PDA

View Full Version : Robert Reich: The Union Way Up



FORD
01-27-2009, 08:42 PM
The union way up
America, and its faltering economy, need unions to restore prosperity to the middle class.
By Robert B. Reich

January 26, 2009

Why is this recession so deep, and what can be done to reverse it?

Hint: Go back about 50 years, when America's middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring. Paychecks were big enough to allow us to buy all the goods and services we produced. It was a virtuous circle. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs.

At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one. Unions gave them the bargaining leverage they needed to get the paychecks that kept the economy going. So many Americans were unionized that wage agreements spilled over to nonunionized workplaces as well. Employers knew they had to match union wages to compete for workers and to recruit the best ones.

Fast forward to a new century. Now, fewer than 8% of private-sector workers are unionized. Corporate opponents argue that Americans no longer want unions. But public opinion surveys, such as a comprehensive poll that Peter D. Hart Research Associates conducted in 2006, suggest that a majority of workers would like to have a union to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. So there must be some other reason for this dramatic decline.

But put that question aside for a moment. One point is clear: Smaller numbers of unionized workers mean less bargaining power, and less bargaining power results in lower wages.

It's no wonder middle-class incomes were dropping even before the recession. As our economy grew between 2001 and the start of 2007, most Americans didn't share in the prosperity. By the time the recession began last year, according to an Economic Policy Institute study, the median income of households headed by those under age 65 was below what it was in 2000.

Typical families kept buying only by going into debt. This was possible as long as the housing bubble expanded. Home-equity loans and refinancing made up for declining paychecks. But that's over. American families no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going. Lower paychecks, or no paychecks at all, mean fewer purchases, and fewer purchases mean fewer jobs.

The way to get the economy back on track is to boost the purchasing power of the middle class. One major way to do this is to expand the percentage of working Americans in unions.

Tax rebates won't work because they don't permanently raise wages. Most families used the rebate last year to pay off debt -- not a bad thing, but it doesn't keep the virtuous circle running.

Bank bailouts won't work either. Businesses won't borrow to expand without consumers to buy their goods and services. And Americans themselves can't borrow when they're losing their jobs and their incomes are dropping.

Tax cuts for working families, as President Obama intends, can do more to help because they extend over time. But only higher wages and benefits for the middle class will have a lasting effect.

Unions matter in this equation. According to the Department of Labor, workers in unions earn 30% higher wages -- taking home $863 a week, compared with $663 for the typical nonunion worker -- and are 59% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance than their nonunion counterparts.

Examples abound. In 2007, nearly 12,000 janitors in Providence, R.I., New Hampshire and Boston, represented by the Service Employees International Union, won a contract that raised their wages to $16 an hour, guaranteed more work hours and provided family health insurance. In an industry typically staffed by part-time workers with a high turnover rate, a union contract provided janitors with full-time, sustainable jobs that they could count on to raise their families' -- and their communities' -- standard of living.

In August, 65,000 Verizon workers, represented by the Communications Workers of America, won wage increases totaling nearly 11% and converted temporary jobs to full-time status. Not only did the settlement preserve fully paid healthcare premiums for all active and retired unionized employees, but Verizon also agreed to provide $2 million a year to fund a collaborative campaign with its unions to achieve meaningful national healthcare reform.

Although America and its economy need unions, it's become nearly impossible for employees to form one. The Hart poll I cited tells us that 57 million workers would want to be in a union if they could have one. But those who try to form a union, according to researchers at MIT, have only about a 1 in 5 chance of successfully doing so.

The reason? Most of the time, employees who want to form a union are threatened and intimidated by their employers. And all too often, if they don't heed the warnings, they're fired, even though that's illegal. I saw this when I was secretary of Labor over a decade ago. We tried to penalize employers that broke the law, but the fines are minuscule. Too many employers consider them a cost of doing business.

This isn't right. The most important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will be considered by the just-seated 111th Congress, toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers' rights. The sooner it's enacted, the better -- for U.S. workers and for the U.S. economy.

The American middle class isn't looking for a bailout or a handout. Most people just want a chance to share in the success of the companies they help to prosper. Making it easier for all Americans to form unions would give the middle class the bargaining power it needs for better wages and benefits. And a strong and prosperous middle class is necessary if our economy is to succeed.



Robert B. Reich, former U.S. secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and the author, most recently, of "Supercapitalism."

Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-reich26-2009jan26,0,7180340.story)

LoungeMachine
01-27-2009, 08:44 PM
This country was BUILT by the working middle class...

Good wages return more to the economy than tax cuts to the rich, who will just save it in some Cayman Island Account

:gulp:

GAR
01-27-2009, 09:29 PM
Imported illegal aliens, and imported goods have killed the Unions from greasing the industrial, vertically-integrated companies that haven't been their ideal since the mid-70's.

I watch with glee the union roster halving itself under the Obama reign.

Seshmeister
01-27-2009, 09:33 PM
I thought the US car industry was still very unionized and it's gone down the shitter.

