View Full Version : California's Union-Sponsored War on Farmers - from WSJ 9/2/13
I am interested to hear from the pro-union members on this. It seems to be a rather clear cut case of a labor union contributing to the destruction of industry.
Full text and link below:
--------------------------
California's Union-Sponsored War on Farmers
September 2, 2013, 7:04 p.m. ET
United Farm Workers and its government allies are working hard to destroy jobs.
'At what point do you look at this picture and ask, 'Why are you fighting anymore?'" muses Dan Gerawan, whose third-generation family farm in Fresno, Calif., has been under assault by California's labor-regulatory complex.
Within days a state mediator could impose an unwieldy labor contract that may force him out of business. However, the ultimate victims will be his farm workers.
Mr. Gerawan's story illustrates the devolution of California's progressive dream. His grandfather migrated from Dust Bowl Oklahoma and started a small farm, which his father expanded into the country's largest grower of peaches and nectarines. Dan and his brother grew up toiling in the fields alongside the workers, as they still do.
Employees of Gerawan Farming can earn more than $15 per hour (the state industry average is $8.70) plus modest retirement and health benefits. The Gerawans also pay for the workers' English-language instruction and their children's Catholic school tuition. Silvia Lopez, who has worked on the farm for 15 years, says "there's no place that they care about safety and benefits like Gerawan," and that workers can talk to the owners if they have a problem.
Migrant workers harvest strawberries at a farm in this March 13, 2013 file photo near Oxnard, California. The United Farm Workers muscled its way onto the farm in 1990 but quickly lost support. In that year, the UFW won an election to organize Gerawan workers (with just 536 total votes) and in 1992 was certified by the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Yet after holding just one bargaining session, the union lost interest and never procured a contract.
Then, after nearly two decades without negotiations, UFW organizers turned up last October and demanded a contract that would require employees to pay 3% of their wages in dues (between $600 and $1,000 a year). Gerawan also says that the union wanted the company to fire workers who didn't pay up.
The UFW needs the cash to pay its own bills. Since its heyday in the 1970s, the union has lost roughly 90% of its members. Last year, it spent $1.2 million more than it collected, based on Department of Labor filings. Hitting up Gerawan's 5,000 workers could double the union's revenues, and the easiest way to extract the money from workers was to enlist the state's help.
Early this year, the Gerawans and UFW representatives met to discuss the union's demands, but in March the union abruptly broke off negotiations and petitioned the Agricultural Labor Relations Board to compel Gerawan into binding arbitration to impose a contract. A 2002 state law allows farmworker unions to sidestep collective bargaining and demand state mediation of first-time contracts. No other labor group in the state has this right.
Meanwhile, California Senate President Darrell Steinberg is driving legislation that would allow farmworker unions to request state mediation whenever a contract expires, thus obliterating collective bargaining. Unions often prefer mediation because they don't have to negotiate with management, and workers don't get to vote on the final contract.
Mr. Gerawan says an imposed contract would hurt his ability to manage staff and resources and could ultimately force the farm out of business. In addition to the dues, the United Farm Workers general counsel Mario Martinez says the union wants full-blown pension plans and more expensive medical benefits.
The Gerawans and their workers have been resisting the union power grab. First, the Gerawans complained to the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board that the union had abandoned Gerawan workers two decades ago, and therefore mediation was inappropriate. The five-member board, dominated by left-leaning academics and labor attorneys, rejected the complaint because the union was never officially decertified. Most of the current workers were unaware that the union was ever certified, since 95% of them weren't around in 1990 when the vote took place.
Lupe Garcia, who has worked on the farm since 1977, requested that he and 15 other workers be allowed to participate or at the very least observe the mediation, which under state law is "on the record" and should be open to the public. The state board denied the request, ruling that the workers were represented by a committee of employees handpicked by the union.
Mr. Garcia then sued the state for violating his and fellow workers' due process. A Fresno Superior Court judge has yet to rule on the case. Meanwhile, Gerawan workers are circulating a petition to hold an election to decertify the union. They already have more than 1,250 signatures but need about 1,600 to hold a vote. To be valid, a majority of workers must vote to decertify. The clincher: The election must occur before the mediator imposes a contract, which could happen anytime in the next three weeks.
Meantime, one Gerawan worker recently filed a police report claiming that a union operative threatened him with physical assault if he didn't support the union. Others tell me union operatives have shown up at their homes and passed around fliers that suggest workers could earn "libertad con papeles" (freedom papers)—i.e., immigration amnesty—if they pledge support for the union.
The union's general counsel, Mr. Martinez, says the workers' allegations are "complete lies," and that the union is being vindicated by the "neutral state-appointed officials" on the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Meanwhile, the union has filed 14 unfair-labor-practice complaints in an effort to undermine the company's support among workers. (Gerawan denies any wrongdoing.)
Last month, the union charged Gerawan management with aiding the decertification effort because three of its 55 supervisors had helped circulate the petition (notwithstanding Gerawan's instructions not to). The Agricultural Labor Relations Board's attorneys requested a temporary restraining order from state court against Gerawan and permission to allow the board's staff into the fields to instruct Gerawan workers of their rights—on the company's dime. The attorneys also argued that employees could be considered "agents" of the employer if their anti-union activities reflected their managements' views.
Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ordered the company's supervisors to stop circulating the petition, but he added that the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board appeared to be "in cahoots" with the union and that "it is important for the Court to be suspicious of government agencies and ensure that the rights of everyone are protected."
The board isn't the only state body that appears in cahoots with the union. According to Mr. Steinberg, the Senate president, Gerawan has "unlawfully coerced, interfered with, and restrained its agricultural employees." Mr. Steinberg's former campaign adviser Richie Ross, who works as a registered lobbyist for the UFW and a consultant for Democratic legislators, strong-armed the senator's bill through the legislature last month.
"I don't think we will survive" if Gov. Jerry Brown signs the bill, says Mr. Gerawan. "The state doesn't want good employers." Nor does it seem to care about protecting workers.
Ms. Finley is an editorial writer for the Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579040781488196964.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp
Belmont31R
09-03-13, 09:01
Sounds about right for a union. Should close his doors and retire if they can't get that union decertified.
polymorpheous
09-03-13, 09:08
Sounds like that farm is out to screw it's workers.
Shame!
Shame!
Shame!
Sounds about right for a union.
And for California.
Should close his doors and retire if they can't get that union decertified.
That's is what I would do.
Sounds like that farm is out to screw it's workers.
How do you come up with that?
"Employees of Gerawan Farming can earn more than $15 per hour (the state industry average is $8.70) plus modest retirement and health benefits." Sounds pretty good for unskilled labor.
polymorpheous
09-03-13, 09:24
I was being facetious.
Belmont31R
09-03-13, 09:37
Did I read that right that the state can impose a contract on that farm (company)?
Eurodriver
09-03-13, 09:39
Close his doors, sell the farm, retire and move to Arizona.
**** the union.
It is obvious he cares about his employees, but he's going to lose the farm either way.
Edit: Whoaaa since when did the F bomb get censored?
I was being facetious.
Thanks for the clarification. I was worried you might be from Madison.:laugh:
polymorpheous
09-03-13, 10:20
Thanks for the clarification. I was worried you might be from Madison.:laugh:
We call it Madistan.
:cool:
pilotguyo540
09-03-13, 10:43
The union thugs own this state. Everyone busts our balls for electing the Terminator for our governor, but he tried to take the unions head on. He got his teeth kicked in, but he tried like hell. After that, he was practically their lapdog.
Union thugs operate with practical impunity here.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 12:07
Oh yea the Wall Street Journal is where I go for all my un-biased news on workers issues.
Sounds like a fair deal a third party mediator to help draw up a fair contract. Someone who is not tied to either sides interests. Much ado about nothing. Just another business owner crying about having to share a bit more of the profit pie with his employees.
Pat
polymorpheous
09-03-13, 12:23
Just another business owner crying about having to share a bit more of the profit pie with his employees.
Pat
And here is our trolling statement.
Patrick doesn't like this subject...
So what he will do is throw out a few trolling statements to stir the shit.
Debate starts and eventually someone will vaguely insult him or his point of view.
Then poor Patrick hits the report button and has the thread locked.
It IS back door censorship.
And here is our trolling statement.
Patrick doesn't like this subject...
So what he will do is throw out a few trolling statements to stir the shit.
Debate starts and eventually someone will vaguely insult him or his point of view.
Then poor Patrick hits the report button and has the thread locked.
It IS back door censorship.
Yep, you can damn near set your watch to it.
Sent via Tapatalk
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 12:43
From the OP
I am interested to hear from the pro-union members on this. It seems to be a rather clear cut case of a labor union contributing to the destruction of industry.
END QUOTE
I answer his question as I am one of the few pro union posters here. How is that trolling? Unless of course some of you consider posting an opposing view of any kind trolling. What gets threads closed is people breaking the rules. Not staying on topic and attacking other posters vs having an honest debate with them. That should not be hard to avoid doing. Adults should be able to debate even a hot issue without getting emotional and resorting to name calling. Also I am not a moderator and can not lock threads. So you can't blame that one on me.
Pat
brickboy240
09-03-13, 12:52
Shame on that private farm owner for trying to....gasp....make a profit!
Doesn't he know that he is not in business to make profits but to provide employment and benefits?
Shame on the person that owns the land and takes on the responsibility of running a business trying to make a profit!
...and in California no less!
-brickboy240
The workers are going to get screwed, and they know it. This contract is not to better them but to give funds to the union. If it passes, the workers will most likely lose every non-union benefit they have, which appears to be substantial.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 12:55
Shame on that private farm owner for trying to....gasp....make a profit!
Doesn't he know that he is not in business to make profits but to provide employment and benefits?
Shame on the person that owns the land and takes on the responsibility of running a business trying to make a profit!
...and in California no less!
-brickboy240
Shame on workers for trying to get a better deal for themselves. Oh the horror!
polymorpheous
09-03-13, 12:57
Who called you names Patrick?
I only called you out.
Shame on workers for trying to get a better deal for themselves. Oh the horror!
Neither of you read the article I see.
The workers are not trying to get anything. The owner is already giving them great benefits and opportunities. And they know it.
In fact, the workers are trying to throw the union off the farm.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 12:59
The workers are going to get screwed, and they know it. This contract is not to better them but to give funds to the union. If it passes, the workers will most likely lose every non-union benefit they have, which appears to be substantial.
Hmm 3% of wages is .45 cents in exchange for a solid contract and possible better wages and benefits to be negotiated in the future. Yep thats real. The first department I worked at went from $12 bucks an hour and having the corrupt city mayor come into the department drunk threatening to fire people before the union to $17 an hour and being protected from such tactics after the union. When I left they were making around $23 an hour starting out and our union dues were $40 a month. Well worth the cost of admission.
Pat
polymorpheous
09-03-13, 12:59
I'm a member of the IBEW.
The way I see this, the unions are going to cause these workers to lose their jobs.
But it won't hurt the union at all.
They are power hungry monster that need to be extinct.
This is my opinion, as a union member.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 13:00
Neither of you read the article I see.
The workers are not trying to get anything. The owner is already giving them great benefits and opportunities. And they know it.
In fact, the workers are trying to throw the union off the farm.
A few of the workers complained in the article probably after being promised raises or threatened by the boss. The union could not be there without support from over 50% of the workers. You have to have over 50% support by how they vote to form a union.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 13:01
I'm a member of the IBEW.
The way I see this, the unions are going to cause these workers to lose their jobs.
But it won't hurt the union at all.
They are power hungry monster that need to be extinct.
This is my opinion, as a union member.
IBEW members have it very very good. They have done a lot for electrical workers.
Pat
brickboy240
09-03-13, 13:02
It is HIS business...as long as what he does is legal...he can run it however he wants.
If he underpays his workers....they will leave. Ditto on if he mistreats them...again...they will leave.
For the workers...this is not East Germany. If you do not like how an employer treats you...you CAN leave. You can even go and (gasp) start your own damn company.
That is what I did. I now see the tsunami of red tape and the huge risk involved when one takes on such a task. It makes total sense now, hwy a business owner wants to take home as much as they can. They are putting themselves out there and every private business is really only one lawsuit away from total closure if one tiny thing goes wrong and one crafty lawyer gets a hold of the case.
The risk and liability has to come with big rewards or why the hell stick one's neck out? It is a flat out miracle that anyone wants to start up a business in today's climate...especially in a state like CA.
This is the thing that those that have never owned a business do not see nor will they ever...unless they themselves start their own business. To them...every business owner is Ken Lay or Bernie Maddoff and every large company is Enron. This is simply not true.
I can always spot those that have never owned or run their own business. They make comments just like that.
-brickboy240
polymorpheous
09-03-13, 13:02
Neither of you read the article I see.
The workers are not trying to get anything. The owner is already giving them great benefits and opportunities. And they know it.
In fact, the workers are trying to throw the union off the farm.
Yup.
Just like what they tried here with Palmermo's pizza.
The workers didn't want them.
But an activist group insisted on it.
The owners of the pizza company even called for a vote several times.
The union and the activist group refused to hold the vote.
Gee... I wonder why?
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 13:04
It is HIS business...as long as what he does is legal...he can run it however he wants.
If he underpays his workers....they will leave. Ditto on if he mistreats them...again...they will leave.
For the workers...this is not East Germany. If you do not like how an employer treats you...you CAN leave. You can even go and (gasp) start your own damn company.
That is what I did. I now see the tsunami of red tape and the huge risk involved when one takes on such a task. It makes total sense now, hwy a business owner wants to take home as much as they can. They are putting themselves out there and every private business is really only one lawsuit away from total closure if one tiny thing goes wrong and one crafty lawyer gets a hold of the case.
The risk and liability has to come with big rewards or why the hell stick one's neck out?
This is the thing that those that have never owned a business do not see nor will they ever...unless they themselves start their own business.
I can always spot those that have never owned or run their own business. They make comments just like that.
-brickboy240
Its the employees labor and its their right to try and form a union if they wish. His business is not worth squat without someone to work it. I don't resent a business owners desire to make a profit that is great however you should not despise a worker for trying to get as good of pay as possible.
Pat
polymorpheous
09-03-13, 13:04
IBEW members have it very very good. They have done a lot for electrical workers.
Pat
Done a lot for the guy that's drunk everyday.
He shit himself last month.
Can't fire him though, seniority and all.
Like most liberals, the unions are a joke.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 13:08
Done a lot for the guy that's drunk everyday.
He shit himself last month.
Can't fire him though, seniority and all.
Like most liberals, the unions are a joke.
That is BS as someone who has been a supervisor in both union and non union departments. If they can't fire him that is because you have piss poor management who is not documenting what he has done wrong and following the contract. I have been involved in terminating employees on both sides and either way you still need to have your ducks in a row to avoid law suits and problems down the way. Seniority does not protect you from being terminated from bad conduct. Like most right wingers anti union folks don't know what they are talking about.
Pat
brickboy240
09-03-13, 13:08
Form your union and see what that gets you. Look what the UAW did to the US big 3 car makers. Didn't that work out well?
Don't wonder why every business is leaving California...ok?
We all know why.
-brickboy240
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 13:10
Form your union and see what that gets you. Look what the UAW did to the US big 3 car makers. Didn't that work out well?
Don't wonder why every business is leaving California...ok?
We all know why.
-brickboy240
Like I said seen what it can do in my experience and it has been good. Seems that some people believe its ok to want to make money if your a business owner but if your an employee your just greedy and lazy if you want more of the profit pie.
Pat
polymorpheous
09-03-13, 13:11
I figured you were/are a union steward.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 13:13
I figured you were/are a union steward.
First line supervisor actually and never been a steward. Good managers have nothing to fear from a union when it comes to disciplining problem employees. All the union does is keep you honest in following the policies that are in place and the contract. If you want to take short cuts and do a half assed job then you will have problems.
Pat
brickboy240
09-03-13, 13:15
I was greedy and lazy myself and left a company and went out on my own. Made tons more than I ever would working for someone else and playing cubicle monkey.
