Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2018 6:16 AM
188 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 187 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,019 Year: 11,842/29,783 Month: 864/1,642 Week: 278/460 Day: 3/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
140141
142
143144
...
162NextFF
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 17580
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2116 of 2425 (835698)
06-28-2018 7:54 AM


A Disaster of a Day
As already mentioned, Justice Kennedy will be retiring. Often a swing vote, his vote was responsible for recent Supreme Court rulings on abortion, gay marriage and LGBT rights. A moderately conservative justice with a heart, he'll likely be replaced by a deeply conservative justice. The only hope is that Republican John McCain continues to not be present in Washington, and two Republican Senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, will likely make abortion an issue.

In other disastrous news the Supreme Court upheld Trump's travel ban against anyone from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somailia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.

In yet more bad Supreme Court News, it also ruled against unions. Workers at union shops who are not union members can no longer be forced to pay union dues. The existence of unions is threatened.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 2117 by Stile, posted 06-28-2018 1:45 PM Percy has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2117 of 2425 (835706)
06-28-2018 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2116 by Percy
06-28-2018 7:54 AM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
Percy writes:

In yet more bad Supreme Court News, it also ruled against unions. Workers at union shops who are not union members can no longer be forced to pay union dues. The existence of unions is threatened.

I don't understand this one.
Why is this bad news?

In Canada, we have many unions:
Auto workers
Teachers
Hydro workers
...

Each and every one of them have the same things in common:
-They are not required in order to "protect the worker" in the sense of providing a living wage and/or not abusing people
-They are, basically, a political group

There are labour laws that protect workers from being abused. Such a thing isn't really a concern anymore in the modern workplace.
Minimum wage laws ensure workers don't get paid too little.
The existence of auto plants, private schools and electricians who are not in the unions and yet get paid relatively-equivalently (sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less) seems to show that "providing a living wage" isn't something a union is required to protect.

I admit I'm biased - I've seen a few different auto plants close due to union-ed workers being overpaid to the point where the company cannot sustain itself. All of a sudden hundreds of workers show up but the plant is locked with a sign on the door announcing the close of the business. Many decent folk simply out-of-a-job because of a few union-slackers and union-leaders who ruin the entire thing for everyone by throwing their weight around for their own goals instead of for the workers/company.

My stance is more aligned with limiting unions more than they are limited now to prevent their corruption rather than getting rid of them completely...

For this instance, we have non-union-ed people being forced to pay union-dues.
That seems like a no brainer.

Why should non-union-ed people be forced to pay union-dues?

That is, if the union wants dues from them... why not ask them to join the union?
If the union isn't attractive enough for these people to want to join - perhaps this is a sign that the union needs to change it's ways to align itself more with what the workers want rather than what the union-leaders want? Again - this should be a step in the right direction for sustaining "good" unions and chipping away at "corrupted" unions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2116 by Percy, posted 06-28-2018 7:54 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2018 1:05 AM Stile has not yet responded
 Message 2120 by Percy, posted 06-29-2018 5:58 AM Stile has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2183
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 2118 of 2425 (835710)
06-28-2018 9:49 PM


The Difference Between a Winner and a Loser
Campaign slogans:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: One of Us

Hillary Clinton: I'm with Her (Originally was going to be "It's Her Turn.")

See the difference?

P.S. - great fun to watch conservatives go apoplectic the last few days.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 2119 of 2425 (835716)
06-29-2018 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2117 by Stile
06-28-2018 1:45 PM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
Each and every one of them have the same things in common:
-They are not required in order to "protect the worker" in the sense of providing a living wage and/or not abusing people
-They are, basically, a political group

And therein historically lies the problem with unions. At one time they were indispensably vital for giving worker's some rights. In modern times it's really just a Political Action Committee pandering for blue or red votes.

Why should non-union-ed people be forced to pay union-dues?