LoungeMachine
01-27-2009, 09:38 PM
Thanks to management hell bent on corporate jets and golden parachutes while designing SHIT cars for the US Market....and paying fat-cat Lobbyists on K Street...

:gulp:

FORD
01-27-2009, 09:47 PM
Yep. The UAW just builds the cars. They don't design them.

GAR
01-27-2009, 10:01 PM
Yep. The UAW just builds the cars. They don't design them.

Don't blame them for designing flabby cars, but blame them for immunizing the flabby workers from getting fired?

Unions=Extortionists

When I got out of college I went to the EDD for a job, and they referred me to a posting from the RTD as a bus dispatcher. I had no experience.

They said the pay starts out at $25 (in todays dollars) but that 12 percent is deducted for Union Dues.

I said fuck that out of principle and didn't apply for it, but hooray for what Unions can do to keep the jobs.. their brainiacs in that regards aren't they.

LoungeMachine
01-27-2009, 10:08 PM
and all this time later you post from the library.....

jobless.

:gulp:

Mission Accomplished

Big Train
01-28-2009, 12:02 AM
Imagining it is 1950 again feels nice, but it is not ever coming back. While I agree with the underlying principle that the middle class needs to get paid much more somehow, I very much disagree unions would be the right way to go about that.

With the advent of advanced industrial machinery, it is unlikely in most industries that there will be a lot of companies with large numbers of employees to unionize in the first place.

Nickdfresh
01-28-2009, 09:58 AM
Imagining it is 1950 again feels nice, but it is not ever coming back. While I agree with the underlying principle that the middle class needs to get paid much more somehow, I very much disagree unions would be the right way to go about that.

With the advent of advanced industrial machinery, it is unlikely in most industries that there will be a lot of companies with large numbers of employees to unionize in the first place.

Yeah, it was so nice when companies like Wal-Mart weren't simply allowed to flout worker protection laws like a defacto policy of forcing workers to put in overtime hours, but punch out first so they don't have to pay them in some states...

They may not do this any longer, but the practice was widespread for a while and many other stores such as "ToysRUs" also followed suit in order to maintain profitability and ensure their ownership and CEOs could maintain their multimillion/billion dollar salaries way in excess of what CEOs are paid in any other developed countries...

And blaming the unions for the damage to the US auto industry is at least partially bullshit. The UAW has made some big concessions. While I agree that issues like the overly generous, all or nothing, pension plans and 90% unemployment paychecks are valid discussions - it's really the fault of the US automakers that have never learned from their mistakes and essentially repeated the 1970s in the 1990s by trying to create their own market with the "build it and they will come" or marketing mentality rather than responding to the actual market of higher fuel prices and increasing quality of foreign manufacturers. An example would be the "two Fords": that is the huge differences between the profitable Ford of Europe that makes very nice, reliable cars people desire (Google Mondeo, second generation Focus), and the Ford of North America which often made tossed-off, boring lessor vehicles because they wanted to concentrate on pumping out sport utility vehicles and trucks which hurt them severally when fuel prices skyrocketed..

See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm?chan=autos_autos+--+lifestyle+subindex+page_top+stories

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f57/edmunds-mondeo-review-driving-great-ford-u-s-cant-get-58251/


Because I think I need to point out that a lot of "American cars" are now assembled in Mexico and Brazil among other places. So, obviously it's not all highly paid American union workers sapping the cash flow. It's bad business practices and a complete lack of foresight "quick buck" ideal that makes one wonder if these guys have been completely detached from reality..

Big Train
01-28-2009, 11:15 AM
Worker protection doesn't have to come from the union. That is the only thing the union really does in a positive sense.

In this modern age, the union does more harm than good.

LoungeMachine
01-28-2009, 12:17 PM
Worker protection doesn't have to come from the union. .

Does the capitalist want it to come from the Government now?

I'm constantly amazed at what and when you guys decide to have the Government step in.

:gulp:

Big Train
01-29-2009, 03:30 AM
I'm amazed at your general amazement of damn near anything.

Yes, the capitalist wants the groups in the government already paid (and paid well) to provide these protections to actually do their job. Adding another layer (with capitalist interests of their own), does not improve anything and taxes the workers even further. If they don't step in, they should be disbanded and the savings passed back to the taxpayer. I'm all for that too.

It's in the best interest of the workers to stand up for themselves without government or special interest groups (i.e. unions) in the way if possible, but with limited government intervention if absolutely needed.

hideyoursheep
01-29-2009, 04:20 AM
It's in the best interest of the workers to stand up for themselves without government or special interest groups (i.e. unions) in the way if possible, but with limited government intervention if absolutely needed.

It's impossible.

You can never "stand up" for yourself against management unless you're a fool.

You're labeled a "troublemaker" and any excuse to remove you will be found.

Hell, they don't even need a legitimate excuse in an "at will" state.

Nickdfresh
01-29-2009, 09:45 AM
Worker protection doesn't have to come from the union. That is the only thing the union really does in a positive sense.

In this modern age, the union does more harm than good.

Um, then why are so many US workers not being protected and why are companies allowed to flout labor laws, especially under Republican admins apparently?