Was a B/C student with a public school education. No trust fund...no rich uncle to bankroll me.
If I can do it....others surely can. Forming a union might get you short term increases but they eventually kill the golden goose that is the business or industry they evolve from.
Either stay working for someone else and put up with their pay and rules or go out on your own.
That is how we used to do it in America....maybe that drive is dead...I dunno.
-brickboy240
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 13:19
I was greedy and lazy myself and left a company and went out on my own. Made tons more than I ever would working for someone else and playing cubicle monkey.
Was a B/C student with a public school education. No trust fund...no rich uncle to bankroll me.
If I can do it....others surely can. Forming a union might get you short term increases but they eventually kill the golden goose that is the business or industry they evolve from.
Either stay working for someone else and put up with their pay and rules or go out on your own.
That is how we used to do it in America....maybe that drive is dead...I dunno.
-brickboy240
That is a great story and I am happy for your success however I don't think less of someone who does work for someone else. I can't exactly go out and start my own police department and I do like my job. If you look out for yourself as a business owner your respected. If a public employee does it he is considered greedy for wanting more pay from tax payers. Oh the double standard.
Think of it like buying a car. The dealer whats what you have your money, and he has what you want the car. Do you just pay the price he is asking and leave with the new car or do you haggle and dicker with him for hours trying to get the best price for yourself. If your like most red blooded Americans you haggle and feel a sense of pride when you leave paying less for the car than was asked. As a worker you have what the employer wants as well, your labor and he has what you want a job. There is nothing wrong with negotiating to set a price for labor. The only difference here is the labor being negotiated is by a collective rather than just an individual.
Pat
Alpha Sierra
09-03-13, 13:22
Shame on workers for trying to get a better deal for themselves. Oh the horror!
They DO NOT WANT the union. Go back and read the article again and again until you understand it, if you can.
Eurodriver
09-03-13, 13:27
Hmm 3% of wages is .45 cents in exchange for a solid contract and possible better wages and benefits to be negotiated in the future. Yep thats real. The first department I worked at went from $12 bucks an hour and having the corrupt city mayor come into the department drunk threatening to fire people before the union to $17 an hour and being protected from such tactics after the union. When I left they were making around $23 an hour starting out and our union dues were $40 a month. Well worth the cost of admission.
Pat
Sounds like the ones getting screwed here are the tax payers.
You obviously had a functioning police force at $12/hr. Now they make 90% more for the same product.
brickboy240
09-03-13, 13:40
I don't look down on those that work for others.
I look down on those that always think that a business owner is "out to screw everyone first" this is simply not true.
Those that "knee-jerk" to the Michael Moore-like assumption that business owners are all out to screw everyone else and shame on them for making a large profit. Again...when YOUR NAME is on the papers and YOU are the one with the risk and liability...you will have a very different view of this situation. I did not have it until I was there.
Every time I was working for someone else and the situation changed and I did not like it....I looked for another job and left. This is not China...you can still do that today...even in California.
Also, because you do not own the place you work for...things or conditions might change and you might not have much say so in that. You don't own it...you don't pay the price of the risk and liability so you do not get to make the big decisions there. either you realize that and go on working for other people or it will bother you too much and you can strike out on your own or find another job.
The car dealership example does not apply for me. I never buy new cars from a dealership. That is a total waste of money. Again...I work for myself not the banks and finance companies.
-brickboy240
From the OP
I am interested to hear from the pro-union members on this. It seems to be a rather clear cut case of a labor union contributing to the destruction of industry.
END QUOTE
I answer his question as I am one of the few pro union posters here. How is that trolling? Unless of course some of you consider posting an opposing view of any kind trolling. What gets threads closed is people breaking the rules. Not staying on topic and attacking other posters vs having an honest debate with them. That should not be hard to avoid doing. Adults should be able to debate even a hot issue without getting emotional and resorting to name calling. Also I am not a moderator and can not lock threads. So you can't blame that one on me.
Pat
Pat, I was specifically interested in your opinion. I completely disagree with you on the subject of unions and especially in this case I cannot fathom how you could objectively see the "right" in a parasitical labor union squeezing a family owned business.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 14:34
Pat, I was specifically interested in your opinion. I completely disagree with you on the subject of unions and especially in this case I cannot fathom how you could objectively see the "right" in a parasitical labor union squeezing a family owned business.
So are you saying the workers are like parasites? They don't have a right to the American dream? You only seem to care about the business owners interest and not that of the employees.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 14:40
I don't look down on those that work for others.
I look down on those that always think that a business owner is "out to screw everyone first" this is simply not true.
Those that "knee-jerk" to the Michael Moore-like assumption that business owners are all out to screw everyone else and shame on them for making a large profit. Again...when YOUR NAME is on the papers and YOU are the one with the risk and liability...you will have a very different view of this situation. I did not have it until I was there.
Every time I was working for someone else and the situation changed and I did not like it....I looked for another job and left. This is not China...you can still do that today...even in California.
Also, because you do not own the place you work for...things or conditions might change and you might not have much say so in that. You don't own it...you don't pay the price of the risk and liability so you do not get to make the big decisions there. either you realize that and go on working for other people or it will bother you too much and you can strike out on your own or find another job.
The car dealership example does not apply for me. I never buy new cars from a dealership. That is a total waste of money. Again...I work for myself not the banks and finance companies.
-brickboy240
The car dealership analogy is just that an analogy. It applies to anyone who ever wants to trade something they have for something they want. Also in many professions its not as easy to move around as it is for someone in construction. In police work for example its a lot more involved. I totally support workers efforts to protect themselves and get better wages by standing together as one.
Pat
...in this case I cannot fathom how you could objectively see the "right" in a parasitical labor union squeezing a family owned business.
So are you saying the workers are like parasites?
Pat
Pretty sure he said the union was like a parasite...
Sent via Tapatalk
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 14:47
Pretty sure he said the union was like a parasite...
Sent via Tapatalk
You do know that unions are made up of the workers who are the members. That is like trying to separate the NRA from NRA members.
pat
Hmm 3% of wages is .45 cents in exchange for a solid contract and possible better wages and benefits to be negotiated in the future. Yep thats real.
A real screw job yeah.
What part of they do not want the union or a new contract are you failing to understand? They like the deal they have.
Please quote one line where it says the majority of the workers are in favor of this.
So are you saying the workers are like parasites?
That is clearly not what he said, and you know it.
A few of the workers complained in the article probably after being promised raises or threatened by the boss. The union could not be there without support from over 50% of the workers. You have to have over 50% support by how they vote to form a union.
Pat
Guess you missed the part where they unionized in 1992, and only 5% of those working then are still on the job.
Guess you also missed the part where they are trying to get rid of the union.
You do know that unions are made up of the workers who are the members. That is like trying to separate the NRA from NRA members.
pat
You're right, they're exactly one in the same. :rolleyes:
Sent via Tapatalk
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 14:54
A real screw job yeah.
What part of they do not want the union or a new contract are you failing to understand? They like the deal they have.
Please quote one line where it says the majority of the workers are in favor of this.
Well obvioiusly that is wrong if not the union would not have been able to form. Do some research on what it takes to get a union started. You can't do it without a majority of your workers signing that they want it. What we have here is a pro business anti labor rights news organization sending out a slanted UN-truthfull article. Kind of like the Huffington Press writing an article on how the NRA is being influenced by large corporations on the board and normal members are for an assault rifle ban.
The first department I worked at went from $12 bucks an hour and having the corrupt city mayor come into the department drunk threatening to fire people before the union to $17 an hour and being protected from such tactics after the union. When I left they were making around $23 an hour starting out and our union dues were $40 a month. Well worth the cost of admission.
Pat
Nice story that is completely irrelevant to this thread.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 14:56
You're right, they're exactly one in the same. :rolleyes:
Sent via Tapatalk
Yes actually same concept. Group of people who support gun rights who know they are more powerful as a large group working in an organized fashions vs as a bunch of weak individuals. Unions group of individuals who work together to protect their rights and negotiate to improve their pay and benefits. Not sure why you are seeing a disconnect other than your bias against unions. Its not a hard thing to understand.
Pat
Well obvioiusly that is wrong if not the union would not have been able to form. Do some research on what it takes to get a union started. You can't do it without a majority of your workers signing that they want it.
You still have not read the article, or even my post above #45.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 14:57
Nice story that is completely irrelevant to this thread.
No no its not. You are choosing to ignore it because its an inconvenient truth.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 14:58
You still have not read the article, or even my post above #45.
Read both and again the source of the article and its very one sided. Not something I will take any more seriously than you would the Huffingtion Post. I get it a fair number of people here don't support workers rights and look down on them as some sort of parasite. I guess we can save some time by agreeing to disagree. I will never support the screw the working class sentiment that seems to be popular here.
Pat
Read both and again the source of the article and its very one sided. Not something I will take any more seriously than you would the Huffingtion Post. I get it a fair number of people here don't support workers rights and look down on them as some sort of parasite. I guess we can save some time by agreeing to disagree. I will never support the screw the working class sentiment that seems to be popular here.
Pat
Translation:
I finally read the article and everything I posted was wrong, but I cannot man up and admit it. So let's agree to disagree.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 15:05
Translation:
I finally read the article and everything I posted was wrong, but I cannot man up and admit it. So let's agree to disagree.
I read the article at the start and no I was not wrong. Basically what your posting is this. Unions are bad business is good. Shame on workers for trying to fight for their rights. There is no point in continuing this back and forth. Your closed minded and don't want to look at any other points of view outside of the party line.
Yes actually same concept. Group of people who support gun rights who know they are more powerful as a large group working in an organized fashions vs as a bunch of weak individuals. Unions group of individuals who work together to protect their rights and negotiate to improve their pay and benefits. Not sure why you are seeing a disconnect other than your bias against unions. Its not a hard thing to understand.
Pat
So, since you & Poly are both members of a union, you guys are identical & share the same views?
Back to the point & like Pork Chop said, JoshNC didn't say that & you know it.
Sent via Tapatalk
Basically what your posting is this. Unions are bad business is good.
No, wrong again.
I am not commenting on this at all. But your prejudice than anyone who disagrees with you thinks Unions are bad is something you need to deal with.
Belmont31R
09-03-13, 15:24
Read both and again the source of the article and its very one sided. Not something I will take any more seriously than you would the Huffingtion Post. I get it a fair number of people here don't support workers rights and look down on them as some sort of parasite. I guess we can save some time by agreeing to disagree. I will never support the screw the working class sentiment that seems to be popular here.
Pat
Workers rights do not come from the union. The two are not one in the same.
http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/02/21/3182990/gerawan-farming-sues-ufw-over.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gerawan-farming-operators-alrb-decision-204500742.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gerawan-farming-operators-say-alrb-decision-that-proceedings-are-secret-is-a-blatant-violation-of-the-first-amendment-218144721.html
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2173808152001/ufw-sued-by-nations-largest-family-owned-farm/
http://www.vidaenelvalle.com/2012/12/26/1391973/ufw-is-fueled-for-new-contracts.html
That's just the first page of a Bing search....
I hope those workers tell the UFW to go to hell
I get it a fair number of people here don't support workers rights and look down on them as some sort of parasite.
Pat
I know this is crazy talk, especially in the new Amerika, but lots of people actually believe in this antiquated concept called self reliance. It's cousins, freedom and responsibility are popular amongst the same group of people who believe in self reliance.
This group of people believe that they will grasp their future by the balls and take charge. Not relying on any group or union to negotiate for them, self reliance believers will take it upon themselves to negotiate their lot in life on the merits of their work record, knowledge base and inner drive to succeed. If they feel they are underpaid or overworked, they will feel free to negotiate with management, find new employment or branch out on their own and exercise the entrepreneurial spirit.
This concept is utterly lost on those who believe that only a union can accomplish these goals.
Bottom line is work hard and strive to succeed and you will.
So are you saying the workers are like parasites? They don't have a right to the American dream? You only seem to care about the business owners interest and not that of the employees.
Pat
Employees should not be mistreated and deserve fair wages and benefits. I prefer to let free market forces determine this as opposed to a bloated socialistic self-feeding union.
As a physician in private practice, if I don't pay my staff appropriately, deal with them unfairly, don't give appropriate benefits, I will lose my employees to another office. I've seen this happen in other offices. The entire staff of one office quit, forcing the physician to re-examine his pay structure, benefits, etc.
The American Dream used to be that if you work hard, you had the opportunity to succeed. It had nothing to do with employee entitlements forced upon business by third party unions who are largely looking out for their own well being. The "right" is that you have the opportunity to succeed. If you are not paid well in your current employment, you are free to change that by gaining employment elsewhere.
Modern day unions are the definition of parasites.
Union fanboys remind me of the people who buy houses next to a sewer plant and then fight to get it closed because it stinks.
If you don't like the smell of shit, don't move in next door to a sewer plant.
If you don't like your job or benefits, market yourself. If you're worth it, someone will pay you what you're worth. Don't fight to change the standard, fight to improve yourself.
And one more thing:
Arguing that unions are required to maintain a safe work environment or prevent harassment is retarded. Big, powerful, bloated .gov agencies like OSHA are all over it. The days of unions being needed to protect worker safety died a long time ago.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:07
Union fanboys remind me of the people who buy houses next to a sewer plant and then fight to get it closed because it stinks.
If you don't like the smell of shit, don't move in next door to a sewer plant.
If you don't like your job or benefits, market yourself. If you're worth it, someone will pay you what you're worth. Don't fight to change the standard, fight to improve yourself.
And one more thing:
Arguing that unions are required to maintain a safe work environment or prevent harassment is retarded. Big, powerful, bloated .gov agencies like OSHA are all over it. The days of unions being needed to protect worker safety died a long time ago.
So your not for trying to improve your neighborhood or work place? Not all of us believe in throwing in the towel and giving up. Also listen to yourself on one side you say Unions are not needed to protect workers and then you denigrate the agencies you mentioned that you say are there to protect them. You seem to think that anything out there to protect workers rather it be unions or government agencies are a bad thing. The FACT is that we need unions more now than ever as there is a war waging right now against the middle class and we are losing. We have a situation now where 1% of the country controls 99% of the money. Conservatives blocked the presidents appointments to the Labor board that is the watchdog to protect workers. Conservatives are no friend to working class Americans they are on their knees un-zipping the pants of big business CEO's.
pat
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:08
Employees should not be mistreated and deserve fair wages and benefits. I prefer to let free market forces determine this as opposed to a bloated socialistic self-feeding union.
As a physician in private practice, if I don't pay my staff appropriately, deal with them unfairly, don't give appropriate benefits, I will lose my employees to another office. I've seen this happen in other offices. The entire staff of one office quit, forcing the physician to re-examine his pay structure, benefits, etc.
The American Dream used to be that if you work hard, you had the opportunity to succeed. It had nothing to do with employee entitlements forced upon business by third party unions who are largely looking out for their own well being. The "right" is that you have the opportunity to succeed. If you are not paid well in your current employment, you are free to change that by gaining employment elsewhere.
Modern day unions are the definition of parasites.
I don't trust business owners to be benevolent and do the right thing by their employees in this day and age when greed rules. I prefer to be able to stand and fight for my rights as a group just as we do in the NRA for our gun rights. I prefer to be strong vs weak. Big business leaders act like lords of old over their surfs.
Pat
The days of unions being needed to protect worker safety died a long time ago.
Yep!
You know what I find strange? Out of all us here who don't see the need for unions, we are wrong & the one guy who does need unions (wonder why?), is right. I'm gonna quit my privately owned, non union job, where I'm paid & treated well, to go join a union. I hear they're ****ing awesome!
Sent via Tapatalk
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:10
Yep!
You know what I find strange? Out of all us here who don't see the need for unions, we are wrong & the one guy who does need unions (wonder why?), is right. I'm gonna quit my privately owned, non union job, where I'm paid & treated well, to go join a union. I hear they're ****ing awesome!
Sent via Tapatalk
Some of us prefer not to be mindless lemmings hanging on every word out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth.