That was basically the thrust of the Supreme Court decision.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2117 by Stile, posted 06-28-2018 1:45 PM Stile has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17580
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2120 of 2425 (835718)
06-29-2018 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2117 by Stile
06-28-2018 1:45 PM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
Stile writes:

I admit I'm biased

Maybe a bit.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2117 by Stile, posted 06-28-2018 1:45 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2121 by Stile, posted 06-29-2018 8:48 AM Percy has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2121 of 2425 (835721)
06-29-2018 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2120 by Percy
06-29-2018 5:58 AM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
Percy writes:

Stile writes:

I admit I'm biased

Maybe a bit.

Yes. That's why I admitted it.

Do you have a reason why preventing unions from charging dues to non-union members is a bad thing?
If there is a decent reason, I'd like to be aware of it to judge it's value myself.

I can think of one reason that you seemed to imply:
If non-union members are using a union shop (or tools, or whatever...) then perhaps they should be paying union dues.

My take on that would be:

If a union doesn't want other people not using their tools... then don't let them use your tools. Or don't let them work in your shop.
If the union can't negotiate with the company to prevent such things... and can't get those non-union members to join the union... I see this a good thing. Something to get the union to straighten up and be a "good" union (there for the workers and company) as opposed to a "bad" union (there for the union-leaders and/or politics.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2120 by Percy, posted 06-29-2018 5:58 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2122 by jar, posted 06-29-2018 9:07 AM Stile has responded
 Message 2127 by Percy, posted 06-30-2018 12:35 PM Stile has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30710
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 2122 of 2425 (835722)
06-29-2018 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2121 by Stile
06-29-2018 8:48 AM


Possible reasons for requiring union dues.
In the US most businesses have a somewhat uniform salary/wage policy. Certain jobs get paid certain wages; most often based on the scale negotiated by the unions. The split wage scale model (union vs non-union) worker simply does not exist. That means the non-union workers benefit from the wage/benefit packages negotiated by the unions even when not a union member.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2121 by Stile, posted 06-29-2018 8:48 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2123 by Stile, posted 06-29-2018 10:10 AM jar has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 2123 of 2425 (835723)
06-29-2018 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2122 by jar
06-29-2018 9:07 AM


Re: Possible reasons for requiring union dues.
jar writes:

In the US most businesses have a somewhat uniform salary/wage policy. Certain jobs get paid certain wages; most often based on the scale negotiated by the unions. The split wage scale model (union vs non-union) worker simply does not exist. That means the non-union workers benefit from the wage/benefit packages negotiated by the unions even when not a union member.

That makes a lot of sense.
So the non-union people will get all the money the union-people negotiated for... and they don't have to pay the union dues, right?
I agree that doesn't sound so fair.

But in an overall sense, I still think unions are too powerful.
That is, there's nothing stopping a union from negotiating more and more money for it's employees (and union leaders...) and putting the company right out of business.

Maybe the idea of having non-union workers accept the money the union has negotiated (for workers) but not willing to pay union fees would imply that the workers are content with the amount of money provided for the job being requested of them... and the union isn't required to push for more money at this time.

At this point the union would become "weaker" and therefore their negotiations for more money would be worse.
This would lead to growth in the company and wages becomes too-low for workers to remain content.

When enough workers are not-content with the amount of money they're making... more and more can join (or even re-join) the union and pay the fees and the union can become "stronger" and build their negotiation power and get more money for the workers.

That sort of ebb-and-flow of union-vs-worker-vs-company seems rather healthy to me.

Where having a union-without-restrictions seems to have the proclivity to become corrupt and eventually put the company (and all workers) out of a job - as has been proven to happen in the past (at least, in Canada.)

Which do you think is better?
Do you see a flaw in the ebb-and-flow idea?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2122 by jar, posted 06-29-2018 9:07 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2124 by jar, posted 06-29-2018 10:27 AM Stile has responded
 Message 2126 by Phat, posted 06-29-2018 10:57 AM Stile has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30710
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2124 of 2425 (835724)
06-29-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2123 by Stile
06-29-2018 10:10 AM


Re: Possible reasons for requiring union dues.
The issue is really a matter of governments. Look at the data available online at how wealth is distributed among a nations population and you will see that the US is an outlier among the developed nations in income disparity with very rich and very poor and an ever smaller middle class. We've been in the Liaise Fare position as recently as post WWII and historically corporate America has not worked to benefit the middle class.