There are few examples of unions doing more harm than good. In fact, the only real one is the overly generous retirement and unemployment packages of the UAW. But then, who negotiated that?

WACF
01-29-2009, 10:15 AM
As a union member who works in mining I can tell you that unions are necessary in some industry.

Workers can stand up for themselves alright...if they can afford to be fired...unions give you protection as a large group to bring saftey or health issues to the front with no repercusion.

My province's mine saftey regulations are very good...and it was no government...out of the goodness of it's heart that made it that way.

It took organized labour.

GAR
01-29-2009, 11:22 AM
I'm amazed at your general amazement of damn near anything.

He thinks a ball-peen hammer is a pig taking a piss on the billiards.

Big Train
01-29-2009, 11:23 AM
Nick, jesus , what did I just say? If those government entities work as intended, then great. If not they should be dismantled and some other government entity should be charged with the duty.

I strongly disagree that unions are either : 1. That powerful anymore 2. That they help the workers in any meaningful way.

WACF
01-29-2009, 04:59 PM
Big Train...Unions had their place and saved alot of lives...look at your country's own past as far as coal mining goes.

Now current day...with the way the world has hit some trouble...amidst huge companies such as cargil that control fertilizer and grain...charging so much that farmers and some countries can not buy(India for example)....therefore controlling the price and market at both ends.

Who pays when the product does not move.

Unionized workers put out of work until the price drops if the shareholders decide they are willing to drop the price.

Business has gotten too big and too greedy to some point.

The way it is going it is going to take organized labour...once again...to bring balance back to our capitalist way of doing things...which is better than socialism but still neeeds to have checks and balances.

Nickdfresh
01-29-2009, 06:55 PM
Nick, jesus , what did I just say? If those government entities work as intended, then great. If not they should be dismantled and some other government entity should be charged with the duty.

I strongly disagree that unions are either : 1. That powerful anymore 2. That they help the workers in any meaningful way.


"If?" They AREN'T! Unions have varying strength with teacher's unions and the Teamsters still commanding the ear of the gov't. Without them, working people would be completely partitioned from the political process and we've already seen retrograde union-busting and the intentional looking the other way in illegal immigration, Bush's classic Katrina recovery bill where he tried to destroy "premium prevailing wage," and allowing companies to simply circumvent laws they find inconvenient...

Seshmeister
01-29-2009, 07:02 PM
As a non American in my ignorance I had to look up this Robert Reich to see who he was.

Turns out he fucked Hillary Clinton before his pal Bill which is one thing but funnier is that he is 4'10 and she is 5'8.

Kinky... :)

Big Train
01-29-2009, 10:13 PM
Nick ,

If in your eyes they don't work, then they should be dismantled.

WACF,
In the scenario you described, what is the usefulness of the union then? All they seem to do is cause more pain by forcing the workers to strike. Nobody makes MORE money in that scenario.

sadaist
01-30-2009, 02:50 AM
I'm surprised no one has said anything about how many more products in the 50's were actually manufactured right here in the USA. I remember not too long ago you could even buy televisions that were US made. More manufacturing, more jobs, more money earned and more money spent right here.

Big Train
01-30-2009, 03:20 AM
Well, that's part of the reason Sadaist. The base was there and could in essence "afford" the union hikes and pension.

As much as one could argue about poor design and management hampering the big 3, you can make the same argument that the crushing, absolutely crushing, costs of all those union contracts of the 70's, 80's and 90's crippled those companies just as much. How much went out the door to workers retired 25-30 years before that had nothing to do with the product? Billions and billions. Eventually, the balloon was gonna burst, even with an endless parade of hit cars. The business model became inherently flawed because of the union agreements.

hideyoursheep
01-30-2009, 04:53 AM
You're nuts.

Producing unattractive shit killed the big 3, not the UAW.

Sure, you have your overpaid "floor sweeper", but did you stop and take a look at how much the UAW relies on non-union suppliers, and how big a bite these so-called "engineers" in the design dept. take for perpetually inventing regurgitated models of shit that nobody can afford to fuel anymore?

My job requires I perform cuntsistently...

These shitheads stay employed for years after not producing-or until the company finally hits the wall...then, theirs is the LAST head on the chopping block....once there's no one left.

hideyoursheep
01-30-2009, 04:59 AM
...and have you ever seen a non-union severance package?

I have seen them, and sort of understand why some people become hopeless.



Because it's nothing.

swage33
01-30-2009, 05:55 AM
I'm surprised no one has said anything about how many more products in the 50's were actually manufactured right here in the USA. I remember not too long ago you could even buy televisions that were US made. More manufacturing, more jobs, more money earned and more money spent right here.


The American consumer wants quality products cheap. We are all responsible for this. My dad is a union miner and he would even say that if the unions better policed its own and demanded excellence from its members more employers would warm up to bargaining with its workforce as a whole. Who the fuck wants to throw down and earn as much as a sorry fuck that won't work? Because of the union, in most cases, no reward can be given to a good worker. You will earn as much as the sorry asses and they will be there forever because of union protection. So, why try to do any better? If unions do not demand excellence from its members, it defeats itself and makes union labor very unattractive to employers.