Pat
Also, workers are not parasites, but unions most certainly are.
Here is an analogy - Individual skin cells are a great thing for the human body (keep the body from dehydrating, provide immune function, help regulate temperature, among others). But if organized and genetically programmed in an unchecked fashion, skin cells can become cancer. Does that make all skin cells cancer, or is only cancer actually cancer?
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:17
Also, workers are not parasites, but unions most certainly are.
Here is an analogy - Individual skin cells are a great thing for the human body (keep the body from dehydrating, provide immune function, help regulate temperature, among others). But if organized and genetically programmed in an unchecked fashion, skin cells can become cancer. Does that make all skin cells cancer, or is only cancer actually cancer?
You do understand that unions are made up of workers. You do understand the saying united we stand divided we fall. All unions do is allow workers to stand united. A good honest business owner has nothing to fear from a union. Unions usually are formed in situations where all is not well with how the workers are treated.
Pat
I don't trust business owners to be benevolent and do the right thing by their employees in this day and age when greed rules. I prefer to be able to stand and fight for my rights as a group just as we do in the NRA for our gun rights. I prefer to be strong vs weak. Big business leaders act like lords of old over their surfs.
Pat
Greed goes both ways, Pat. The union leaders become the Lords if given the chance. Just look at the UAW if you need proof.
Some of us prefer not to be mindless lemmings hanging on every word out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth.
Pat
I've never listened to Rush, but nice try.
Seriously, I can't wait to pay my first union dues. Oh yeah, and bring on the picketing! Wahoo!
Sent via Tapatalk
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:19
Greed goes both ways, Pat. The union leaders become the Lords if given the chance. Just look at the UAW if you need proof.
Greed does go both ways. Wanting more pay is a function of greed. And when both sides have equal power at the negotiation table greed is kept in check. However when one side has all the power such as in a non union shop greed runs un checked and the workers suffer.
Pat
Some of us prefer not to be mindless lemmings hanging on every word out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth.
Pat
And with that, I'm once again done here.
I need no man or group of men to do a ****ing thing for me. "I" am responsible for "me".
I sure as **** don't need to give a "for profit" group $40 a month to be my ****ing keeper. I'm a big boy, I'll make my own way.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:20
I've never listened to Rush, but nice try.
Seriously, I can't wait to pay my first union dues. Oh yeah, and bring on the picketing! Wahoo!
Sent via Tapatalk
So now you are against peoples right to demonstrate for a cause? Hmm not much for freedom are you?
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:23
And with that, I'm once again done here.
I need no man or group of men to do a ****ing thing for me. "I" am responsible for "me".
I sure as **** don't need to give a "for profit" group $40 a month to be my ****ing keeper. I'm a big boy, I'll make my own way.
Really so you don't need the US military to keep your borders safe. You do that for yourself. You don't need the fire department to put out your house if it caught fire. Do what you want but don't slam on people with enough sense to realize that forming a group to fight is better than standing alone to fight. No one is forcing anyone to join a union but it sure seems like a lot of people here want to make it illegal to form them. Don't like unions don't join one otherwise leave them alone.
Pat
You do understand that unions are made up of workers. You do understand the saying united we stand divided we fall. All unions do is allow workers to stand united. A good honest business owner has nothing to fear from a union. Unions usually are formed in situations where all is not well with how the workers are treated.
Pat
"A good honest business owner has nothing to fear froma union"....do you honestly believe this?
A good honest Jew has nothing to fear from the Nazis.
A good honest Jew has nothing to fear from the Egyptians.
A good honest Jew has nothing to fear from the Syrians.
A good honest Jew has nothing to fear from the Iranians.
A good honest Jew has nothing to fear from the Saudis.
A good honest gun owner has nothing to fear from Democrats.
A good honest gun owner has nothing to fear from Bloomberg.
A good honest gun owner has nothing to fear from HCI.
A good honest gun owner has nothing to fear from Obama.
A good honest American has nothing to fear from the government.
A good honest American has nothing to fear from the IRS.
A good honest American has nothing to fear from the NSA.
A good honest Kurd has nothing to fear from the Shiites
A good honest Armenian has nothing to fear from the Turks.
A good honest Hutu has nothing to fear from the Tutsi.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:30
"A good honest business owner has nothing to fear froma union"....do you honestly believe this?
A good honest Jew has nothing to fear from the Nazis.
A good honest Jew has nothing to fear from the Egyptians.
A good honest Jew has nothing to fear from the Syrians.
A good honest Jew has nothing to fear from the Iranians.
A good honest Jew has nothing to fear from the Saudis.
A good honest gun owner has nothing to fear from Democrats.
A good honest gun owner has nothing to fear from Bloomberg.
A good honest gun owner has nothing to fear from HCI.
A good honest gun owner has nothing to fear from Obama.
A good honest American has nothing to fear from the government.
A good honest American has nothing to fear from the IRS.
A good honest American has nothing to fear from the NSA.
A good honest Kurd has nothing to fear from the Shiites
A good honest Armenian has nothing to fear from the Turks.
A good honest Hutu has nothing to fear from the Tutsi.
A good honest worker has nothing to fear from his boss. Two can play this game. Many on here including me don't trust big government. But its funny how some are fully trusting of big business.
Comparison between business and government. One is mandated to take pretty much any cent they can from you. Hint its not the government. You want to to just trust my employer to do what is right by me. Also if your going to a fight having more people at your back is better than going in alone. An employer can replace one employee easily with minimal disruption he however can not replace all of his employees all at once.
Pat
I don't trust business owners to be benevolent and do the right thing by their employees in this day and age when greed rules. I prefer to be able to stand and fight for my rights as a group just as we do in the NRA for our gun rights. I prefer to be strong vs weak. Big business leaders act like lords of old over their surfs.
Pat
And I don't trust big unions to be benevolent. Imagine building something with your bare hands and see how you would like a union to come in and force you to run your business a certain way.
You don't have to trust a business to be benevolent. If they pay appropriately and have good benefits, people will want to work there. If not, they lose employees. It works for every non-unionized small business without workers being mistreated.
I don't trust business owners to be benevolent and do the right thing by their employees in this day and age when greed rules. I prefer to be able to stand and fight for my rights as a group just as we do in the NRA for our gun rights. I prefer to be strong vs weak. Big business leaders act like lords of old over their surfs.
Pat
A good honest worker has nothing to fear from his boss. Two can play this game. Many on here including me don't trust big government. But its funny how some are fully trusting of big business.
Comparison between business and government. One is mandated to take pretty much any cent they can from you. Hint its not the government. You want to to just trust my employer to do what is right by me. Also if your going to a fight having more people at your back is better than going in alone.
Pat
I don't trust big business any more than I trust the gov.
You have a choice of where you are employed. Don't like it? Seek employment elsewhere. If enough people don't like it and seek employment elsewhere, sooner or later the company needs to change policies or have no workers.
So now you are against peoples right to demonstrate for a cause? Hmm not much for freedom are you?
Pat
You're absolutely right Patrick, that's exactly how I feel. :rolleyes:Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna have a more intelligent conversation with my 2 yr old daughter.
Sent via Tapatalk
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:35
But you have a choice of where you are employed. Don't like it? Seek employment elsewhere.
People generally have a lot invested in where they work. Its not like everyone works in fast food where you can quit one place and get hired immediately across the street. That is why we have many of the labor laws we do because people recognize this fact. If business want to do business and if their employees follow the law and unionize they need adapt and work with the union or go out of business. That simple.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:37
You're absolutely right Patrick, that's exactly how I feel. :rolleyes:Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna have a more intelligent conversation with my 2 yr old daughter.
Sent via Tapatalk
Just curious but are you capable of having an adult conversation where you don't resort to sarcasm and petty insults? I feel like I am talking to a kid and not an adult. As we are trying to debate this topic a few come back with honest arguments and others like yourself say the equivalent of "your stupid na na"
Pat
The union thugs own this state. Everyone busts our balls for electing the Terminator for our governor, but he tried to take the unions head on. He got his teeth kicked in, but he tried like hell. After that, he was practically their lapdog.
Union thugs operate with practical impunity here.Arnold sucked big time from day one.
brickboy240
09-03-13, 16:46
The word is "serf" not surf.
Someone has spent too much time working for a municipality or govt body. Where you become brain washed into believing that every business owner is Ken Lay and every corporation is Enron.
If I abuse or underpay my employees...they will leave. They could also sue me or turn me in to the labor board or the police. You act as if thee are no laws protecting employees of private business and that it is some sort of free for all out here. Further proof you have little to no experience out here.
The belief amongst many is that all businesses screw people. The truth is a few do but word gets out and many times this is the end of said business.
Ask the US big 3 automakers if there is nothing to fear from letting in a big union. The UAW basically killed this industry and destroyed what was once one of the wealthiest cities in America.
-brickboy240
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 16:52
The word is "serf" not surf.
Someone has spent too much time working for a municipality or govt body. Where you become brain washed into believing that every business owner is Ken Lay and every corporation is Enron.
If I abuse or underpay my employees...they will leave. They could also sue me or turn me in to the labor board or the police.
The belief amongst many is that all businesses screw people. The truth is a few do but word gets out and many times this is the end of said business.
Ask the US big 3 automakers if there is nothing to fear from letting in a big union. The UAW basically killed this industry and destroyed what was once one of the wealthiest cities in America.
-brickboy240
Well brickboy being a cop is a career in the public sector for 20 to 25 years up here. However I have worked most of my life before being a cop in the private sector in non union jobs for business owners so its not a foreign concept to me. Nor do I think all business owners are evil. But I know they do care about their bottom line more than about the welfare of their employees generally and that is fine so long as the employees have a voice and a way to stand up for their rights and a union is the best way for them to do that.
Also you know that labor disputes are not a police matter. As for the labor board they could but republicans have been doing all they can to make them ineffectual in recent years. Also the UAW did not kill the industry. You have to realize that there are two sides to any negotiation if one side is weak and caves in on things they can not afford its not the other sides fault. That would be like me being mad that I paid you $2k for a rifle worth 1K during the political scare we had recently. No one put a gun to my head to buy the rifle. (example no rifle was bought) So the auto industry has itself to blame not the unions.
Pat
Belmont31R
09-03-13, 17:10
Where's the statistical data that union states are safer than right to work states or if a union state implemented right to work that there was a change in accident rates.
glockshooter
09-03-13, 17:23
Pat,
I swearing don't understand you. I have read many of your posts and comments over the last few years and I just don't get you. I wonder how you would stand on many things dealing with the 2nd amendment if you we're not a cop. I wonder how you would feel about the current topic if you were not involved now or in the past with unions. You do realize that the unions goal is to continue to increases pay and benefits at all costs right? Unions had a place when they were first formed, but now with all the government regulation over work environment and worker safety they aren't needed. If a worker believes he is not making enough money then he should find another job. California has been financially ruined by unions. The unions push for more and more and more has all but bankrupted the state. Why is Detriot bankrupt now? My brother was a Ford plant worker for 13 years in Norfolk, Va. He did not graduate high school, but later got a GED. He got hired on and started making nearly $70k for tightening 500 bolts a day or something similar. Each time the union contact came up for renewal he would get a few thousand dollars for putting his name on the line. All this sounds great except when the market slowed Ford still had to pay the same wages. He eventually got layed off like ever other Ford employee when they closed the plant. So where was the union then. He was given a few options from Ford and the union and cut loose when none of the benefits the union was supposed to protect.
I am of the opinion that if an employer or business is profitable then they should reap the benefits. They invested the money and took all the risks.
Pat I want you to answer a question for me. You obviously believe the employer should share the wealth, so should an employer be able to reduce pay and benefits if the business is not profitable. If not please tell me why the employee shouldn't make less if there is less profit or no profit.
Matt
Well brickboy being a cop is a career in the public sector for 20 to 25 years up here. However I have worked most of my life before being a cop in the private sector in non union jobs for business owners so its not a foreign concept to me. Nor do I think all business owners are evil. But I know they do care about their bottom line more than about the welfare of their employees generally and that is fine so long as the employees have a voice and a way to stand up for their rights and a union is the best way for them to do that.
Also you know that labor disputes are not a police matter. As for the labor board they could but republicans have been doing all they can to make them ineffectual in recent years. Also the UAW did not kill the industry. You have to realize that there are two sides to any negotiation if one side is weak and caves in on things they can not afford its not the other sides fault. That would be like me being mad that I paid you $2k for a rifle worth 1K during the political scare we had recently. No one put a gun to my head to buy the rifle. (example no rifle was bought) So the auto industry has itself to blame not the unions.
Pat
You know, I DO care about the bottom line BEFORE my employees, and that bottom line includes before MY pay as well. Because, a business losing money can't survive. I have held my employees pay the last 4 years, at the expense of my own, because I felt that having and keeping good employees will be the only way to dig out of this thing when the time comes. But I'll be d@#med if I'm going to have a union TELL me what I can and cannot do.
Californistan is like a bad virus. They mess up their own state (with all it's beauty and agriculture) and when the mess it up bad enough, then the come to YOUR state with their 'enlighted' ideas...
I really do think Progressives actually believe a company exists only to make payroll....
btw, I don't like these exhorborant CEO salaries, either you are seeing with these really huge shareholder owned companies....it's just another form of extortion....
Belmont31R
09-03-13, 17:36
Also this labor board thing has been getting brought up for months.
Obama's appointments were found to be illegal.
Congress has a say in confirming these appointments. They are not there to rubber stamp Obama's picks. They have to go through hearings, and the Senate has to approve them by a majority vote.
What one person here is talking about is because Senate Republicans held up confirmations on two members of the board that had been previously illegally put on the board by Obama. Republicans wanted new appointees, not people who were already there illegally. Once new appointees were appointed the confirmations went forward.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3677595
Alpha Sierra
09-03-13, 17:58
If business want to do business and if their employees follow the law and unionize they need adapt and work with the union or go out of business. That simple.
Or they can break the union. Been done successfully many, many times.
Or they can go out of business and leave all the idiots who voted the union in with no job while the owners take their cut.
You guys are regular Einsteins, are you not?
High Tower
09-03-13, 18:01
Well this means Wisconsin will reclaim its past as the king of dairy. I wonder what other states will benefit immensely from this?
Well brickboy being a cop is a career in the public sector for 20 to 25 years up here. However I have worked most of my life before being a cop in the private sector in non union jobs for business owners so its not a foreign concept to me. Nor do I think all business owners are evil. But I know they do care about their bottom line more than about the welfare of their employees generally and that is fine so long as the employees have a voice and a way to stand up for their rights and a union is the best way for them to do that.
Also you know that labor disputes are not a police matter. As for the labor board they could but republicans have been doing all they can to make them ineffectual in recent years. Also the UAW did not kill the industry. You have to realize that there are two sides to any negotiation if one side is weak and caves in on things they can not afford its not the other sides fault. That would be like me being mad that I paid you $2k for a rifle worth 1K during the political scare we had recently. No one put a gun to my head to buy the rifle. (example no rifle was bought) So the auto industry has itself to blame not the unions.
Pat
Pat,
The UAW and liberal politicians/policies literally STRIPPED Detroit bare.
So you're positing that the UAW knowingly demanding and expecting more in return for their work (And more than their work was worth!) than what the industry/market could sustain, has nothing to do with the downfall of Detroit/Auto industry?
And that is complettely different than employers who compensate less than they should to their employees right? One is evil and the other is just good ole union negotiating!?!?!?!?!
It is just all the fualt of Big business and those workers were just trying to get "fair" wages right?
That is just plain dishonest Pat.
So when big business takes advantage of the little guys it is eggregious to you, but when big unions take advantage of an entire CITY and industry, it is the fault of the negotiators?
So if I get the jist of what you are saying, it is evil when big businesses do it and people should unionize to fight it, but when unions get too powerful and literally destroy an industry and a whole effing city- tough cookies, the other side should have negotiated better?
Should businesses be able to start "Big Business" employer unions to fight workers unions then? I mean, they would be able to collectively bargain better right? And through better negotiations citys like Detroit would be prosperous still- right?