Another 900 pound gorilla is needed to help balance the situation particularly as our government moves increasingly towards Fascism.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2123 by Stile, posted 06-29-2018 10:10 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2125 by Stile, posted 06-29-2018 10:40 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 2125 of 2425 (835725)
06-29-2018 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 2124 by jar
06-29-2018 10:27 AM


Re: Possible reasons for requiring union dues.
jar writes:

Another 900 pound gorilla is needed to help balance the situation particularly as our government moves increasingly towards Fascism.

Are you saying that the political power of the unions is required right now (in the US) so any detrimental effect on that is a negative?

That's a fair point.

My argument is more based on "how unions should be... regardless of how anything else is..." sort of context.

If we were to, say, think of a nation where the government is hurting it's own people, and the political power of the unions were protecting the people... then yes, I would agree that switching to my ebb-and-flow idea for union-vs-worker-vs-company is bad in the "overall" scope as it would likely weaken unions upon implementation. Which would be good for the union-vs-worker-vs-company balance... but bad for the government-hurting-all-people-in-it's-nation high-level issue.

Is that pretty close to what you're getting at?

I suppose that would lead into a discussion on how much "good" the union political power is and how "bad" the government's decisions are.
But I have no idea what sort of politics "the unions" are really into (especially in the US) so I'll stay away from that level of discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2124 by jar, posted 06-29-2018 10:27 AM jar has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10971
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 2126 of 2425 (835726)
06-29-2018 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2123 by Stile
06-29-2018 10:10 AM


Re: Possible reasons for requiring union dues.
stile writes:

But in an overall sense, I still think unions are too powerful.
That is, there's nothing stopping a union from negotiating more and more money for its employees (and union leaders...) and putting the company right out of business.

There is a fine line in negotiating, and any wise negotiators know how far they can push without jeopardizing the entire process and upsetting the apple cart. Many factors must be taken into consideration. You have the political climate. Trump and the conservatives are in power which could possibly embolden the company to fight and push back. You have the labor market itself. And you have a changing industry...for example, the grocery stores now have to deal with Amazon, assistance free checkout and potential loss of jobs in the industry, and the fact that wages and productivity departed ways a long time ago.

jar writes:

Look at the data available online at how wealth is distributed among a nation's population and you will see that the US is an outlier among the developed nations in income disparity with very rich and very poor and an ever smaller middle class.

Good point. It used to be that in the grocery industry, a unionized senior worker could afford to send the kids through school and buy a house on fulltime wages. It was seen as a skilled labor job, which justified the union oversight.

Nowadays, we workers are seen as a line item expense that needs to be managed and trimmed if possible. There are only 11% of the workers left on the "old" pre-2005 contract scale--while the lions share of the workers are the newer ones without a pension and without as many paid holidays or vacations. Splitting the contracts in 2005 weakened the unions bargaining power (more so now, down the line) and further splitting the ranks between unionized and non-unionized labor being allowed to work in the same stores defeats the bargaining power that unity by definition entails.

Do you see a flaw in the ebb-and-flow idea?
Yes. Current workers would be harmed by any ebb in the flow. The whole idea of a constant contract is to ensure a livelihood for workers soon to retire as well as newer ones coming on board. Philosophically your idea makes sense in a supply and demand bigger picture outlook, but not so much for the workers being represented now.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2123 by Stile, posted 06-29-2018 10:10 AM Stile has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17580
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(4)
Message 2127 of 2425 (835764)
06-30-2018 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2121 by Stile
06-29-2018 8:48 AM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
Stile writes:

Do you have a reason why preventing unions from charging dues to non-union members is a bad thing?

Non-union members benefit from the wages, benefits and work rules negotiated by the union, and under certain circumstances are represented by the union. If a small percentage of non-union members do not pay union dues then the union is minimally impacted, but if that small percentage grows too large then the union can no longer afford to carry out union activities, and the union dies.