Nickdfresh
01-30-2009, 08:36 AM
Nick ,

If in your eyes they don't work, then they should be dismantled.

..

They didn't work because the politicians political philosophy prevented them from working...

They will begin to work now judging by Obama's first bill signed into law...

Nickdfresh
01-30-2009, 08:37 AM
Well, that's part of the reason Sadaist. The base was there and could in essence "afford" the union hikes and pension.

As much as one could argue about poor design and management hampering the big 3, you can make the same argument that the crushing, absolutely crushing, costs of all those union contracts of the 70's, 80's and 90's crippled those companies just as much. How much went out the door to workers retired 25-30 years before that had nothing to do with the product? Billions and billions. Eventually, the balloon was gonna burst, even with an endless parade of hit cars. The business model became inherently flawed because of the union agreements.

Except a lot of the manufacturers that fled abroad weren't even unionized industries...

Nickdfresh
01-30-2009, 08:40 AM
The American consumer wants quality products cheap. We are all responsible for this. My dad is a union miner and he would even say that if the unions better policed its own and demanded excellence from its members more employers would warm up to bargaining with its workforce as a whole. Who the fuck wants to throw down and earn as much as a sorry fuck that won't work? Because of the union, in most cases, no reward can be given to a good worker. You will earn as much as the sorry asses and they will be there forever because of union protection. So, why try to do any better? If unions do not demand excellence from its members, it defeats itself and makes union labor very unattractive to employers.


Another generalization of mostly bullshit. I've actually seen unions fire workers for making them look bad, or at least the best workers get the work first and the least last...

BTW, as far as "cheap quality," how's the anitfreeze tainted toothpaste and lead toys from fucking China working out?

WACF
01-30-2009, 11:59 AM
Do Unions create a workplace where hard work is not always recognized or rather rewarded.

Sometimes...but...what about pride in yourself and the quality of the work you do.

I get paid just as much as some guys that are lazy asses...but that has to do with supervision...not the union.

The idea that unproductive members or unsafe union employees are untouchable is a myth....the union ensures that the company gives the guy a chance as far as retraining, personal time off to sort out their personal life...councelling...what ever it takes.
If they do not want to change...they are gone.


Big Train...in my scenerio...which I am living at the moment....means that a union can not strike just because it feels like it...there is no legal reason.

The lay off is because of greed at the top...they overcharge...fill warehouses...the world crashes and they do not move their price...so the people at the bottom stay at home till things change...farmers do not buy because they can not...countries do not buy because they can not.

What the union gets you is proper lay off notice to get your affairs in order to weather the time off.
It ensures you are still covered by your health benefits.
It ensures that qualified senoir employee continue to do work on jobs that need to be done...not contracters or buddies of the managment.

And...it gives you the protection to voice your opinion about what is really going on when managment tries to shove sunshine up your ass and lie to you about what is really going on...monetary value...none....makes you feel good...worth it!

GAR
01-30-2009, 05:33 PM
Imagining it is 1950 again feels nice

.. not unlike pissing in a wetsuit, it's a warm, flowing feeling but nobody else notices it but the wearer.

GAR
01-30-2009, 05:36 PM
What the union gets you is proper lay off notice to get your affairs in order to weather the time off.
It ensures you are still covered by your health benefits.
It ensures that qualified senoir employee continue to do work on jobs that need to be done...not contracters or buddies of the managment.

And...it gives you the protection to voice your opinion about what is really going on when managment tries to shove sunshine up your ass and lie to you about what is really going on...monetary value...none....makes you feel good...worth it!

My salary ensures I take matters like health and retirement into my own hands, not some Sugar-Daddy mob grip.

Big Train
01-31-2009, 02:29 AM
Except a lot of the manufacturers that fled abroad weren't even unionized industries...

If they weren't unionized industries, what's the concern? The unionized industries are the ones that are dying. The ones that left adapted.

swage33
02-01-2009, 10:55 PM
Another generalization of mostly bullshit. I've actually seen unions fire workers for making them look bad, or at least the best workers get the work first and the least last...

BTW, as far as "cheap quality," how's the anitfreeze tainted toothpaste and lead toys from fucking China working out?

OK.....as an employer I am a consumer of labor. If the unions police their own...thats the way I want to go! I don't want the aggravation of negotiating with every member of my workforce individually. This method helps me in that it puts my labor expense on a salary.....easily tabulated and predictable. Mostly bullshit? You're arguementative style is confrontational. It results in a battle of egoes and leads off track from the initial arguement. Now, hang your head in shame.

Nickdfresh
02-02-2009, 11:36 AM
If they weren't unionized industries, what's the concern?

I was referring to the stated "widget" examples of consumer electronics. But how would that imply the loss of any jobs wouldn't be a concern?


...The unionized industries are the ones that are dying. The ones that left adapted.

Um, no actually. There are areas in retail, construction, oil, education and the auto industry (which is not all doom and gloom) that still have viable unions and political clout.

The weakening of unions is the result of employers being allowed to prevent organizing by firing 'ringleaders.'