You are not being consistent here Pat-
When an individual cannot negotiate properly it isn't his fault, so unionize to fight the oppression, but when a big business cannot negotiate properly it is their fault screw em they deserve it?
:rolleyes:
In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%...
You make it sound as if the other 88% of us are getting screwed over because we do not collectively bargain. That is simply false and completely unfounded.
Can you admit that the UAW did more negative than positive for their workers/union and the industry as a whole by demanding more than the market could sustain and more compensation than they were worth?
Funny how 60% of union workers vote Deomcrat, and those democrat politicans they vote into office are the ones who literally forced/outsourced the middle class jobs to Indai, Pakistan, China, etc through increasing taxes, regulation and licensing on businesses- forcing them to seek other markets to maintain profitability.
But good ole union Joe gets to keep his piece of the pie (Until it all falls down of course) because that same Democrat he voted in is supporting the unions in trade for their votes...
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Keep paying your dues... I think it's pretty interesting to see what some of the union boss' get paid for their salary. Not too shabby if you ask me. Article here. (http://nation.foxnews.com/union-bosses/2012/08/24/click-top-union-leaders-salaries)
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka – $293,750.
National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel – $460,060
Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry – $290,334.
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees President Gerald McEntee – $512,489.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters President James P. Hoffa , Jr. – $372,489.
American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten – $493,859.
International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger – $323,811.
American Federation of Government Employees President John Gage – $198,690. (Gage retired this month)
United Food and Commercial Workers President Joseph Hansen – $361,124
This report here. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/labor-union-bosses-salaries-put-big-in-big-labor/?page=all)
There can be riches in standing up for the working class: The Boilermakers union president earned $506,000, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars more for travel expenses, while the Laborers union president made $441,000. The Transportation Communications Union leader made $300,000, bumped up to $750,000 with business expenses....
“It sounds like we’re getting robbed,” Mr. Oubre said of the money earned by International Brotherhood of Boilermakers President Newton B. Jones. “I was a boilermaker for 35 years, and oh, my goodness, what we made was pennies” compared with that.....
Tax records confirm a pattern of high salaries, with base compensation of $583,000 in 2008, and show that Mr. Senese, in turn, issued hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash loans back to the union.
For decades, the union spent “large sums of money” to provide Mr. Senese with around-the-clock security after his brother and father, also union honchos, survived assassination attempts and federal authorities barred his father from union activity for life, alleging mob ties, according to a 1993 Chicago Tribune article.
ForTehNguyen
09-03-13, 19:41
I'm a member of the IBEW.
The way I see this, the unions are going to cause these workers to lose their jobs.
But it won't hurt the union at all.
They are power hungry monster that need to be extinct.
This is my opinion, as a union member.
forcing out lower priced competition, exactly what the union wants. Hence why they push for higher minimum wages
its illegal for companies to get together to fix prices, yet legal for workers to get together to fix wages?
SeriousStudent
09-03-13, 20:57
Out of pure idle curiosity, has a single person in this thread changed their mind about how they feel regarding unions or businesses? Anybody?
Bueller?
It's always the same folks in these threads, making the same points the same way. But I cannot recall a single person ever saying, "Holy Cheetos! Yer right! I have seen the light and will blaspheme no more!" :eek:
The OP says he wanted to hear from pro-union people. He did hear from them.
Anybody change their mind yet?
Seriously, why beat each other senseless this way? You KNOW nobody is going to change.
Anybody able to calmly and logically tell me why this thread should stay open? Because that sound you hear is the drain circling. Maybe we should just automagically close every thread that talks about unions after 5 pages.
Because calm and logic is lacking here.
Out of pure idle curiosity, has a single person in this thread changed their mind about how they feel regarding unions or businesses? Anybody?
Bueller?
I did. I said I was gonna quit my job & join the union. I saw the light. ;)
It's always the same folks in these threads, making the same points the same way. But I cannot recall a single person ever saying, "Holy Cheetos! Yer right! I have seen the light and will blaspheme no more!" :eek:
The OP says he wanted to hear from pro-union people. He did hear from them.
Anybody change their mind yet?
Seriously, why beat each other senseless this way? You KNOW nobody is going to change.
Anybody able to calmly and logically tell me why this thread should stay open? Because that sound you hear is the drain circling. Maybe we should just automagically close every thread that talks about unions after 5 pages.
Because calm and logic is lacking here.
Actually, all of us got along & agreed on all points... except for one of us. Seriously, it's too bad we always have to lock threads because of one individual. I wonder how civil these threads would be otherwise??
Anyway, to your point... That's why I bailed out several hours ago, I realized this was going nowhere.
Sent via Tapatalk
Actually, all of us got along & agreed on all points... except for one of us. Seriously, it's too bad we always have to lock threads because of one individual. I wonder how civil these threads would be otherwise??
You know, as much as I agree and as much as I usually despise most everything that everybody's pal, Pat, has to say, shutting him up is not the answer.
I, for one, will reluctantly stand by his right to say things that piss me off.
Reluctantly.
:)
You know, as much as I agree and as much as I usually despise most everything that everybody's pal, Pat, says, shutting him up is not the answer.
I, for one, will reluctantly stand by his right to say things that piss me off. Reluctantly.
:)
I agree. Everyone gets a voice but I've seen habitual trouble makers get booted out of GD who, IMO were no where near as bad. Why does he continually get a pass when others didn't? I'd be willing to bet he's got a starring role in the majority of locked threads.
Poly hit the nail on the head earlier. He's so predictable when these types of threads come up. It's too bad cause I really think some of these threads could produce some good dialogue.
Sent via Tapatalk
This thread is an embarrassment to what is supposed to be the intellectual sanctity of this forum. And honestly I don't know who is worse, our cancerous member AP or those that know better yet play the dumb game anyway.
You know, as much as I agree and as much as I usually despise most everything that everybody's pal, Pat, has to say, shutting him up is not the answer.
I, for one, will reluctantly stand by his right to say things that piss me off.
Reluctantly.
:)
I agree. I actually enjoy such discourse. I usually disagree with Pat, though I too stand by his right to his opinions.
I agree. Everyone gets a voice but I've seen habitual trouble makers get booted out of GD who, IMO were no where near as bad. Why does he continually get a pass when others didn't? I'd be willing to bet he's got a starring role in the majority of locked threads.
Poly hit the nail on the head earlier. He's so predictable when these types of threads come up. It's too bad cause I really think some of these threads could produce some good dialogue.
Sent via Tapatalk
I know, but we could all collectively ignore him, too. Except we don't. We let him get under our skin till we step away. As much as it pains me to say it, we are his enabler.
We need to make our points, counterpoints and limited rebuttal and move on. Like gentlemen.
Quieting the opposition is something we should all stand against, as long as what he says is in line with the rules. Doesn't mean we have to like it though. :)
I know, but we could all collectively ignore him, too. Except we don't. We let him get under our skin till we step away. As much as it pains me to say it, we are his enabler.
We need to make our points, counterpoints and limited rebuttal and move on. Like gentlemen.
Quieting the opposition is something we should all stand against, as long as what he says is in line with the rules. Doesn't mean we have to like it though. :)
True. What pisses me off though is when someone makes a statement & he comes back with some off the wall question or comment that is totally misconstrued. We both called him out on it yet he doesn't seem to get it.
Anyway, gotta get to bed but one last question regarding the OP. I may have missed it but are all the employees at the farm legal immigrants?
Sent via Tapatalk
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 22:17
Pat,
Pat I want you to answer a question for me. You obviously believe the employer should share the wealth, so should an employer be able to reduce pay and benefits if the business is not profitable. If not please tell me why the employee shouldn't make less if there is less profit or no profit.
Matt
Yes and that does happen look at the pay cuts we are seeing across the country even in union shops and while its not talked about many unions are agreeing with and offering to accept lower pay in some areas because they know times are hard. I think when times are good companies should spread their increased profits among more people than just the top paid executive officers of the company. And when its time to cut the top guys should get cut to.
Also I have always been a strong firearms rights advocate and that started well before I was a cop. Being a cop has nothing to do with my love of shooting.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 22:26
You know, I DO care about the bottom line BEFORE my employees, and that bottom line includes before MY pay as well. Because, a business losing money can't survive. I have held my employees pay the last 4 years, at the expense of my own, because I felt that having and keeping good employees will be the only way to dig out of this thing when the time comes. But I'll be d@#med if I'm going to have a union TELL me what I can and cannot do.
Californistan is like a bad virus. They mess up their own state (with all it's beauty and agriculture) and when the mess it up bad enough, then the come to YOUR state with their 'enlighted' ideas...
I really do think Progressives actually believe a company exists only to make payroll....
btw, I don't like these exhorborant CEO salaries, either you are seeing with these really huge shareholder owned companies....it's just another form of extortion....
Its your company I get that and no the union should not be able to tell you how to run it. But they should be able to sit down with you representing the employees when it comes time to talk about pay or benefits. You sound like a smart and strong individual and I doubt any one is going to get anything over on you in a negotiation so there is nothing to be afraid of. I am glad we agree on the exhorborant amount of CEO salaries.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 22:33
Keep paying your dues... I think it's pretty interesting to see what some of the union boss' get paid for their salary. Not too shabby if you ask me. Article here. (http://nation.foxnews.com/union-bosses/2012/08/24/click-top-union-leaders-salaries)
This report here. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/labor-union-bosses-salaries-put-big-in-big-labor/?page=all)
Lets look at what CEO's make at the companies where those unions have workers they represent.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 22:38
Also this labor board thing has been getting brought up for months.
Obama's appointments were found to be illegal.
Congress has a say in confirming these appointments. They are not there to rubber stamp Obama's picks. They have to go through hearings, and the Senate has to approve them by a majority vote.
What one person here is talking about is because Senate Republicans held up confirmations on two members of the board that had been previously illegally put on the board by Obama. Republicans wanted new appointees, not people who were already there illegally. Once new appointees were appointed the confirmations went forward.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3677595
The point is conservatives are doing their level best to keep the labor watch dog part of the government nurtured and ineffectual. The reason is because simply put conservatives don't give two craps about workers rights. But they do like the pay outs they are getting for big business.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 22:40
Pat,
The UAW and liberal politicians/policies literally STRIPPED Detroit bare.
So you're positing that the UAW knowingly demanding and expecting more in return for their work (And more than their work was worth!) than what the industry/market could sustain, has nothing to do with the downfall of Detroit/Auto industry?
And that is complettely different than employers who compensate less than they should to their employees right? One is evil and the other is just good ole union negotiating!?!?!?!?!
It is just all the fualt of Big business and those workers were just trying to get "fair" wages right?
That is just plain dishonest Pat.
So when big business takes advantage of the little guys it is eggregious to you, but when big unions take advantage of an entire CITY and industry, it is the fault of the negotiators?
So if I get the jist of what you are saying, it is evil when big businesses do it and people should unionize to fight it, but when unions get too powerful and literally destroy an industry and a whole effing city- tough cookies, the other side should have negotiated better?
Should businesses be able to start "Big Business" employer unions to fight workers unions then? I mean, they would be able to collectively bargain better right? And through better negotiations citys like Detroit would be prosperous still- right?
You are not being consistent here Pat-
When an individual cannot negotiate properly it isn't his fault, so unionize to fight the oppression, but when a big business cannot negotiate properly it is their fault screw em they deserve it?
:rolleyes:
In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%...
You make it sound as if the other 88% of us are getting screwed over because we do not collectively bargain. That is simply false and completely unfounded.
Can you admit that the UAW did more negative than positive for their workers/union and the industry as a whole by demanding more than the market could sustain and more compensation than they were worth?
Funny how 60% of union workers vote Deomcrat, and those democrat politicans they vote into office are the ones who literally forced/outsourced the middle class jobs to Indai, Pakistan, China, etc through increasing taxes, regulation and licensing on businesses- forcing them to seek other markets to maintain profitability.
But good ole union Joe gets to keep his piece of the pie (Until it all falls down of course) because that same Democrat he voted in is supporting the unions in trade for their votes...
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
It is 2010 and the middle class has shrunk to record levels. We have 1% of the nation with 99% of the wealth and it just happens that unions have been losing power over the same time period that led up to this situation. That is what we call a clue. If we get those union jobs back, we will get the middle class back and then we will be on the road to recovery.
Pat
Belmont31R
09-03-13, 22:52
The point is conservatives are doing their level best to keep the labor watch dog part of the government nurtured and ineffectual. The reason is because simply put conservatives don't give two craps about workers rights. But they do like the pay outs they are getting for big business.
No, not really. The NLRB got thrown into a mess because of Obama's illegal appointments, and now the case is going to go to the Supreme Court to see if an entire year of NRLB decisions have to get tossed out.
It wasn't a Republican who illegally appointed them there and had them waste an entire year of time. Now everyone's complaints are on hold.
Obama did that all by himself.
Belmont31R
09-03-13, 22:53
I enjoy these threads. If you don't, stay out. There's an entire rest of M4C to talk about other things.
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 22:54
I agree. Everyone gets a voice but I've seen habitual trouble makers get booted out of GD who, IMO were no where near as bad. Why does he continually get a pass when others didn't? I'd be willing to bet he's got a starring role in the majority of locked threads.
Poly hit the nail on the head earlier. He's so predictable when these types of threads come up. It's too bad cause I really think some of these threads could produce some good dialogue.
Sent via Tapatalk
We all know pretty much where we stand on certain issues. You bring up a thread asking about unions you know I will be there defending them and many of the rest of you will be there attacking them. That is just the way it is. Nothing wrong with healthy debate it helps people understand where the other side is coming from. You can also have healthy debate with out losing civility. What generally happens that gets threads closed is people get personal and rather than responding to the persons post they start with the name calling or sarcasm and I admit I have done that myself. That is what needs to stop. This would be a very boring and useless form if only people who agreed with each other were allowed to post. No I have not gotten any passes from the moderators. I have gotten infractions on my account that I admit were earned at the time. Lets all agree to simply act like adults. We can discuss hot topics that may make us as mad as hell but we can still treat each other with respect.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 22:55
No, not really. The NLRB got thrown into a mess because of Obama's illegal appointments, and now the case is going to go to the Supreme Court to see if an entire year of NRLB decisions have to get tossed out.
It wasn't a Republican who illegally appointed them there and had them waste an entire year of time. Now everyone's complaints are on hold.
Obama did that all by himself.
The reason Obama made the recess appointments was because congress was not moving on any of his appointments to the board. There comes a time when you have to do something to get things moving.
Pat
Belmont31R
09-03-13, 23:09
The reason Obama made the recess appointments was because congress was not moving on any of his appointments to the board. There comes a time when you have to do something to get things moving.
Pat
That shouldn't mean resorting to illegal appointments. That's why we have separation of powers. Two branches here have to agree. If they can't, then a compromise has to be made just like what unions do with employers. One side doesn't dictate to the other when both sides have to agree. I'm sure union people would be pretty pissed off if the employer said screw it and hired illegal aliens instead. That's basically what Obama did.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-05/opinions/35438016_1_senate-recess-senate-session-richard-cordray
Alaskapopo
09-03-13, 23:14
That shouldn't mean resorting to illegal appointments. That's why we have separation of powers. Two branches here have to agree. If they can't, then a compromise has to be made just like what unions do with employers. One side doesn't dictate to the other when both sides have to agree. I'm sure union people would be pretty pissed off if the employer said screw it and hired illegal aliens instead. That's basically what Obama did.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-05/opinions/35438016_1_senate-recess-senate-session-richard-cordray
In fairness they probably thought they were not illegal. Now they know.
Pat
**** unions. They had a place at one time but now they're just legalized mafia.
I do enjoy messing with the union guys on job sites though. They are the biggest bunch of cry babies. Lol!
MountainRaven
09-03-13, 23:23
On the one hand, if you get paid poorly, you can leave and work somewhere else. Possibly even for more than you made at the last place.
On the other hand, your last employer can lie about you to your prospective future employers and call you a dirty rotten so-and-so. And marking the "No you may not contact my last/current employer" is no better.
