Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2074 of 4573 (834828)
06-13-2018 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2062 by Percy
06-09-2018 9:04 AM


Re: Reassessing Trump
Percy writes:
Allies and trading partners will become more and more alienated...
I'm starting to suspect that it's not impossible for the G7 to kick out the US.
Comments from some European countries after the G7 amounted to a sentiment like this:
"We used to think that President Trump was a very-annoying inconvenience we would have to tolerate in the short term while planning for things to 'return to normal' in the near future. However, President Trump's actions are moving further from 'annoying inconvenience' and closer to 'significant threat.' We are being forced to re-consider how we're dealing with President Trump and how things fit into future planning."
Which could mean any number of things.
However, if the G7 main ideals are something similar to "working towards mutual prosperity through sharing information and committing to free trade.." (or something like that?)... and President Trump continues to spit in the face of such ideals... well, it seems pretty easy to read the writing on that wall.
If something so drastic was to happen...
I don't think it would be good for anyone. Not good for the US, not good for Europe, not good for Canada. But at some point... how do you say "this group stands for this!" when one member clearly does not...
As for Canada vs the US in trade:
No Nukes is right in that both sides have some level of "protectionism" going on. And really, why shouldn't they?
The idea behind "free trade" is that tariffs and regulations are limited and restricted. Not absolutely non-existent.
As far as I know... Canada has always (last 50 or 100 years or so?) had certain tariffs on things coming from the US. And the US has always had certain tariffs on things coming from Canada. These small tariffs have always been squabbled over. Yet it's also always remained (generally) even.
The US has 10x the population of Canada. And the US's army is... well, Canada may as well have no army at all in comparison.
If the US used military force to invade Canada, the US would slaughter Canada.
However, this "population/army size advantage" doesn't really translate into a Trade War.
There are things Canada is dependent on the US for via trade.
There are things the US is dependent on Canada for via trade.
Both countries could survive without the other. But it would hurt. A lot.
Canada cannot support it's current population without the trading it does with the US.
But, as well, the US cannot support it's current population without the trading it does with Canada.
It's not the largest, free-est (currently...) trading border in the world for nothing.
If the US tariffs go into place, many jobs and some businesses will be lost in Canada.
And the retaliatory Canadian tariffs will cause many jobs and some businesses to be lost in the US.
On a per-capita basis, the US may come out slightly ahead with slightly fewer losses.
But on a per-person basis, I think the US will actually lose more jobs and businesses (due to Canada's tariffs affecting a higher population).
Whatever happens, if it goes ahead, it's not going to be a fun ride for either country.
Attempting to become independent and self-sufficient is a good goal for President Trump to have (as it is for any nation's leader.)
However, this kind of immediate rip-the-bandaid-off "solution" will cause a lot more hurt before things will ever start to look better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2062 by Percy, posted 06-09-2018 9:04 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2075 by Percy, posted 06-13-2018 11:49 AM Stile has replied
 Message 2078 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2018 4:13 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2076 of 4573 (834831)
06-13-2018 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2075 by Percy
06-13-2018 11:49 AM


Re: Reassessing Trump
But isn't "independent and self-sufficient" the language of isolationists and anti-free-traders?
Could very well be.
I'm not very in-tune with the currently preferred terms. I was only attempting to describe the idea as I see it in my head.
Would it be okay to instead say "sovereign and self-reliant"?
Sounds better to me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2075 by Percy, posted 06-13-2018 11:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2091 of 4573 (835322)
06-21-2018 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2089 by Tangle
06-21-2018 1:36 PM


Re: Warning: You Might Cry
Tangle writes:
I can understand Trump doing this kind of uncaring, unthinking monstrous stuff - he's an uncomplicated arsehole.
I don't know exactly what part you're talking about, but this is the situation as I understand it.
I might be wrong.
A while ago (Obama administration? Before that?)
-Policy was that kids and parents would not be separated at border.
-If you illegally came to the border with your kid and refused to leave, you would be given a court date to deal with your illegal entry and sent into the US along with your child (staying together).
-This was so that you don't jail a kid and keep them in the same jail as adults (which you would have to do if you jailed the adult and "didn't separate" their child from them) for their parents' crime of illegal entry.
The problem:
-Some people would steal a kid and take them to the border pretending to be the kids' parent.
-Such people (according to the above policy) would then get a court date and be released into the US with their kid.
-They would never show up in court.
-The kid would be found dead in the surrounding desert as they were "no longer needed" for the person who stole them and used them to cross the border.
So... what do you do?
Do you jail kids with parents?
Do you allow kids to die?
So, they changed the policy (during Obama administration, I think?)
-Policy is that parents are jailed for crossing the border illegally.
-Kids are then held in another area so that they cannot be left to die if the "parent" isn't actually a parent.
-Pictures of "kids in cages" were taken. Some of these same pictures (taken under the Obama administration) have surfaced as showing how much of a dick Trump is for keeping kids in cages.
Trump inherited this policy from previous administration (pretty sure?)
-Now, from the recent pressure, the policy is being changed again so that kids and parents are not separated.
-But are kids now being jailed with their parents for their parents' crimes?
I don't have a best-answer for this situation.
Just wanted to point out that:
1 - Separating kids from parents and putting them "in cages" was not Trump's idea. He inherited that policy.
2 - That policy was put in place so that a) Those kids aren't held in the prison system with other criminal adults for committing no crime themselves and b) To keep those kids from being left to die alone in the desert.
Is it "better" now?
I dunno.
What do some of the kids think that go through it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2089 by Tangle, posted 06-21-2018 1:36 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2092 by DrJones*, posted 06-21-2018 2:27 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2093 of 4573 (835325)
06-21-2018 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2092 by DrJones*
06-21-2018 2:27 PM