And how would a rampant abuse of workers rights by many in the neo-retail sector, the fact that workers' (middle class) wages have remained stagnant since the 1970s while those in senior management have sky rocketed since ever implied that we don't need "unions." You're the type that believes that gov't can't be trusted enough to regulate business, then why should workers put their trust in politicians that are easily bought off by lobbyists and corporate "donors?"

And I'm not saying that everyone needs to be in a union nor should everything be unionized. But I'm saying that they are part of a greater argument regarding the continual destruction of the middle class in this country...

If unions are so useless that they are "dying," then why are places like Wal-Mart working so hard to prevent them?

Nickdfresh
02-02-2009, 11:39 AM
OK.....as an employer I am a consumer of labor.

Everyone is.


If the unions police their own...thats the way I want to go!

They do in many industries, because they have competition from other union halls and nonunion shops...

Unions can also essentially act as a employment agency in some sectors...


I don't want the aggravation of negotiating with every member of my workforce individually. This method helps me in that it puts my labor expense on a salary.....easily tabulated and predictable. Mostly bullshit? You're arguementative style is confrontational. It results in a battle of egoes and leads off track from the initial arguement. Now, hang your head in shame.

Get used to my argumentative style when I find you making general ASSertions. Maybe it is you that should hang your head in shame and at least respect the labor laws that have been hard won by the blood of those that simply wanted a fair days wage for a fair days work. And the right not to be "put out to pasture" like a fucking horse if they get injured....

Big Train
02-02-2009, 12:43 PM
I was referring to the stated "widget" examples of consumer electronics. But how would that imply the loss of any jobs wouldn't be a concern?



Um, no actually. There are areas in retail, construction, oil, education and the auto industry (which is not all doom and gloom) that still have viable unions and political clout.

The weakening of unions is the result of employers being allowed to prevent organizing by firing 'ringleaders.'

And how would a rampant abuse of workers rights by many in the neo-retail sector, the fact that workers' (middle class) wages have remained stagnant since the 1970s while those in senior management have sky rocketed since ever implied that we don't need "unions." You're the type that believes that gov't can't be trusted enough to regulate business, then why should workers put their trust in politicians that are easily bought off by lobbyists and corporate "donors?"

And I'm not saying that everyone needs to be in a union nor should everything be unionized. But I'm saying that they are part of a greater argument regarding the continual destruction of the middle class in this country...

If unions are so useless that they are "dying," then why are places like Wal-Mart working so hard to prevent them?

Loss of jobs are a concern, if the business cannot be replaced by another in this country.

The examples you listed all having widely different business models which either factor in union costs or don't. In some cases, the costs don't matter (oil and education) as they are "core products' everyone needs. Those unions are very powerful and the costs are passed along accordingly in ever increasing tution and fuel prices. Retail is somewhat strong, but the retail companies are more likely to boot them and close the doors entirely so they aren't as strong. As that union probably isn't as strong, it's cost structure isn't as much of a burden I would guess as it is in say education. The auto industry, once it lost it's edge, those costs became a noose around it's neck. Billions being taken out of the company, which didn't go into R&D or quality or expanding credit or dealers. It didn't improve the company at all, which affected to overall business model. They couldn't pass those costs along to the consumer much, especially when in a price war with other makers with way less union obligation, if any at all.

Your right, not everything should be unionized. By the same token, they should have some forms of protection (which they do), which maybe, maybe not should be stronger. I'm just saying a middleman solution of a union, only takes more money from the workers with mixed results at best in representing them.

GAR
02-02-2009, 02:16 PM
President Clinton wrote to Congress in the spring of 2000 and the letter that circulated to House members said, "China with more than a billion people is home to the largest potential market in the world… If Congress makes the right decision, our companies will be able to sell and distribute products in China made by American workers on American soil, without being forced to relocate manufacturing to China. …We will be able to export products without exporting jobs."

Arkansonian Bill Clinton, of the Walmart's Legal Team Clintons, of the Arkansas Wallmart Corp, pushed Congress to permanently normalize trade relations with Beijing, helping to ease China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Walmart ferociously pestered Capitol Hill in favor of joining WTO.

They lied saying China, with 1 billion consumers, was a new emerging market for many parts of Corporate America that could get onboard for a piece of this action.

Chinese are about as broke as fuck: there is no action, and there will be no "action" so we should pull out of the WTO, in my own very very humble opinion.

And weeks before that bill of Bill's received his signature, Robert Burt, chairman of the "Business Roundtable," an "association of CEOs of leading American corporations" lobby front for Walmart, spoke boldly about the future. "This historic legislation will be remembered as the key that opened the door for America to sell its products and services to the world's largest emerging marketplace," he declared.

(Notice I highlighted the INTENT of WTO, for the US to sell, not to buy cheap shit for 10 cents on the dollar compared to US products lasting 20 times longer.. FORD wonders "why does GAR hate Clinton?") I hate Clinton(s) because they're just Walmart tools.