On the one hand, you have the need to protect the rights of the worker. For fairness sake.
On the other hand, you have the need to protect the bottom line of the employer. For fairness sake.
On the one hand, you have the worker's desire to live comfortably. To provide for their family. To live the American dream.
On the other hand, you have the employer who wants to live comfortably, provide for their family, and live the American dream.
Where some workers are worthless, they can be fired.
Where some employers are worthless, they can always count on having employees - someone always needs money.
IMHO, too many employers treat their workers are disposable cogs. There's a good reason why places like FedEx and UPS, Costco, and Google are held up as examples to be emulated by all others: They never want for workers; their workers are loyal and hardworking. They have a good thing. But they are held up as examples because they are uncommon.
There has long been a far smaller number of positions open at exceptional employers than there are exceptional employees.
There cannot, however, be any doubt that good employers can be and have been run into the ground by unscrupulous unions.
Of course, it is every bit as appropriate to hold up the UAW as an example of what a union is and is not as it is to hold up Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual (or any of a number of other banks and other financial institutions that failed during the recession) as examples of what an employer is and is not. Either way, UAW killed Detroit. The banks nearly killed America.
;)
Belmont31R
09-03-13, 23:44
In fairness they probably thought they were not illegal. Now they know.
Pat
Harry Reid did the same thing to Bush. This is not a new practice. Obama has been trying to expand the executive power, and has made numerous references to side stepping Congress when he doesn't get his way. Gun control is just but one example. And Obama has fought the lawsuits in court...not the act of someone who made a mistake in innocence. It's obviously something he thinks is worth fighting for.
But what I said was accurate, that the illegal recess appointments (innocently or intentionally), did more harm to the mission of the NLRB than anything a conservative has done recently.
With Richard Cordray, who was nominated to head the CFPB, Republicans had said they would block any appointment to that position because the CFPB is funded out of the Federal Reserve not through Congress. This takes away Congress' ability to exert oversight powers over a Federal agency and basically takes them out of the loop on separation of powers. We should all be opposed to a Federal agency that Congress has no oversight on, and is funded in a way designed to bypass traditional checks and balances. There are numerous other issues with the CFPB that are alarming.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol12408_recentlegislation.pdf
polymorpheous
09-03-13, 23:53
So the middle class shrunk in 2010?
Gee... Who controlled both Houses and Executive?
Tell me Patrick, what are the liberals doing for workers?
Liberals who shoved the ACA down everyone's throats.
Liberals who want to grant amnesty to illegals that are taking UNION jobs.
The unions are their own worst enemy and they are in their death throes.
They see the illegals as their cure, and are pushing to have them join their ranks.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 00:05
So the middle class shrunk in 2010?
Gee... Who controlled both Houses and Executive?
Tell me Patrick, what are the liberals doing for workers?
Liberals who shoved the ACA down everyone's throats.
Liberals who want to grant amnesty to illegals that are taking UNION jobs.
The unions are their own worst enemy and they are in their death throes.
They see the illegals as their cure, and are pushing to have them join their ranks.
The middle class has been shrinking for a a while because the unions have been losing power. But its a bit too early to declare them dead especially after people like the fast food workers taking to the streets demanding more pay. Allow this movement and others like it to grow and they will eventually form their own union.
Pat
Sure because that is what America needs, a buck double burger that costs 5 bucks.
Maybe someday we'll be able to pull GM style fed bail out for fast food workers too.
polymorpheous
09-04-13, 01:06
The fast food thing is a bullshit movement.
The actual workers did not participate.
The protesters were paid union astro-turffers.
Most people don't want to be a part of a labor union.
The teacher's unions here in WI are a good example of this.
Since Act-10 was enacted, the unions saw a massive drop in membership.
Unions picked a side.
They picked politics, not workers.
People see this and only the most devoted unionistas such as yourself will argue this.
The problem is, people such as yourself will only argue talking points with nothing to back you up.
Pat, have you lived your whole life in Alaska? Genuinely curious because it appears that you base all your observations upon life in the most remote of states with some very unique challenges that aren't necessarily representative of the realities of the rest of the U.S.
Were you ever a business owner? Have you ever built a business from the ground up, to see it thrive, to work in excess of 60 hours of week to maintain it? Or have you always been employed, and fought someone else to give you a larger paycheck, rather than going out to make your own fortune when you didn't agree?
Hmm 3% of wages is .45 cents in exchange for a solid contract and possible better wages and benefits to be negotiated in the future. Yep thats real. The first department I worked at went from $12 bucks an hour and having the corrupt city mayor come into the department drunk threatening to fire people before the union to $17 an hour and being protected from such tactics after the union. When I left they were making around $23 an hour starting out and our union dues were $40 a month. Well worth the cost of admission.
Pat
Got a better idea. How about do your job and arrest the mayor for public intoxication and abuse of powers?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
Belmont31R
09-04-13, 07:52
The decline in union participation is directly related to industry being sent overseas. Union types don't get it that while they are pushing for higher and higher wages they have a thousand people overseas who will do their job without all the drama. There have also been huge advances in industrial equipment that replaces human workers.
That's why private sector union participation is trending down and public employee unions are trending up. It's better for the union bosses if their cash cow is getting paid through taxes than through a business.
brickboy240
09-04-13, 09:28
All you pro-union cops remember this....your salaries are paid for by collected tax dollars. Many of those tax dollars are collected from....surprise!...yep...those evil ol' greedy business owners.
When the pubilc and private sector unions have run almost all of the private business people out of business or off to China or India....who will pay your way?
Unions are known for killing the golden geese....are they not?
-brickboy240
All you pro-union cops remember this....your salaries are paid for by collected tax dollars. Many of those tax dollars are collected from....surprise!...yep...those evil ol' greedy business owners.
When the pubilc and private sector unions have run almost all of the private business people out of business or off to China or India....who will pay your way?
Unions are known for killing the golden geese....are they not?
-brickboy240
It's no wonder everything is made in China. In CA recently, they subbed out 10 BILLION dollars worth of bridge work out to China. Gee, I wonder why. :rolleyes:
Last year, I had a welding inspector come to my shop to inspect my welds on a large structural project. He was almost orgasmic over my welds. I asked him what was the big deal, as I've never had an inspector do cartwheels over weld inspections before. He told me he had recently spent time in TIJUANA! inspecting bridge sections being pre-fabricated for a So-Cal bridge. He said every single weld failed inspection.
It's a shame that politics have f**king ruined our country. The most shameful part is this is what the masses want.
Lets look at what CEO's make at the companies where those unions have workers they represent.
Pat
Apples and oranges comparison that's not really germane to the conversation. The CEO's salary comes out of company profits that they help generate and is agreed to by the employer. The union boss' salary comes out of the union member's pockets.
What doesn't make sense to me is you're all for the "workers" and their rights, like making more money, and you constantly gripe about CEO's and how much income they're making; yet, you use it as justification for the salary for union bosses. Why aren't those evil, greedy union bosses sharing their piece of the pie? :confused:
Apples and oranges comparison that's not really germane to the conversation. The CEO's salary comes out of company profits that they help generate and is agreed to by the employer. The union boss' salary comes out of the union member's pockets.
What doesn't make sense to me is you're all for the "workers" and their rights, like making more money, and you constantly gripe about CEO's and how much income they're making; yet, you use it as justification for the salary for union bosses. Why aren't those evil, greedy union bosses sharing their piece of the pie? :confused:
The answer to your question is obvious, they the union bosses earned their salaries ..:rolleyes:
brickboy240
09-04-13, 10:04
I swear...some people here must have slept through Economics 101, failed it or never set foot in the classroom.
If there was not a large sum of money to possibly be made by starting your own company...nobody would START companies. The object in starting a company is to MAKE MONEY...not give people a place to go all day or provide health care or a 401k. If starting a company had no chance of ever making gobs of money....NOBODY would do it. There would be few or no companies at all.
No companies...no jobs....no benefits...no tax dollars to fund things like oh...say...a police department!
Remember where your bread is buttered if you work for a federal, state or local municipality...ok?
-brickboy240
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 10:06
Apples and oranges comparison that's not really germane to the conversation. The CEO's salary comes out of company profits that they help generate and is agreed to by the employer. The union boss' salary comes out of the union member's pockets.
What doesn't make sense to me is you're all for the "workers" and their rights, like making more money, and you constantly gripe about CEO's and how much income they're making; yet, you use it as justification for the salary for union bosses. Why aren't those evil, greedy union bosses sharing their piece of the pie? :confused:
Its not apples to oranges. Its ok in your mind to pay a CEO millions to billions but not pay the head of a union a few hundred K. Does not make sense.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 10:08
I swear...some people here must have slept through Economics 101, failed it or never set foot in the classroom.
If there was not a large sum of money to possibly be made by starting your own company...nobody would START companies. The object in starting a company is to MAKE MONEY...not give people a place to go all day or provide health care or a 401k. If starting a company had no chance of ever making gobs of money....NOBODY would do it. There would be few or no companies at all.
No companies...no jobs....no benefits...no tax dollars to fund things like oh...say...a police department!
Remember where your bread is buttered if you work for a federal, state or local municipality...ok?
-brickboy240
With no employees to work for those companies they would not do well either.
Pat
brickboy240
09-04-13, 10:18
A union would not help my business or any other private business I know of.
What we need is less govt and less unions or our economy is pretty much toast.
-brickboy240
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 10:39
A union would not help my business or any other private business I know of.
What we need is less govt and less unions or our economy is pretty much toast.
-brickboy240
They help the workers. Business owners are doing fine at least big business is. Less government sure so business can pollute more, abuse their employees, and make unsafe products. Not a good plan.
Pat
Its not apples to oranges. Its ok in your mind to pay a CEO millions to billions but not pay the head of a union a few hundred K. Does not make sense.
Pat
I think part of the problem is you use sweeping generalizations and are referring to the elite, upper echelon of management. Many "CEO's" don't make anywhere near $500k and especially smaller companies.
What a person makes, in terms of salary and benefits, from a private company is between them and the owner, typically. Their portion of the pie comes out of profits that the company generates. Obviously the company owner, board of directors, etc. thinks they're worth the price or they wouldn't pay them their agreed to salary.
The union boss who's making over $500k, not a few hundred as you stated, is grossly overpaid as he's not producing anything. He is not running a profit generating entity. The fact is he's obtaining that money from the labor that the worker has completed. He's taking money out of the pockets and the mouths of the children of those starving workers, literally. It's not profit and it's not a private company, it's the union worker's money that they're paying their salaries with. Really not that much different than the mob and protection rackets.
I hope that you can possibly see the difference between the two.
brickboy240
09-04-13, 10:47
Define "doing fine."
If by that you mean because profits are up in some industries...that alone is "fine?"
Without examining the profit margins of any business that had a higher profit this year versus last year...that argument is flat.
The cost of doing business has gone up in recent years. The cost of energy, food, taxes and insurance have all gone up. Businesses charge more for their services to make up for the increase in costs of running businesses. Therefore, many times, the profit MARGINS stay the same.
Everyone blasts big oil for making "obscene profits" when in reality their profit margins range between 7-8%.
Odd, because nobody blasts Apple or Microsoft for making profit margins in the 40-45% range...do they?
Turns out mean ol' big oil is not making a huge profit, compared to many other industries if you examine the profit margins.
You simply cannot skim the headlines from big media and see that XYZ Company made a higher profit this year versus last year an assume that ALL businesses are "doing just fine."
This is community college Economics 101 stuff here.
-brickboy240
Belmont31R
09-04-13, 10:58
Its not apples to oranges. Its ok in your mind to pay a CEO millions to billions but not pay the head of a union a few hundred K. Does not make sense.
Pat
Most CEO's don't make millions. Their pay is usually pretty representative of the value of the company they run, and there's competition. A business wants a top notch guy so they compete for his labor. If a company like Apple paid 500k a year for their CEO all the best guys would go somewhere else.
If you took Tim Cook's pay, and divided it among every Apple employee, it would be less than 1% of a pay increase.
brickboy240
09-04-13, 11:16
Also, many companies have fired their CEOs for poor performance and other misdoings.
You would not enjoy products like I-phones and such without attractive CEO pay to retain the best and the brightest and give us all the best products we can have. The best CEO candidates go where they can make the most money....surprise!
Your view is that private industry is some sort of free for all with no rules. This is simply not true. There are laws in place to prevent business owners from abusing their employees. Tons of them. If we abuse these laws...we will go to jail or at the least have our doors closed forever.
-brickboy240
With no employees to work for those companies they would not do well either.
Pat
This sounds oddly familiar to the line about roads, bridges, and our nations highways...
All of which are funded by public tax payers mind you....
brickboy240
09-04-13, 12:31
..or like Elizabeth Warren's (remember the fake Indian?) comments about roads and bridges? Remember this little diddy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHFHznu-N-M
The woman goes on about how nobody got wealthy on their own and ranks on the factory owner. Blabbers about roads and bridges. Typical leftist statist nonsense.
HELLO! What BUILT the roads and bridges? Machinery made in the FACTORIES. Factories owned by those that stuck their necks out and started a business.
I can see how this type of view is prevalent amongst those working for govt. because that is how most govt workers view the world.
-brickboy240
I get it a fair number of people here don't support workers rights and look down on them as some sort of parasite.
Pat
This statement has struck a nerve with me. Do workers have more rights than the business owners? I thought the idea of a union was to create a fair and safe workplace? A fair days wage for a fair days work and in safe conditions. A union should not be trying to squeeze a business owner for everything it can when it will be the death of the company. Without the company the union has nothing.
Disclaimer: I did not finish reading the thread beyond what I quoted to respond.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 13:00
I think part of the problem is you use sweeping generalizations and are referring to the elite, upper echelon of management. Many "CEO's" don't make anywhere near $500k and especially smaller companies.
What a person makes, in terms of salary and benefits, from a private company is between them and the owner, typically. Their portion of the pie comes out of profits that the company generates. Obviously the company owner, board of directors, etc. thinks they're worth the price or they wouldn't pay them their agreed to salary.
The union boss who's making over $500k, not a few hundred as you stated, is grossly overpaid as he's not producing anything. He is not running a profit generating entity. The fact is he's obtaining that money from the labor that the worker has completed. He's taking money out of the pockets and the mouths of the children of those starving workers, literally. It's not profit and it's not a private company, it's the union worker's money that they're paying their salaries with. Really not that much different than the mob and protection rackets.
I hope that you can possibly see the difference between the two.
What a union CEO makes is between him and the members of the union.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 13:01
This statement has struck a nerve with me. Do workers have more rights than the business owners? I thought the idea of a union was to create a fair and safe workplace? A fair days wage for a fair days work and in safe conditions. A union should not be trying to squeeze a business owner for everything it can when it will be the death of the company. Without the company the union has nothing.
Disclaimer: I did not finish reading the thread beyond what I quoted to respond.
Without out workers the company is nothing. A balance must be struck.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 13:08
Define "doing fine."
If by that you mean because profits are up in some industries...that alone is "fine?"
Without examining the profit margins of any business that had a higher profit this year versus last year...that argument is flat.
The cost of doing business has gone up in recent years. The cost of energy, food, taxes and insurance have all gone up. Businesses charge more for their services to make up for the increase in costs of running businesses. Therefore, many times, the profit MARGINS stay the same.
Everyone blasts big oil for making "obscene profits" when in reality their profit margins range between 7-8%.
Odd, because nobody blasts Apple or Microsoft for making profit margins in the 40-45% range...do they?
Turns out mean ol' big oil is not making a huge profit, compared to many other industries if you examine the profit margins.
You simply cannot skim the headlines from big media and see that XYZ Company made a higher profit this year versus last year an assume that ALL businesses are "doing just fine."
This is community college Economics 101 stuff here.