Those who believe unions are a net negative think this is fine.

There's a strong analogy with the anti-vaccination movement. Remember quarantines:

No, of course not, none of us is that old. But back in the days of quarantines the benefits of vaccination were unambiguously obvious. Today quarantines are no more, and increasingly people are concluding that vaccinations provide more harm than good. If that number grows too large then we'll return to the days of quarantines. This would obviously be a bad thing.

It's the same with unions. Do you remember the days of no unions? No, of course not, none of us is that old. But back before unions workers' rights were violated willy-nilly and the benefits of unions were unambiguously obvious. Those days are long forgotten along with the the good that unions do, and increasingly people are concluding that unions provide more harm than good. If that number grows too large then wages, benefits and work rules will return to their pre-union state. This would obviously be a bad thing.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2121 by Stile, posted 06-29-2018 8:48 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2128 by jar, posted 06-30-2018 1:47 PM Percy has responded
 Message 2135 by Stile, posted 07-03-2018 9:23 AM Percy has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30710
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2128 of 2425 (835770)
06-30-2018 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2127 by Percy
06-30-2018 12:35 PM


Note the one on lower right is from 1941

Edited by jar, : add obverse


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2127 by Percy, posted 06-30-2018 12:35 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2129 by Percy, posted 07-01-2018 7:40 AM jar has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17580
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 2129 of 2425 (835782)
07-01-2018 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 2128 by jar
06-30-2018 1:47 PM


Re: Note the one on lower right is from 1941
jar writes:

Just to clarify for myself and everyone else, I believe the images are a reference to company stores. Looking this up, companies, especially in remote areas, would pay employees in scrip that was only good at the company store which, since it had a monopoly, could charge monopolistic prices and funnel the worker's pay back to the company. They also extended credit at usurious rates.

The degree of the exploitive aspect of company stores is debated among historians, but if one assumes that business owners then were as focused on making money as they are now, then defenders of the company store haven't a leg to stand on. It's true they were a necessity for company's located in remote areas, such as mines, lumber companies, etc., but they were also exploitive. In some remotely located companies with many workers company towns arose where all or nearly all the stores in town were owned by the company.

Some might remember the song Sixteen Tons made famous by Tennessee Ernie Ford. Each stanza ended with the line, "I owe my soul to the company store." It's worth listening to just for the way he renders that line at the end of the song:

Unions fought exploitation by company stores.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Spelling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2128 by jar, posted 06-30-2018 1:47 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2131 by jar, posted 07-01-2018 9:26 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17580
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 2130 of 2425 (835783)
07-01-2018 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 2113 by Percy
06-27-2018 6:47 AM


Re: Why am I not surprised?
Continuing the story about what a wonderful success was Trump's meeting with Kim Jung Un, newspapers are now reporting that North Korea is working to conceal key aspects of its nuclear program. Quoting from the article:

quote:
U.S. intelligence officials, citing newly obtained evidence, have concluded that North Korea does not intend to fully surrender its nuclear stockpile, and instead is considering ways to conceal the number of weapons it has and secret production facilities, according to U.S. officials.

The evidence, collected in the wake of the June 12 summit in Singapore, points to preparations to deceive the United States about the number of nuclear warheads in North Korea’s arsenal as well as the existence of undisclosed facilities used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs, the officials said.

The findings support a new, previously undisclosed Defense Intelligence Agency estimate that North Korea is unlikely to denuclearize.


Focus on that last paragraph. How many people actually needed a "Defense Intelligence Agency estimate that North Korea is unlikely to denuclearize"? I can actually answer this question. It's approximately the same as the number of people who believe what Trump says at campaign rallies.

The Trump meeting with Kim Jung Un was for Trump to reference and attach untrue claims of making the US safe from North Korea. It's worth reminding people that we got nothing nuclear out of the meeting while giving up the periodic military coordination exercises with South Korea. A state of war still exists between North and South.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2113 by Percy, posted 06-27-2018 6:47 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2147 by Percy, posted 07-08-2018 7:07 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
140141
142
143144
...
162NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018