Other executives around the U.S. supporting U.S. trade with Beijing, and China's efforts to get into the WTO reasoned that China would then be required to play by the same trading rules as the WTO's other members. But this turned out to be bullshit reasoning also, because the controlled China Yuan RMB still doesn't float as a free-market currency so that the true value cannot be known only guessed.

Furthermore boring to those who tire of my blazing 80wpm typespeed, the more the Europeans chased after us to catch up in doing business in China, US Corporations were pitched that "you don't wanna get left behind" worrying that if the WTO thing didnt pass, you lose out to the Europeans' getting an early edge, a worry Chinese officials played effectively like two-ends-against-thei-middle aim, throughout the 1990s until their WTO status.

So legislation to normalize trade with China gets overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, where it passed, 83 votes to 15. Even in the House the Democrats were split on the issue, but Clinton gets support from 3/4 Republicans, and it passes 237 to 197.

Before FORD chimes in on it that it was Bush's doing, Clinton signed the legislation at the White House in early October, months before Jr's inauguration - and China joins the WTO 14 months later, on Dec. 11, 2001.

So where was all that 1950's Union muscle in the 90's when the UAW needed it? And it's not just China, it's India too - India just got the Jaguar and Rover franchises from Ford which is under parts and engineering contracts to teach them how the build the fucking things.

Instead of providing retraining for Detroit and other loyal factory employees in new skillsets, they're training India to put the ricepaddy planting down and pickup machine tools and learning to read and write, and to give a shit about reading and writing. Why should we give a shit about Chinese or India feeding themselves we should be feeding ourselves first, retraining our people firsthand. Where's the Union negotiatings for the exit? They made tons of money in 6 figure salaries functioning as little more than a payroll deduction and I believe that warchest of paid dues should be disbursed to the workers in the form of retraining centers.

But of course, it's the Governments' fault, so the taxpayer in stead will be on the hook for retraining, unemployment, etc. and if they Gummint can take over the banks and house repos, they can take over the unions too.

A union is just a group, after all. They're there when you need them the moment to form a new one at a moments' notice untill Obama outlaws the freedom to do so.

Fuck WTO, liquidate UAW and sieze their assets, to disburse to Social Security for unemployment deductions: union problems solved, thanks for coming and goodnite

Nickdfresh
02-02-2009, 03:41 PM
Loss of jobs are a concern, if the business cannot be replaced by another in this country.

The examples you listed all having widely different business models which either factor in union costs or don't. In some cases, the costs don't matter (oil and education) as they are "core products' everyone needs. Those unions are very powerful and the costs are passed along accordingly in ever increasing tution and fuel prices. Retail is somewhat strong, but the retail companies are more likely to boot them and close the doors entirely so they aren't as strong. As that union probably isn't as strong, it's cost structure isn't as much of a burden I would guess as it is in say education. The auto industry, once it lost it's edge, those costs became a noose around it's neck. Billions being taken out of the company, which didn't go into R&D or quality or expanding credit or dealers. It didn't improve the company at all, which affected to overall business model. They couldn't pass those costs along to the consumer much, especially when in a price war with other makers with way less union obligation, if any at all.

Your right, not everything should be unionized. By the same token, they should have some forms of protection (which they do), which maybe, maybe not should be stronger. I'm just saying a middleman solution of a union, only takes more money from the workers with mixed results at best in representing them.



What exactly do you mean "costs passed on to the consumers?" You mean having to pay a living wage? Actually, some of the best supermarkets are unionized, and they really aren't that much more expensive? But then the point of unions was to buoy the middle class so there would be lower middle to middle class that could actually afford to fucking buy things which is part of the paradox. Things become cheaper because people have less discretionary income and most families cannot afford to live on a single salary the way we could in the 60s and the 70s! When you suppress wages and polarize wealth in the name of higher corporate profits, then I think you have less people with discretionary income? Correct?

Then, I think I can point out that there really isn't a huge tie between most unions and prices. The tie is that corporations have never been more profitable in the US, and workers have never had such a long period of stagnant wages - since the 1970s, wages have hardly increased when adjusted, yet corporate profits have skyrocketed. But hey, at least companies don't have to worry about things like pensions anymore..

And UAW ruining the US car manufacturers? LMFAO The management did that well enough on their own with their seeming inability to respond to market forces and terminally backwards mentality with emphasis on short term profits while ignoring long term trends (like higher fuel prices). I will agree that the retirement packages are far too generous and the unemployment compensation thing is ridiculous (90% of their wage when laid off I think?), and these things need to be addressed. But the fact is that the UAW has made great strides and has given up a lot. I think I've also mentioned that many cars are made in Mexico and South America, where wages are low and yet there still doesn't seem to be many takers for them...

We of course could also point out that one of the reason why European cars (of which Ford and GM manufacture many of and have superior models in), S. Korean, and Japanese car makers have been more profitable with less overhead is their respective gov'ts cover the costs of health care freeing up capitol and saving a lot of time and problems.

Big Train
02-02-2009, 11:53 PM
Costs passed onto the customers is exactly what it means. Paying unionized contracts for tenured professors, health care contributions and all the other concessions that are paid out are figured into the prices of products (education, services, etc..). You know, old school economics, "cost of goods sold". Unless the company is operating at a loss, it is passed along to the consumer, which allows for a profit. These costs structures for the auto companies eventually made them operate at a loss, speeding their decline.