-brickboy240
The oil companies make obscene profits. I could care less how they manipulate the books to make their margin appear low. I see how they spend money up here. They are not hurting at all.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 13:09
..or like Elizabeth Warren's (remember the fake Indian?) comments about roads and bridges? Remember this little diddy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHFHznu-N-M
The woman goes on about how nobody got wealthy on their own and ranks on the factory owner. Blabbers about roads and bridges. Typical leftist statist nonsense.
HELLO! What BUILT the roads and bridges? Machinery made in the FACTORIES. Factories owned by those that stuck their necks out and started a business.
I can see how this type of view is prevalent amongst those working for govt. because that is how most govt workers view the world.
-brickboy240
Actually the workers built the factories. Don't think the owners generally even lifted a finger in manual labor to get it done.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 13:11
..or like Elizabeth Warren's (remember the fake Indian?) comments about roads and bridges? Remember this little diddy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHFHznu-N-M
The woman goes on about how nobody got wealthy on their own and ranks on the factory owner. Blabbers about roads and bridges. Typical leftist statist nonsense.
HELLO! What BUILT the roads and bridges? Machinery made in the FACTORIES. Factories owned by those that stuck their necks out and started a business.
I can see how this type of view is prevalent amongst those working for govt. because that is how most govt workers view the world.
-brickboy240
All business are good and we need no regulation. (typical right wing elitist nonsense)
Anyway I don't hate business and I do support them. However I also support workers rights and that includes being able to form a union to negotiate for better pay. I also don't trust business to self regulate and history has shown us that trusting business to do the right thing by the environment and its customers is foolish. Might as well leave the fox to guard the hen house.
Pat
What a union CEO makes is between him and the members of the union.
Pat
Why? Because the union members are paying his salary?
If that's the case then your whole argument about CEO's being paid an unfair wage, as compared to a "worker", completely falls apart due to the CEO being paid by the company and not the workers. Using your train of thought then his compensation is between him/her and the owner/board of directors so it's not relevant to how much the worker gets paid. It's none of the union members' business what the CEO is paid using your own logic. :meeting:
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 13:32
Why? Because the union members are paying his salary?
If that's the case then your whole argument about CEO's being paid an unfair wage, as compared to a "worker", completely falls apart due to the CEO being paid by the company and not the workers. Using your train of thought then his compensation is between him/her and the owner/board of directors so it's not relevant to how much the worker gets paid. It's none of the union members' business what the CEO is paid using your own logic. :meeting:
Actually I just used your logic on you. Your saying that CEO's are not paid to much but that union CEO's are which by they way they make a fraction of what the company CEO does typically. Basically you don't seem to like Union CEO's making money because you don't support unions. It used to be that the CEO made 20 times what his line workers made now they make over 200 times that. That shows a huge injustice in how people are valued. Often these high priced CEO's run the company into the ground and still get their bonus.
Pat
It is 2010 and the middle class has shrunk to record levels. We have 1% of the nation with 99% of the wealth and it just happens that unions have been losing power over the same time period that led up to this situation. That is what we call a clue. If we get those union jobs back, we will get the middle class back and then we will be on the road to recovery.
Pat
PAt,
You are missing the point entirely here...
The unions are their own worst enemy. They prop up politicians that promise them support of their unions, but those same politicians vote for policies that HURT not only the unions, but the rest of our country and our economy by forcing businesses to move jobs overseas.
The decline in union workers can be first and foremost attributed to the unions themselves- mainly the management.
The decline in the middle class has more to do with Democrat anti-business policies than anything else. Unions being a major backer of these damaging policies with their voting habits.
You speak of balance, as if the unions are trying to gain a "true" balance. But what about the unions that completely strangle the business into being less competetive in the market and eventually dying off?
Yep= I'm sure you will just blame it on "poor negotiations" on the part of the business. But what about this "balance" you claim unions are seeking?
Unions do not seek balance, they seek greater pay and benefits beyond what they are worth in MOST cases.
There is no such thing as "Fair" pay; only what one is willing to be paid for their work and what another is willing to compensate them for their work.
So we have unions trying to get their workers pay increased to $50.00/hr for a $20.00/hr job.
Which is no different than a business trying to pay $5.00/hr for a $20.00/hour job, it is just the inverse evil.
I get that you are pro-union due to your being in a union and your experience, but can you honestly find no negative aspect of unions?
Really?
Do you really thinik that the UAW was innocent in the downfall of the American auto industry and the ruin of Detroit? Really?
In your mind it is just all the fault of those evil business owners who didn't want to pay up, and then negotiated poorly and ended up paying too much- but the UAW had NOTHING to do with it right- they were just sticking up for their poor members and trying to strike a "balance"?
I think you're being dishonest with yourself regaridng unions to a great degree.
You say that the union decides the pay of the union CEO's, and are okay with that, even when the pay is exorbitant; but in the same breathe you deride CEO's of private industry for getting paid large sums that the board of directors decided upon... :confused:
Actually I just used your logic on you. Your saying that CEO's are not paid to much but that union CEO's are which by they way they make a fraction of what the company CEO does typically. Basically you don't seem to like Union CEO's making money because you don't support unions. It used to be that the CEO made 20 times what his line workers made now they make over 200 times that. That shows a huge injustice in how people are valued. Often these high priced CEO's run the company into the ground and still get their bonus.
Pat
Bullshit. Prove it. And don't just cherry pick the top CEO's in the country. Do you know what a CEO is? Your statements are generalizations and I guarantee that the vast majority of CEO's make no where near that.
You still can't grasp the basic concepts I'm outlining. A union boss is not a CEO. A union boss doesn't produce shit and takes money out of workers' pockets that they could be using to feed their families. You slam business CEO's who earn a living and then somehow try to support your argument that it's OK for union bosses to make the equivalent... Honestly, it doesn't make sense to me and argument falls flat from everything I've ascertained.
Have a good one... SeriousStudent already laid it out. Ain't nobody in this thread gonna change their mind no matter how many times the facts get laid out.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 13:43
Bullshit. Prove it. And don't just cherry pick the top CEO's in the country. Do you know what a CEO is? Your statements are generalizations and I guarantee that the vast majority of CEO's make no where near that.
You still can't grasp the basic concepts I'm outlining. A union boss is not a CEO. A union boss doesn't produce shit and takes money out of workers' pockets that they could be using to feed their families. You slam business CEO's who earn a living and then somehow try to support your argument that it's OK for union bosses to make the equivalent... Honestly, it doesn't make sense to me and argument falls flat from everything I've ascertained.
Have a good one... SeriousStudent already laid it out. Ain't nobody in this thread gonna change their mind no matter how many times the facts get laid out.
A CEO does not produce SHIT his employees do. A union boss runs the union which helps its members get the best deal in pay and benefits from their employers. Nation wide union employees get better pay and benefits across the board than their non union counterparts.
Pat
Actually the workers built the factories. Don't think the owners generally even lifted a finger in manual labor to get it done.
Pat
Those workers would have never built a thing if it weren't for the owners paying them to do so and having the vision/taking the RISK to build in the first place.
This idea that only the "workers" manual labor built the factories- is disingenuous.
Factories are built by both those that put up the money/have the vision and those who do the labor. The greater reward belongs to he who takes the greater risk. Period.
Sometimes your posts seem directly motivated by the communist manifesto. I do not mean this as an insult; it is honestly my observation/interpretation of the things you post sometimes.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 13:46
PAt,
You are missing the point entirely here...
The unions are their own worst enemy. They prop up politicians that promise them support of their unions, but those same politicians vote for policies that HURT not only the unions, but the rest of our country and our economy by forcing businesses to move jobs overseas.
The decline in union workers can be first and foremost attributed to the unions themselves- mainly the management.
The decline in the middle class has more to do with Democrat anti-business policies than anything else. Unions being a major backer of these damaging policies with their voting habits.
You speak of balance, as if the unions are trying to gain a "true" balance. But what about the unions that completely strangle the business into being less competetive in the market and eventually dying off?
Yep= I'm sure you will just blame it on "poor negotiations" on the part of the business. But what about this "balance" you claim unions are seeking?
Unions do not seek balance, they seek greater pay and benefits beyond what they are worth in MOST cases.
There is no such thing as "Fair" pay; only what one is willing to be paid for their work and what another is willing to compensate them for their work.
So we have unions trying to get their workers pay increased to $50.00/hr for a $20.00/hr job.
Which is no different than a business trying to pay $5.00/hr for a $20.00/hour job, it is just the inverse evil.
I get that you are pro-union due to your being in a union and your experience, but can you honestly find no negative aspect of unions?
Really?
Do you really thinik that the UAW was innocent in the downfall of the American auto industry and the ruin of Detroit? Really?
In your mind it is just all the fault of those evil business owners who didn't want to pay up, and then negotiated poorly and ended up paying too much- but the UAW had NOTHING to do with it right- they were just sticking up for their poor members and trying to strike a "balance"?
I think you're being dishonest with yourself regaridng unions to a great degree.
You say that the union decides the pay of the union CEO's, and are okay with that, even when the pay is exorbitant; but in the same breathe you deride CEO's of private industry for getting paid large sums that the board of directors decided upon... :confused:
The goal should not be to lower our standard to the sweet shops in other parts of the world but to rather raise them up to ours. Also I don't view business owners as evil nor unions as good. Both are simply looking out for their own interests.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 13:47
Those workers would have never built a thing if it weren't for the owners paying them to do so and having the vision/taking the RISK to build in the first place.
This idea that only the "workers" manual labor built the factories- is disingenuous.
Factories are built by both those that put up the money/have the vision and those who do the labor. The greater reward belongs to he who takes the greater risk. Period.
Sometimes your posts seem directly motivated by the communist manifesto. I do not mean this as an insult; it is honestly my observation/interpretation of the things you post sometimes.
It takes both capital and labor. But saying the CEO built the factory is dishonest. His money many have funded it but the employees did the work. Also the CEO does get the greater reward but that reward does not need to be 200 times what the laborer makes 20 times is more than sufficient. We have gotten to the point in society were we place way too much value on the top line management and not nearly enough on the bottom end line workers that make things happen.
Pat
Pat
You constantly skip over questions, comments and concerns that people express when it boils down to brass tacks. Like I said, you make sweeping generalizations and statements about CEO salaries, prove what you're saying. Otherwise it all amounts to just imaginary Pat's world "Because I said so" type stuff.
I'm getting dizzy with all this running around in circles... At this point I'm done with this thread.
http://overmanwarrior.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/image_273.jpg
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 13:58
You constantly skip over questions, comments and concerns that people express when it boils down to brass tacks. Like I said, you make sweeping generalizations and statements about CEO salaries, prove what you're saying. Otherwise it all amounts to just imaginary Pat's world "Because I said so" type stuff.
I'm getting dizzy with all this running around in circles... At this point I'm done with this thread.
http://overmanwarrior.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/image_273.jpg
You know how much they make and then you told me not to include the highest paid ones. That is bullshit. Also you know what has put socialist and communists in power all through out history. A economic situation in which a small ruling elite controlled nearly all the money. Kind of like what we are seeing now with 1% of the population having 99% of the wealth. Hard core capitalists are their own worst enemies. If workers in Marx's time were treated fairly he would not have had any power and no one would have listened to him.
Pat
A CEO does not produce SHIT his employees do. A union boss runs the union which helps its members get the best deal in pay and benefits from their employers. Nation wide union employees get better pay and benefits across the board than their non union counterparts.
Pat
So the "CEO" that "Runs the business" and whos decisions decide wether the employees make more or less, whether the business does well or poorly is different in your mind than the "union boss" who "runs the union" and whos decisions decide wether the union members make more or less?
You really think a CEO "running the company" is so much different than the union boss who "runs the union"?
Seems as if union bosses are saints, and CEOs are devils to you- regardless of the specific person in the specific position.
Can you not see the hipocrisy in your assertions Pat?
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 14:04
So the "CEO" that "Runs the business" and whos decisions decide wether the employees make more or less, whether the business does well or poorly is different in your mind than the "union boss" who "runs the union" and whos decisions decide wether the union members make more or less?
You really think a CEO "running the company" is so much different than the union boss who "runs the union"?
Seems as if union bosses are saints, and CEOs are devils to you- regardless of the specific person in the specific position.
Can you not see the hipocrisy in your assertions Pat?
Like I said in earlier posts I don't view one or the other as evil. Both are looking out for themselves. The union CEO's goal however is to help the members while the CEO's of the factories goal is to make himself richer.
Without out workers the company is nothing. A balance must be struck.
Pat
A balance must absolutely be struck. The point of owning a business is to make profit for the company owners. I understand paying a fair wage and providing benefits, but at what point is the line drawn? Just because you choose to work for a company doesn't mean you have a say in it's bottom line.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 14:10
A balance must absolutely be struck. The point of owning a business is to make profit for the company owners. I understand paying a fair wage and providing benefits, but at what point is the line drawn? Just because you choose to work for a company doesn't mean you have a say in it's bottom line.
I get that I am just saying that workers should be able to unite so they can bargain as a unit leverage the best possible pay and benefits the company is willing to pay.
For Irish.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/07/05/ceos-make-273-times-the-average-worker/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/congrats-ceos-youre-making-273-times-the-pay-of-the-average-worker/
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/are-ceos-worth-380-times-what-average-worker-makes
The ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay is 273-1, down from a high of 383-1 in 2000, but up from 20-1 in 1965.
Like I said in earlier posts I don't view one or the other as evil. Both are looking out for themselves. The union CEO's goal however is to help the members while the CEO's of the factories goal is to make himself richer.
Again being dishonest. INCRECIBLY dishonest.
You are positing that EVERY SINGLE CEO of every company ever is only looking out for themselves, themselves only and have never given one effing shit about the workers at all? Just htere to get richer and screw the poor workers over?!?!?!
Can you not see how the prosperity of a company based on decisions made by the CEO's/board of directors is directly correlated to the prosperity of the employees/workers?
SERIOUSLY MAN!?!?!?!?!?
And in the same vein you truly believe that every union boss is in it for the workers/union members 100% every time and never just looking out for themselves?
That is a steaming pile of shit and you should know that sir.
Belmont31R
09-04-13, 14:13
A CEO does not produce SHIT his employees do. A union boss runs the union which helps its members get the best deal in pay and benefits from their employers. Nation wide union employees get better pay and benefits across the board than their non union counterparts.
Pat
Tell that to the founders of Microsoft or Apple.
A CEO runs the company. They are responsible for everything that happens on their watch. No, they aren't factory workers, but a lot of people don't understand that physical labor is cheap.
Belmont31R
09-04-13, 14:15
lol
Employees form union to get better pay...good.
CEO wanting better pay...greedy asshole!
It takes both capital and labor. But saying the CEO built the factory is dishonest. His money many have funded it but the employees did the work. Also the CEO does get the greater reward but that reward does not need to be 200 times what the laborer makes 20 times is more than sufficient. We have gotten to the point in society were we place way too much value on the top line management and not nearly enough on the bottom end line workers that make things happen.
Pat
Who are you to decide the bottom line of a person who puts their money down and takes a risk. As an employee of the company if you feel the owner is taking more than their fare share and you're getting less than yours, you can negotiate for more or find another job.
Collective bargaining can help negotiate better terms- YES; I am not denying that, but it can also lead to the scales being tipped the other direction (As history shows us- EG: UAW, USW, etc...) and cause just as much if not more damage to society/economy as a whole...
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 14:17
lol
Employees form union to get better pay...good.
CEO wanting better pay...greedy asshole!
Did not say that but without unions the workers lose as its not a fair fight. Yes a lot of CEO's are greedy assholes but thats their right. Its also the right of the workers to negotiate for the best pay possible.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 14:18
Tell that to the founders of Microsoft or Apple.
A CEO runs the company. They are responsible for everything that happens on their watch. No, they aren't factory workers, but a lot of people don't understand that physical labor is cheap.
Yep they are responsible but seldom held accountable. Companies have gone under pensions not paid due to bankruptcy while CEO's got their golden parachutes.
pat
For Irish.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/07/05/ceos-make-273-times-the-average-worker/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/congrats-ceos-youre-making-273-times-the-pay-of-the-average-worker/
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/are-ceos-worth-380-times-what-average-worker-makes
A couple things you're overlooking, from the article: Average pay for the CEOs of the top 350 firms, including the stock options they exercised, was $14.1 million in 2012–up 37.4 percent from 2009.