Re: Warning: You Might Cry
DrJones* writes:
A compare and contrast of how children were handled under the previous administrations.
I think that basically agrees with what I said.
Apart from the point where the Trump administration's immigration policies have made the separations more-frequent (I think? It wasn't really clear on this).
But the general conundrum is still there.
And I think it would be there for any country with border policies.
You will have people coming to the border illegally who have kids.
What do you do?
Do you turn them away and consider it "not my problem?" What if they continually come back or don't leave?
Do you jail the parents, and jail their kids with them to keep them together? Is this not punishing the child for the crime of the parent? What else can you do with the child? How long do you hold them? What if you release them after their sentence and they continually come back or don't leave?
Do you jail the parent and "hold" the child in some sort of child-care place? How do you take care of these kids?
Do you release the parent and child into your country and give the parent a court date hoping they will show? And also hoping that they didn't scam you and won't leave the kid for dead now that they got inside the country?
I don't see any really "good" or "efficient" solutions.
Does the problem lie in having "illegals" come to the border in the first place? That is - adjust policies so that you identify more as "not illegal" instead of identifying more as "illegal?" --- This seems to be what the Trump administration has done - identifying more as "illegal" - and therefore shedding more light on the terrible-choices-for-solutions on what to do next.
Does that frame the situation a little better?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2092 by DrJones*, posted 06-21-2018 2:27 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2094 by Percy, posted 06-21-2018 3:03 PM Stile has replied
 Message 2095 by DrJones*, posted 06-21-2018 3:11 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2096 of 4573 (835328)
06-21-2018 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2094 by Percy
06-21-2018 3:03 PM


Re: Warning: You Might Cry
Easy big fella, I'm just trying to learn a few things and investigate the truth on a few questions I have.
Did you notice all the question marks in my first message? They should indicate to you that I'm trying to ask and learn here... not force some preconceived notion.
I'm perfectly willing to learn more and adjust my thoughts accordingly.
Percy writes:
Where are you getting your information?
I found information from things like this:
Kids in cages at border under Obama and Trump
If there are pictures of kids in cages separated from their parents under the Obama administration... then it happened, no?
If you don't think so... could you elaborate on how these pictures exist a bit more than "Uh, no."
That doesn't help me learn much of anything and seems to be entirely refuted by the pictures.
And this:
quote:
MPI’s Pierce said that the likely reason data aren’t available on child separations under previous administrations is because it was done in really limited circumstances such as suspicion of trafficking or other fraud.
There's not much (any?) data because it didn't happen much during the previous administrations.
But "not much" isn't "none" - if it was none, there would be no pictures of it.
Therefore... anyone trying to say it was "none" before all of this is not interested in discussing the truth.
The problem seems to be that Trump's policies have labelled (many) more people as "illegals" (the part he changed).
And none of this gets into the larger question:
1 - Do you want to label anyone coming to your border as "illegal?"
If no - then problem solved.
2 - If yes, what do you do if you label someone as "illegal" and they have kids with them?
-how do you protect the child?
-how do you punish the adult?
-how do you prevent abuse from taking place that could lead to harm coming to the children (fake 'parents' at the border just to get across)
-is there a good answer to this problem?
3 - if you cannot find a good answer for the "illegal" problem, should you simply focus on reducing the number of people you mark as "illegal?"
-the harder you make it for someone to be labelled as "illegal" the more criminals will actually cross your border... are you okay with this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2094 by Percy, posted 06-21-2018 3:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2101 by Percy, posted 06-22-2018 8:12 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2097 of 4573 (835330)
06-21-2018 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2095 by DrJones*
06-21-2018 3:11 PM