The living wage isn't so much the issue, it's the legacy costs of workers in retirement and the benefits they are entitled to for long periods of time after they stop working, regardless if whether the company does well or not.

Management is another issue, which I am in agreement with you on. The parade of fuckups in their major decisions are well documented. The legacy costs though are what is really putting them in these tight spots. They are obligated to pay them either way, which dramatically cuts into their ability to compete, even if management were replaced with all stars.

Redballjets88
02-03-2009, 01:26 AM
All this aside due to the unions in rust belt having massive lay-offs it insured that the auto workers in my non-union state kept their jobs.

Nickdfresh
02-03-2009, 09:33 AM
Costs passed onto the customers is exactly what it means. Paying unionized contracts for tenured professors, health care contributions and all the other concessions that are paid out are figured into the prices of products (education, services, etc..). You know, old school economics, "cost of goods sold". Unless the company is operating at a loss, it is passed along to the consumer, which allows for a profit. These costs structures for the auto companies eventually made them operate at a loss, speeding their decline.


Oh, and what about the huge salaries of management and university presidents, coaches, and huge projects that are "passed onto the consumer" over what are modest at worst wages or workers from professors to grocery store clerks. BTW, the college example is a bad one on your part since most universities are having problems because they're often destroying their dept's by hiring part time, nontenured, faculty that are weak and cannot administrate well. But hey, maybe they'll pass the savings onto the consumer! :biggrin:


The living wage isn't so much the issue, it's the legacy costs of workers in retirement and the benefits they are entitled to for long periods of time after they stop working, regardless if whether the company does well or not.

Yeah, we can just be a nation where both moms and dads work, and the middle class keeps receding...


Management is another issue, which I am in agreement with you on. The parade of fuckups in their major decisions are well documented. The legacy costs though are what is really putting them in these tight spots. They are obligated to pay them either way, which dramatically cuts into their ability to compete, even if management were replaced with all stars.

It is management most of all though. They could have saw this coming, hell, they could have started bringing their Euro stuff here ten years ago and just made almost the same cars that they do there rather than expensively making different models for each continent...

Big Train
02-03-2009, 11:19 AM
Oh, and what about the huge salaries of management and university presidents, coaches, and huge projects that are "passed onto the consumer" over what are modest at worst wages or workers from professors to grocery store clerks. BTW, the college example is a bad one on your part since most universities are having problems because they're often destroying their dept's by hiring part time, nontenured, faculty that are weak and cannot administrate well. But hey, maybe they'll pass the savings onto the consumer!

Yeah, we can just be a nation where both moms and dads work, and the middle class keeps receding...

It is management most of all though. They could have saw this coming, hell, they could have started bringing their Euro stuff here ten years ago and just made almost the same cars that they do there rather than expensively making different models for each continent...

No shit, management is a cost too. However, their headcount is usually not anywhere near that of union employees. Theoretically, they are worth their higher salary based on responsibility and in some cases the amount of business they can generate. Cost/benefit says those salaries are justified (before you go off and soil yourself, remember I said theoretically). Education is a PRIME example. Every year it becomes less affordable to the middle class you speak of. Soaring costs, for what? Mostly salaries, in terms of tuition.In terms of fees, it's the kickbacks to the university from loan companies that needs a serious looking at. Upper management, alumi directors bring in giant amounts of money, so they are worth the price. It keeps tenure as a viable option, their model can afford it. The only one who eats it at the end of the day is the consumer...the student.

Obviously, in a state school these numbers are much lower and different, but the point is still the same. I'm not blaming anyone for making what they make. You are free at any time to do something more profitable. But to say it's always "the big machine's fault" is just a distortion.

The world and economic model is changing. I honestly don't believe there will be many large employers in the future. We will be a nation of small individual companies, with a few large ones. With the advances in automation and software large numbers of bodies just arent needed. Unions or not, that does not change.

WACF
02-03-2009, 12:00 PM
No shit, management is a cost too. However, their headcount is usually not anywhere near that of union employees. Theoretically, they are worth their higher salary based on responsibility and in some cases the amount of business they can generate. Cost/benefit says those salaries are justified (before you go off and soil yourself, remember I said theoretically). Education is a PRIME example. Every year it becomes less affordable to the middle class you speak of. Soaring costs, for what? Mostly salaries, in terms of tuition.In terms of fees, it's the kickbacks to the university from loan companies that needs a serious looking at. Upper management, alumi directors bring in giant amounts of money, so they are worth the price. It keeps tenure as a viable option, their model can afford it. The only one who eats it at the end of the day is the consumer...the student.

Obviously, in a state school these numbers are much lower and different, but the point is still the same. I'm not blaming anyone for making what they make. You are free at any time to do something more profitable. But to say it's always "the big machine's fault" is just a distortion.

The world and economic model is changing. I honestly don't believe there will be many large employers in the future. We will be a nation of small individual companies, with a few large ones. With the advances in automation and software large numbers of bodies just arent needed. Unions or not, that does not change.