Secondly, they used salaries from the CEOs of about 300 Fortune 500 companies only, and then used average salaries of all people. Totally misleading.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 14:21
Who are you to decide the bottom line of a person who puts their money down and takes a risk. As an employee of the company if you feel the owner is taking more than their fare share and you're getting less than yours, you can negotiate for more or find another job.
Collective bargaining can help negotiate better terms- YES; I am not denying that, but it can also lead to the scales being tipped the other direction (As history shows us- EG: UAW, USW, etc...) and cause just as much if not more damage to society/economy as a whole...
Thank you for agreeing and a union helps with those negotiations and they are historically much more effective than you would be on your own.
If a company pays more than it can afford for the labor it needs it has poor negotiators.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 14:22
A couple things you're overlooking, from the article: Average pay for the CEOs of the top 350 firms, including the stock options they exercised, was $14.1 million in 2012–up 37.4 percent from 2009.
Secondly, they used salaries from the CEOs of about 300 Fortune 500 companies only, and then used average salaries of all people. Totally misleading.
Its the truth. You wanted sources and you got it.
Pat
RancidSumo
09-04-13, 14:26
The oil companies make obscene profits. I could care less how they manipulate the books to make their margin appear low. I see how they spend money up here. They are not hurting at all.
Pat
Living in Alaska does not mean that you know shit about how the oil industry works. Yes, huge profits are made but only as a result of enormous risk. I guarantee you have no idea what it takes to drill/complete a well and bring it to market. Payout is often years out for any capital investment and it doesn't take many bad decisions to find yourself/your company in a world of trouble.
I guarantee you that the CEO of the oil and gas company I work for earns every penny he makes. Nobody but a pathological liar or an idiot could say that with a straight face about the union bosses.
I get that I am just saying that workers should be able to unite so they can bargain as a unit leverage the best possible pay and benefits the company is willing to pay.
Unfortuanetely not the case with many unions. It's taken over 30yrs for the IBEW here where I live to recover to the point where they can be competitive with large companies. Unions are not always good and benevolent. If the company can't sustain it's obligations to it's workers, then the workers lose out. Union or not.
Its the employees labor and its their right to try and form a union if they wish. His business is not worth squat without someone to work it. I don't resent a business owners desire to make a profit that is great however you should not despise a worker for trying to get as good of pay as possible.
Pat
And it should be the right of the owner to rid his business of the union and hire new employees if he chooses.
There is a difference in the private and public sector unions and the damage that can be done to the "owner". Businesses feel the strain than governments.
The tail should not be wagging the dog in either case.
Its the truth. You wanted sources and you got it.
Pat
Top 350 CEO's VS average employee. What don't you understand about that? It's not the average CEO and the average employee, they're using an extreme as the example for CEO's.
Belmont31R
09-04-13, 15:01
Did not say that but without unions the workers lose as its not a fair fight. Yes a lot of CEO's are greedy assholes but thats their right. Its also the right of the workers to negotiate for the best pay possible.
Pat
So a union wanting better pay isn't greedy?
Thank you for agreeing and a union helps with those negotiations and they are historically much more effective than you would be on your own.
If a company pays more than it can afford for the labor it needs it has poor negotiators.
Pat
Historically unions have infalted costs of doing business in every market they get their claws into as well. And that inevitably leads to a weakened economy and a work force that suffers across the board.
It's tiring seeing you respond to 10% of what is posted regarding unions.
Please answer these questions directly:
-Do you really beliee that the UAW is innocent in the downfall of Detroit and the American Auto Industry? That they were just negotiating for "fair" wages and "balance"?
-Do you really believe that all unions, ONLY do good and all business owners are ONLY looking to screw over their workers to get richer?
-Do you really believe that there are no negative consequences to unions inflating costs of doing business in every market they get involved in?
-Do you deny that union members vote for Democratic policies (60% of membership at least) that hurt the entire economy and our nation as a whole?
Belmont31R
09-04-13, 15:10
Top 350 CEO's VS average employee. What don't you understand about that? It's not the average CEO and the average employee, they're using an extreme as the example for CEO's.
Of course. And those cherry picked company's have thousands to tens of thousands of employees. Like I said, if you took their pay and gave it to all the employees they would get a few hundred bucks. Less than 1% of the average income. It's an asinine argument that is meant to jive with those who can't do basic math. Just like union lovers are sticklers for their contracts but if a CEO has a contract it's a 'Golden Parachute' that is wrong of them to get. Contracts work both ways.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 16:26
Living in Alaska does not mean that you know shit about how the oil industry works. Yes, huge profits are made but only as a result of enormous risk. I guarantee you have no idea what it takes to drill/complete a well and bring it to market. Payout is often years out for any capital investment and it doesn't take many bad decisions to find yourself/your company in a world of trouble.
I guarantee you that the CEO of the oil and gas company I work for earns every penny he makes. Nobody but a pathological liar or an idiot could say that with a straight face about the union bosses.
Nobody but a pathological liar or an idiot could claim Oil Company CEO's actually earn every dollar they make. That was funny.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 16:27
Of course. And those cherry picked company's have thousands to tens of thousands of employees. Like I said, if you took their pay and gave it to all the employees they would get a few hundred bucks. Less than 1% of the average income. It's an asinine argument that is meant to jive with those who can't do basic math. Just like union lovers are sticklers for their contracts but if a CEO has a contract it's a 'Golden Parachute' that is wrong of them to get. Contracts work both ways.
Union contracts get broken when the company goes bankrupt but the CEO's are usually un touched walking away with big money.
Pat
Nobody but a pathological liar or an idiot could claim Oil Company CEO's actually earn every dollar they make. That was funny.
Pat
Way to follow the rules Patrick.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 16:30
Historically unions have infalted costs of doing business in every market they get their claws into as well. And that inevitably leads to a weakened economy and a work force that suffers across the board.
It's tiring seeing you respond to 10% of what is posted regarding unions.
Please answer these questions directly:
-Do you really beliee that the UAW is innocent in the downfall of Detroit and the American Auto Industry? That they were just negotiating for "fair" wages and "balance"?
-Do you really believe that all unions, ONLY do good and all business owners are ONLY looking to screw over their workers to get richer?
-Do you really believe that there are no negative consequences to unions inflating costs of doing business in every market they get involved in?
-Do you deny that union members vote for Democratic policies (60% of membership at least) that hurt the entire economy and our nation as a whole?
Union members vote their pocket book many disagree with other issues that the democrats hold but they have no real choice as the republicans are trying to literally take money out of their already shrinking paychecks. Its a tough choice. I am fortunate to live in an area where even the democrats are pro gun so I can and do always vote for the pro labor candidate in local and state elections. I only break that for the firearms issues on the national level elections.
Never said all unions always do good nor do all business do bad. But again without someone to represent the little guy business will roll right over their employees.
Pat
RancidSumo
09-04-13, 16:32
Nobody but a pathological liar or an idiot could claim Oil Company CEO's actually earn every dollar they make. That was funny.
Pat
Remind me, how much time have you spent working in oil and gas? You have no idea what upper management in the petroleum industry does and how much they work.
Belmont31R
09-04-13, 16:35
Union contracts get broken when the company goes bankrupt but the CEO's are usually un touched walking away with big money.
Pat
Evidence of that 'usually' happens? When GM went bankrupt the UAW didn't lose out. In fact a large share of GM was given to the UAW while the bond holders got hung out to dry as did the non-union members.
Remind me, how much time have you spent working in oil and gas? You have no idea what upper management in the petroleum industry does and how much they work.
I spent 8 years working in the oil and energy production business... Everyone works their ass off!
polymorpheous
09-04-13, 16:58
What's dude gonna do when one day he wakes up and realizes he's a liberal?
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 17:05
Remind me, how much time have you spent working in oil and gas? You have no idea what upper management in the petroleum industry does and how much they work.
A lot of people I shoot with work on the slope one just retired from Conico. I know a bit.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 17:06
Way to follow the rules Patrick.
Irish look at what the post I responded to. I just used his own words right back at him. Are you of the opinion that its ok for people to talk that way to me but not for me to reply in kind?
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 17:07
What's dude gonna do when one day he wakes up and realizes he's a liberal?
Like liberal is a bad word. I would rather wake up and be a liberal than a libertarian tin foil hat conspiracy theorist.
Pat
RancidSumo
09-04-13, 17:14
A lot of people I shoot with work on the slope one just retired from Conico. I know a bit.
Pat
Oh yeah? Then you should know everyone in the industry works a ton to get shit done and that the risk involved is enormous. You should also know that everyone is paid well, even the low man on the field totem pole.
Odds are that none of your shooting buddies have ever even seen Conoco's CEO in person or even anyone at a senior VP level so they probably have no idea what those guys do on a day to day basis to earn that salary.
All that said, the bottom line is you've never worked in the industry and knowing some people in it hardly qualifies you to comment on its financial workings and the amount of work that it's management does.
glockshooter
09-04-13, 17:15
Pat,
I have to hand it to you when you buy into something, you buy in hook, line, and sinker. I am convinced you believe everything you are saying. It's scary, but I believe you. I also feel like I have finally figured you out. You are a liberal. You believe life should be fair and everyone should get a trophy. You somehow believe that workers are just as entitled to the profits of a company as the owner. I can definitely see where you get that from, because the workers have obviously put just as much at risk as the owner. After all the workers fronted the money, took out loans, came up with a successful business plan, and made it happen. Oh wait that was the owner, but I am coming around to see things like you. Hell I don't know why we are even worried about any of this because Obama is going to save us. I'm pretty sure you and him are two of the same. Remember people we didn't do this and we didn't earn this.
Matt
polymorpheous
09-04-13, 17:16
Like liberal is a bad word. I would rather wake up and be a liberal than a libertarian tin foil hat conspiracy theorist.
Pat
Libertarians are conspiracy theorists?
A strong belief in individual liberty and the Constitution is conspiracy?
Who's got the tin foil on now?
I suppose you believe that Libertarians should be suspected of domestic terrorism also?
You would rather wake up and be the enemy of liberty and the Constitution you swore to protect?
brickboy240
09-04-13, 17:25
Ugh...I'd just give up.
Some have bought in to the class warfare nonsense and there is no rescuing those people.
Some have little to no concept of economics or how free market capitalism is supposed to work.
Some will never own their own business and understand WHY things work as they do...and why some things do NOT work at all.
We are not elitists, right wing kooks or tin foil hatters.
Typical view from law enforcement people that see so much bad in people in their everyday lives...they think ALL of us are crooks, criminals or crazies.
I am done here....you guys have fun.
-brickboy240
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 17:32
Pat,
I have to hand it to you when you buy into something, you buy in hook, line, and sinker. I am convinced you believe everything you are saying. It's scary, but I believe you. I also feel like I have finally figured you out. You are a liberal. You believe life should be fair and everyone should get a trophy. You somehow believe that workers are just as entitled to the profits of a company as the owner. I can definitely see where you get that from, because the workers have obviously put just as much at risk as the owner. After all the workers fronted the money, took out loans, came up with a successful business plan, and made it happen. Oh wait that was the owner, but I am coming around to see things like you. Hell I don't know why we are even worried about any of this because Obama is going to save us. I'm pretty sure you and him are two of the same. Remember people we didn't do this and we didn't earn this.
Matt
That is wrong. I don't believe everyone should get a trophy. I don't believe in taking someone elses money and giving it to another person. I do however believe in fairness and while life is not fair we should do our best to treat each other fairly. I also believe the company owner does deserve more of the money from his business than his workers. However 285 times the rate of pay for a CEO vs an average employee no that is ridiculous. No one can justify that and be honest with themselves. I don't support the screw the working class mentality that many seem to have here. Also the crack about not earning this or doing this. What Obama was making a point was business could not flourish in this country if it were not for the safe working environment, infrastructure for transporting their goods, courts to enforce contracts etc. He was right on that.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 17:36
Ugh...I'd just give up.
Some have bought in to the class warfare nonsense and there is no rescuing those people.
Some have little to no concept of economics or how free market capitalism is supposed to work.
Some will never own their own business and understand WHY things work as they do...and why some things do NOT work at all.
We are not elitists, right wing kooks or tin foil hatters.
Typical view from law enforcement people that see so much bad in people in their everyday lives...they think ALL of us are crooks, criminals or crazies.
I am done here....you guys have fun.
-brickboy240
History has taught us what happens in a truly unregulated free market economy. 1. Monopolies, 2. starvation level wages for employees, 3. high prices for consumers. No thanks. What is needed is a reasonably regulated free market economy much like we have here in the USA. I don't think all business owners are crooks or criminals. I do know human nature however is too look out for yourself and that is fine. However workers need a way to look out for their interests effectively as well and unions are a good way for them to do that. They are not the devil many people think.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 17:38
Libertarians are conspiracy theorists?
A strong belief in individual liberty and the Constitution is conspiracy?
Who's got the tin foil on now?
I suppose you believe that Libertarians should be suspected of domestic terrorism also?
You would rather wake up and be the enemy of liberty and the Constitution you swore to protect?
Believing the government is always out to get you is a bit paranoid. I imagine some libertarians are domestic terrorists. I will have to look it up but wasn't Timothy McVeigh a Libertarian.
RancidSumo
09-04-13, 17:38
Monopolies have historically only existed for any amount of time with government assistance. Nice try though.
polymorpheous
09-04-13, 17:44
McVeigh was a registered Republican.
History has taught us what happens in a truly unregulated free market economy. 1. Monopolies, 2. starvation level wages for employees, 3. high prices for consumers. No thanks. What is needed is a reasonably regulated free market economy much like we have here in the USA. I don't think all business owners are crooks or criminals. I do know human nature however is too look out for yourself and that is fine. However workers need a way to look out for their interests effectively as well and unions are a good way for them to do that. They are not the devil many people think.
We do not currently have a free market economy in the U.S. It is a bastardizaton of the free market, heavily restrained by socialist tendencies (in the form of government intervention), and cronyism.
I asked you this earlier but, it is painfully obvious that you never ran a business. You are in a career where the only path to increasing your wages is to whine and complain to the union to negotiate more for you.
I've held many jobs in my life. The first one I made about $4.25 per hour. The next one I made $9 because I bettered myself by acquiring very strong MS Excel skills. Unhappy with $9, I argued for $11 and got it easily.
I've had a few employers since and my degree affords me far better pay than that now, but each step of the way, if I wasn't happy with the pay rate, I'd either ask for more or find employment elsewhere. Soon I realized that I didn't want to top out at an employees wages. So guess what? I started my own business and make more than I would being employed by someone else.
I would be damned if my employees ever dictated to me how I should run things, or conspire to strike on me. I would fire them on the spot for trying to hold me hostage.
Can everyone take a step back, breathe for a moment and take a break from this one so it doesn't get locked please?
I feel this subject is very much worth discussing. Too many good discussion/topics have been locked lately and I am getting tired of it happening when I as well as everyone else have more to say on the subject.
Less childish jabbing and more adult discussion is needed.
It can be very frustrating discussing these topics, but when it gets too that point- just let it go for a night and come back with a level head.
I respect everyones opinion in this thread, even the opinion of those who I vehemently disagree with and cannot fathom how they feel the way they do. I still want to converse with everyone to gain a better understanding.
Lets all settle down a bit on this one. Give it a night and come back tomorrow or the next day to continue...
Have a good night gentlemen. Have a beer and a whiskey or whatever your libation of choice may be and get a good nights rest so we can all come back and discuss this a bit more level headed.
Slainte.
ForTehNguyen
09-04-13, 18:02
Believing the government is always out to get you is a bit paranoid. I imagine some libertarians are domestic terrorists. I will have to look it up but wasn't Timothy McVeigh a Libertarian.
