post. It is very informative. Thank you so much. I'll be a regular viewer.

123 I always look for the union label.  ( then do not buy it)

124 #51 brings up a good point.  If only 8% of the workforce is union, why the hell do we need federal agencies overseeing them?  Let them flounder on their own, like the rest of us.  No one represents me except me.  They've outlived their usefullness.

125 No, we have the Wagner Union rules. A company has to either persuade their employees to not unionize through wages and benefits and maintain the opportunity to become more efficient, or to let them unionize and give up that opportunity. Different companies will make different choices. It is a business decision. Just leave it alone. Change creates uncertainty that will not benefit anyone.