That does not apply everywhere though...but has a large element of truth to it.

Where it falters is I have a hard time with any CEO making an obscene amount of money then stating that fees or costs are going up.

In the mining industry you still needs body's on the ground to run equipment...in 20 years I have seen large amounts of automation but our employee numbers have only risen.

...and...as far a wages go...I make the same when our product went for $200/ton as it now does for anywhere from $700-$900/ton...not true at the corporate level though...they are well compensated for driving the price up.

Our competition's CEO made the same wage by noon on the first day of the year as all the union employees in his company would for the year...obscene...

GAR
02-03-2009, 12:33 PM
Oh, and what about the huge salaries of management and university presidents, coaches, and huge projects ...

Because you'll be none of those things, last night we donated $500 to the Salvation Army in Santa Monica in your name.

When you see that kitchen tile with your name on it while standing in the soup line, you'll know I was thinking about you.

Nickdfresh
02-03-2009, 01:53 PM
Incidently, Robert Reich was on NPR today...

Nickdfresh
02-03-2009, 02:01 PM
No shit, management is a cost too. However, their headcount is usually not anywhere near that of union employees. Theoretically, they are worth their higher salary based on responsibility and in some cases the amount of business they can generate. Cost/benefit says those salaries are justified (before you go off and soil yourself, remember I said theoretically). Education is a PRIME example. Every year it becomes less affordable to the middle class you speak of. Soaring costs, for what? Mostly salaries, in terms of tuition.In terms of fees, it's the kickbacks to the university from loan companies that needs a serious looking at. Upper management, alumi directors bring in giant amounts of money, so they are worth the price. It keeps tenure as a viable option, their model can afford it. The only one who eats it at the end of the day is the consumer...the student.

Obviously, in a state school these numbers are much lower and different, but the point is still the same. I'm not blaming anyone for making what they make. You are free at any time to do something more profitable. But to say it's always "the big machine's fault" is just a distortion.

The world and economic model is changing. I honestly don't believe there will be many large employers in the future. We will be a nation of small individual companies, with a few large ones. With the advances in automation and software large numbers of bodies just arent needed. Unions or not, that does not change.


Except the point you're missing that Reich is making that the median household income in the US has fallen. So, even if goods are cheaper, who the fuck can afford anything? And tuition at state schools is entirely reasonable, at least here once we got rid of ex-NYS Gov. Pataki. And higher education is not "less affordable" due to professors, it's the massive projects on campuses and the elaborate sports programs that take up much of the funding. I don't know the avg. income of a college professor, but I think it's probably less than many high school teachers make in more affluent districts and they're starting salaries are around 30K a year in most places, and that's IF they can get in full time.

The very provisions in the bill, and key ones supported by one of Reagan's key economic advisers, is making community colleges especially inexpensive and adept retraining workers in high demand skills...

What makes our consumptive economy go is the provision of a wage that allows us little people to be consumers.

And I don't know if I agree with your last paragraph at all. I keep seeing consolidation, not pluralism...

Nickdfresh
02-03-2009, 02:03 PM
Because you'll be none of those things, last night we donated $500 to the Salvation Army in Santa Monica in your name.

When you see that kitchen tile with your name on it while standing in the soup line, you'll know I was thinking about you.


Why thank you GAR! How sweet of you! Collecting all those empty beer cans and donating the proceeds on my behalf!:)

http://killingbatteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/angry-hobo.jpg

Big Train
02-03-2009, 11:56 PM
Except the point you're missing that Reich is making that the median household income in the US has fallen.

The very provisions in the bill, and key ones supported by one of Reagan's key economic advisers, is making community colleges especially inexpensive and adept retraining workers in high demand skills...

What makes our consumptive economy go is the provision of a wage that allows us little people to be consumers.

And I don't know if I agree with your last paragraph at all. I keep seeing consolidation, not pluralism...

I get Reich's point entirely, but I disagree with it. It's swimming against the current. I just think the path to a living wage is a business you own, even a small one, rather than a union job with a large company. In this "knowledge" economy, it will be far less disruptive to the needs of a family than working for a factory or tech company, where the dagger will always be over your head. The more technology advances, the less bodies are needed in most industries. Mining would be an exception to the rule.

Nickdfresh
02-04-2009, 10:40 AM
The one-size fits all thing ain't gonna work. The US needs a diversified economy, and we need to repair the infrastructure rot that will negatively effect the US economy eventually....

WACF
02-04-2009, 10:43 PM
I get Reich's point entirely, but I disagree with it. It's swimming against the current. I just think the path to a living wage is a business you own, even a small one, rather than a union job with a large company. In this "knowledge" economy, it will be far less disruptive to the needs of a family than working for a factory or tech company, where the dagger will always be over your head. The more technology advances, the less bodies are needed in most industries. Mining would be an exception to the rule.


You still need the worker bees to make things work...

Cops, Firefighters, nurses ect...then industry...we can not all be business owners...and to think that a living wage is only gonna happen with a business owner leaves alot of people below the wire...people you need.