McVeigh was from a family of Democrats, his father was Democrat and a union man. McVeigh hated the govt just like Bill Ayers and the Unabomber, but they aint libertarians.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 18:21
Monopolies have historically only existed for any amount of time with government assistance. Nice try though.
That's is wrong. Nice try though.
pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 18:22
McVeigh was from a family of Democrats, his father was Democrat and a union man. McVeigh hated the govt just like Bill Ayers and the Unabomber, but they aint libertarians.
I don't care what McVeigh's father was what was he? Though he was part of a right wing extremist group. Looked it up he was a sympathizer with the militia movement another group of wack jobs and he blamed the government for the Waco incident. He was a right wing extremist.
Pat
RancidSumo
09-04-13, 18:23
That's is wrong. Nice try though.
pat
In that case it should be easy enough for you to provide an example right?
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 18:24
We do not currently have a free market economy in the U.S. It is a bastardizaton of the free market, heavily restrained by socialist tendencies (in the form of government intervention), and cronyism.
I asked you this earlier but, it is painfully obvious that you never ran a business. You are in a career where the only path to increasing your wages is to whine and complain to the union to negotiate more for you.
I've held many jobs in my life. The first one I made about $4.25 per hour. The next one I made $9 because I bettered myself by acquiring very strong MS Excel skills. Unhappy with $9, I argued for $11 and got it easily.
I've had a few employers since and my degree affords me far better pay than that now, but each step of the way, if I wasn't happy with the pay rate, I'd either ask for more or find employment elsewhere. Soon I realized that I didn't want to top out at an employees wages. So guess what? I started my own business and make more than I would being employed by someone else.
I would be damned if my employees ever dictated to me how I should run things, or conspire to strike on me. I would fire them on the spot for trying to hold me hostage.
Just make sure you are following the law. Its against the law to fire someone for talking about starting a union. Starting your own business is fine but that should not be the only way for someone to make a fair living. For the record I have worked at my families business. And after that I worked for several other employers in the private sector. I have worked since I was 12 years old. I have experience working the jobs that many here look down to pay my own way through college. Owning a business does not make you better than someone who does not.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 18:24
In that case it should be easy enough for you to provide an example right?
You first. But the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION comes to mind.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 18:25
Can everyone take a step back, breathe for a moment and take a break from this one so it doesn't get locked please?
I feel this subject is very much worth discussing. Too many good discussion/topics have been locked lately and I am getting tired of it happening when I as well as everyone else have more to say on the subject.
Less childish jabbing and more adult discussion is needed.
It can be very frustrating discussing these topics, but when it gets too that point- just let it go for a night and come back with a level head.
I respect everyones opinion in this thread, even the opinion of those who I vehemently disagree with and cannot fathom how they feel the way they do. I still want to converse with everyone to gain a better understanding.
Lets all settle down a bit on this one. Give it a night and come back tomorrow or the next day to continue...
Have a good night gentlemen. Have a beer and a whiskey or whatever your libation of choice may be and get a good nights rest so we can all come back and discuss this a bit more level headed.
Slainte.
I am cool with that. If people could stay on topic and not use labels or call each other idiots it would be refreshing for once.
Pat
RancidSumo
09-04-13, 18:34
You first. But the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION comes to mind.
Pat
You're aware it doesn't work like that right? That's like asking me to prove that Bigfoot isn't hanging out downtown right now. You are the one claiming these mythical creatures exist so it's on you to provide the proof.
Hint: The "Industrial Revolution" was not even a company, let alone one that held a monopoly for any length of time so that doesn't work.
scoutfsu99
09-04-13, 18:39
And here is our trolling statement.
Patrick doesn't like this subject...
So what he will do is throw out a few trolling statements to stir the shit.
Debate starts and eventually someone will vaguely insult him or his point of view.
Then poor Patrick hits the report button and has the thread locked.
It IS back door censorship.
Wow, this was nailed way back in the first page.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 18:42
You're aware it doesn't work like that right? That's like asking me to prove that Bigfoot isn't hanging out downtown right now. You are the one claiming these mythical creatures exist so it's on you to provide the proof.
Hint: The "Industrial Revolution" was not even a company, let alone one that held a monopoly for any length of time so that doesn't work.
You need to do some research on the monopolies that came to be in the industrial revolution. Government had to step in to break them up after people got fed up with it.
Pat
RancidSumo
09-04-13, 18:42
You need to do some research on the monopolies that came to be in the industrial revolution. Government had to step in to break them up after people got fed up with it.
Pat
Give me one example.
glockshooter
09-04-13, 18:44
That is wrong. I don't believe everyone should get a trophy. I don't believe in taking someone elses money and giving it to another person. I do however believe in fairness and while life is not fair we should do our best to treat each other fairly. I also believe the company owner does deserve more of the money from his business than his workers. However 285 times the rate of pay for a CEO vs an average employee no that is ridiculous. No one can justify that and be honest with themselves. I don't support the screw the working class mentality that many seem to have here. Also the crack about not earning this or doing this. What Obama was making a point was business could not flourish in this country if it were not for the safe working environment, infrastructure for transporting their goods, courts to enforce contracts etc. He was right on that.
Do really think that believing no one get a trophy is any different. I get it in your world there are not winners or losers. Your world only has fairness. Do you realize fairness is not the same for everyone. Different people see things differently.
I have also know lost all hope. Someone who claims to be pro 2nd agreeing with Obama. I believe you are trying to straddle to many fences.
ForTehNguyen
09-04-13, 18:51
You need to do some research on the monopolies that came to be in the industrial revolution. Government had to step in to break them up after people got fed up with it.
Pat
you mean their competitors got fed up with it. These companies offered the lowest cost goods and forced competitors out of the market which is how they became so large in the first place. Go read at who filed the complaints against it wasnt consumers it was competitors who didnt think it was fair. Why would the consumers complain they are getting the best deal - falling prices. Companies like Standard Oil lowered oil prices across the board - why would consumers complain? Of course their competitors would. Govt intervention are the sources of monopolies sometimes ie the AT&T Tmobile merger that was denied which benefits Verizon. We could've had a stronger entity to compete with Verizon but NOPE and you think the consumers benefitted from that? Verizon did
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntMa0Fxrp0U
Just make sure you are following the law. Its against the law to fire someone for talking about starting a union. Starting your own business is fine but that should not be the only way for someone to make a fair living. For the record I have worked at my families business. And after that I worked for several other employers in the private sector. I have worked since I was 12 years old. I have experience working the jobs that many here look down to pay my own way through college. Owning a business does not make you better than someone who does not.
Pat
My point is that you have little to no experience running a business. My parents owned one, and I worked it, but the challenges of running that business was never as obvious until I got into the captains' chair. Working a family business versus being the head of that business is very different. Many second generation business owners fail at business because they don't have what it takes to succeed like their parents did.
I agree that being a business owner isn't the only way to make an honest living, but when I looked at the facts, and knew what I wanted to make, and the fact that being an employee would not get me there in the field I was in, I took it upon myself to do better. What unions do is force employers to pay more for the same work, adding little to no value to the company bottom line.
At the end of the day, while a business is comprised of its workers, the CEO is also a worker, but it is his job to lead the company and its workers to prosperity. Say you have a landscaping business. There is often no shortage of people who are able bodied men that can do the physical labor, but much fewer who have the mental capacity to conduct the business (bidding jobs, administration, managing company resources). The physical labor is worth far less because there are many capable of filling those roles. People who know how to run a company are worth far more.
The day I found out that UAW workers made as much as some doctors bolting wheels to cars, I realized that the whole system was broken.
Irish look at what the post I responded to. I just used his own words right back at him. Are you of the opinion that its ok for people to talk that way to me but not for me to reply in kind?
Pat
No, I missed that, sorry. However, you are the only person I've seen point out "the rules" about insulting people. I'm unsubbing from this one. Have fun gents!
Yep they are responsible but seldom held accountable. Companies have gone under pensions not paid due to bankruptcy while CEO's got their golden parachutes.
pat
It goes both ways. Unions have bankrupted many companies too. Th teamsters are always raiding their pension funds. CEO's are paid for performance and profits. This is how the free market works. My CEO made 10 million last year. The company had profits of over 1 billion. Our CEO has almost all his pay in our stock. This keeps him motivated to help the company and the workers. I got a good raise and bonus due to company performance.
Unions need to wake up mad adjust to reality. No profits equal no job. :dance3::dance3:
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 19:19
you mean their competitors got fed up with it. These companies offered the lowest cost goods and forced competitors out of the market which is how they became so large in the first place. Go read at who filed the complaints against it wasnt consumers it was competitors who didnt think it was fair. Why would the consumers complain they are getting the best deal - falling prices. Companies like Standard Oil lowered oil prices across the board - why would consumers complain? Of course their competitors would. Govt intervention are the sources of monopolies sometimes ie the AT&T Tmobile merger that was denied which benefits Verizon. We could've had a stronger entity to compete with Verizon but NOPE and you think the consumers benefitted from that? Verizon did
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntMa0Fxrp0U
They lowered prices forced the competition out of the market and then raised prices several fold. They also lowered wages to starvation levels. You should have had this in a high school history class.
Pat
Belmont31R
09-04-13, 19:25
They lowered prices forced the competition out of the market and then raised prices several fold. They also lowered wages to starvation levels. You should have had this in a high school history class.
Pat
Henry Ford paid very well and made affordable cars.
Generalizations don't prove a point.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 19:51
Henry Ford paid very well and made affordable cars.
Generalizations don't prove a point.
I know not employers are bad and if your a honest employer your employees will not have much of a desire or a need to form a union. But unfortunately not all employers are as honorable as Ford was.
Pat
Belmont31R
09-04-13, 19:54
I know not employers are bad and if your a honest employer your employees will not have much of a desire or a need to form a union. But unfortunately not all employers are as honorable as Ford was.
Pat
Generalizations and talking points make broad claims but those claims aren't always true.
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 19:54
It goes both ways. Unions have bankrupted many companies too. Th teamsters are always raiding their pension funds. CEO's are paid for performance and profits. This is how the free market works. My CEO made 10 million last year. The company had profits of over 1 billion. Our CEO has almost all his pay in our stock. This keeps him motivated to help the company and the workers. I got a good raise and bonus due to company performance.
Unions need to wake up mad adjust to reality. No profits equal no job. :dance3::dance3:
The problem is CEO's are only concerned about short term quarterly profit reports. Often times they do things that hurt the company in the long run and they are long gone by then. Frankly no one is worth 14 million a year but that is my opinion. If I made 14 million a year and my line workers made minimum wage I would be ashamed of myself. The free market is broke when you have 1% of the population with 99% of the money.
ForTehNguyen
09-04-13, 20:02
They lowered prices forced the competition out of the market and then raised prices several fold. They also lowered wages to starvation levels. You should have had this in a high school history class.
Pat
BS, if you dramatically raised your prices you instantly make your competition more competitive. You become a monopoly by becoming the most efficient and you dont stay a monopoly by price gouging. Do you think oil prices fell when Standard Oil was broken up? You split up a large efficient company into many smaller less efficient ones. Starvation levels? Dropping oil prices like this increases everyone's standard of living. Show me where a monopoly raised prices several fold? They wont stay a monopoly much longer doing that.
Yea companies like Standard Oil are so predatory in their prices. WTF would consumers complain with prices like this? Competitors did however
Monopoly pricing
The argument that Standard Oil extorted high prices from the public is simply unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: Refined oil prices "fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897." [19] Being a large market power, but a market power nonetheless, Standard Oil could not create monopoly prices for fear of competitors springing up to win over dissatisfied customers.
The argument of monopoly pricing further fails when considering substitute goods - alternative goods that customers may buy to achieve the same ends with different means. For example,
"Coal continued to be a cheaper generator of heat and energy than petroleum. Vegetable and animal oils were used as illuminants and lubricants by the very large segments of the world's population living in relatively unindustrialized countries. ... Tallow and stearine candles constituted strong rivals to those made form paraffin was in some markets. In Europe, especially, artificial gas and later electricity gained on kerosene as a source of light ..." [20]
Thus, monopoly prices in kerosene and other products made by Standard Oil would have simply been replaced with substitute goods which Standard Oil did not control.
one of Standard Oils competitors crying about "ruthless tactics" and predatory pricing that Standard offered lower prices than them. Oh the horror:
http://legallegacy.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/may-15-1911-%E2%80%93-the-u-s-supreme-court-decided-standard-oil-co-of-new-jersey-v-united-states/
Much of what people believed about the role of competition in general and the Standard Oil Trust in particular was epitomized in the expose by the famous “muckraker” (investigative journalist), Ida M. Tarbell. In her 1904 book The History of the Standard Oil Company, Tarbell fueled negative sentiment toward John D. Rockefeller, Sr. and his company. Tarbell dug into public documents across the country that described instances of Standard Oil’s strong-arm tactics against rivals, railroad companies, and others that got in its way. She reviewed testimony in court and before Congressional committees, as well as copies of pleadings in lawsuits. She talked to people inside the company and those who had competed against Standard Oil. And she succeeded in gaining their trust – a step where others had failed. She excoriated Rockefeller’s “ruthless tactics” and “destructive effect” on smaller oil businesses. Her father and brother both had small oil companies that had not successfully competed with Standard Oil.
But was Standard’s monopoly achieved by anything other than rough and (sort of) fair competition that benefited the consumer? Ida Tarbell wrote that Standard Oil’s “predatory” prices undercut the prices her father and brother charged, driving them out of business. Was that “predatory”? Or was Standard merely more efficient, being able to make money at prices below the Tarbells’ costs, but still in excess of its own costs?
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 20:08
BS, if you dramatically raised your prices you instantly make your competition more competitive. You become a monopoly by becoming the most efficient you dont stay a monopoly by price gouging.
Wow first you don't understand what Monopoly means. Look the word up. If you have a monopoly there is no competition left.
Seriously you need to do some reading on the Rockerfellers and Carnige. This is history I am talking about not theory. A monopoly has driven all the competition out of business and they are then free to price things how they want. (IE with a monopoly there is no more competition look the word up)
Pat
The problem is CEO's are only concerned about short term quarterly profit reports. Often times they do things that hurt the company in the long run and they are long gone by then. Frankly no one is worth 14 million a year but that is my opinion. If I made 14 million a year and my line workers made minimum wage I would be ashamed of myself. The free market is broke when you have 1% of the population with 99% of the money.. Actually. 10 million a year is a bargain for our CEO. The stock has gone up 200%. Our profits are over 6 billion on the last five years. He has positioned us for long term growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States
92k per year puts you in the top 20% of income earners in the USA. I bet a ton of people in Alaska make that each year The statement that 1% has 99% of the money is false. :meeting:
Alaskapopo
09-04-13, 20:33
. Actually. 10 million a year is a bargain for our CEO. The stock has gone up 200%. Our profits are over 6 billion on the last five years. He has positioned us for long term growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States
92k per year puts you in the top 20% of income earners in the USA. I bet a ton of people in Alaska make that each year The statement that 1% has 99% of the money is false. :meeting:
Not a ton of people make that. I don't only the chief comes close where I work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_99%25
And no is not false.
SeriousStudent
09-04-13, 21:23
Can everyone take a step back, breathe for a moment and take a break from this one so it doesn't get locked please?
I feel this subject is very much worth discussing. Too many good discussion/topics have been locked lately and I am getting tired of it happening when I as well as everyone else have more to say on the subject.
Less childish jabbing and more adult discussion is needed.
It can be very frustrating discussing these topics, but when it gets too that point- just let it go for a night and come back with a level head.
I respect everyones opinion in this thread, even the opinion of those who I vehemently disagree with and cannot fathom how they feel the way they do. I still want to converse with everyone to gain a better understanding.
Lets all settle down a bit on this one. Give it a night and come back tomorrow or the next day to continue...
Have a good night gentlemen. Have a beer and a whiskey or whatever your libation of choice may be and get a good nights rest so we can all come back and discuss this a bit more level headed.
Slainte.
This is a great plan. It's a pity nobody seemed to listen to you.
So I'll make it easier. Everybody go have a beer.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.