Re: Warning: You Might Cry
DrJones* writes:
not really, the obama era kids in cages were unaccompanied minors, kids caught trying to cross on their own.
Some were. Maybe most.
But all? I don't think you can simply say that without proof.
And the proof doesn't seem to exist as the data wasn't collected.
Maybe all.
But I don't think you can say definitely all.
under obama kids were detained with their parents, until a court ruling prevented it, at that time they started releasing families under orders to appear at a later immigration hearing.
Yeah.
I don't really like either of those situations.
One side you have kids being jailed with criminal-adults for crimes their parents committed.
The other side you have the potential of using kids to abuse your border crossing policies (potentially resulting in dead kids after the border cross is over).
But it's possible that "the best solution" is still one that contains certain unavoidable issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2095 by DrJones*, posted 06-21-2018 3:11 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2103 of 4573 (835371)
06-22-2018 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2101 by Percy
06-22-2018 8:12 AM


Re: Warning: You Might Cry
Percy writes:
This thread is about the Trump presidency, and separation of families is on Trump, not Obama.
I think that I'm coming at my idea from the wrong side.
By talking about Trump and Obama, it seems to trigger some sort of political identity.
I don't really care about Obama vs. Trump.
What I was attempting to get at was that different times, with different circumstances, can cause different issues and different solutions could be viable.
I tried to use real-life examples but I think things got too focused on the real-life part of it, and not the example part.
Let me try another angle.
Let's pretend we have a pretend country - Fakesville.
We are the dictator of Fakesville.
Fakesville has a border. What do we do?
-Maybe we let people freely cross in and join our country. Why not? We're people - they're people - we have police and such to take care of bad people. Why not let people in?
Then, maybe, Fakesville starts having issues supporting too many people. Perhaps a lack of resources, perhaps too much crime... whatever... Now what?
Well, it makes sense that if we can't support the people we have, then we shouldn't be letting in more people, right?
So what to do at the border?
Do we turn people away?
What if they don't leave?
What if people show up with families?
How do we deal with that? Do we separate them or jail the kids with the adults?
How about neither? What if we let them in anyway and give them a court date?
What if they don't show for the court date? What if the kids were just used to abuse the "get across the border" loophole and are stranded by the adults after crossing?
I'm trying to show that border policies are not something that should be static.
They should change. Depending on the country's ability to accept immigrants and depending on the country's morality to deal with children at the border compared with how children are being treated within the country.
Some may want to discuss immigration issues here, but in this thread my only interest regarding immigration is in Trump's role in family separation.
In such a limited scope, I certainly agree that Trump's role in creating more "illegals" and therefore creating more family-separations is foolish and stupid.
And, since it's Trump, there are many possibilities on why/how this happened. I would guess that Trump was swayed by someone's argument that more people crossing the border should be identified as "illegal" and therefore prevented from entering the country. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump didn't investigate or think about his choice and see that it would lead to such family-separations. Because Trump's a fool. I still think he's entirely responsible, and stupid, for making these immigration moves. He simply shouldn't be in charge of a hot-dog stand let alone a massive, powerful country.
But because it is such an intertwined and large issue that affects so much... I don't think it's really fair to limit things down to Trump and family separation. If you want to identify Trump as an idiot... there's much more objective and simple things that would do that.
Especially since there could be good reasons to separate families.
Like, in Fakesville, let's say we have:
-an extreme limit on resources within the country
-people already in the country are fighting and hurting each other (even killing) themselves and families and children over these resource/poverty issues.
-some criminals want into the country because it happens to have lots of drugs and other criminal activities where they can still profit.
-letting people into the country will only add to these terrible problems
-therefore, need to prevent (or at least limit) entries into the country
-if certain people are prevented, and they won't leave, and they have children - what should Fakesville do with them?
-can't let them in, it will only add more resource/poverty issues to the people already there - high risk of causing harm to existing people as well as those
entering.
-can't refuse them as they won't go away - they just keep walking in/moving forward
-can try to punish them by jailing them to serve as a warning so hopefully they (and others) stop trying
-should children be jailed with parents? -this has it's own issues
-what else to do with the children then other than to separate them?
In this Fakesville example, we can see that "separation of families" in and of itself might be the best option of a bunch of bad options given a boatload of extenuating circumstances.
Now, I don't think American is in these so-clearly-troubled circumstances. But I see how it's 'risk factor' for moving towards these circumstances is significant.
Is it significant enough to start separating families now? Looks like the answer to that is "no." But it's not like such things have a flag that indicate when it's time to start investigating such solutions. By the time things are obvious - can it be too late?
These are not easy questions to answer, they're not even easy to ask.
But they are interesting, and can apply to certain real life situations and should be considered when thinking about "immigration, [any President - including Trump] and family separations."
My posts were intending to start the conversations on when/how such ideas should be discussed. And how/if/in-what-level they apply to the current situation in the US.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2101 by Percy, posted 06-22-2018 8:12 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2117 of 4573 (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 replied

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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2121 of 4573 (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 replied

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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 2123 of 4573 (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 replied

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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 2125 of 4573 (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 replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2135 of 4573 (835873)
07-03-2018 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2127 by Percy
06-30-2018 12:35 PM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
Percy writes:
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.
What makes you think the union would actually die?
Isn't it quite possible that the union would merely weaken?
I agree if a small percentage of non-union members don't pay the fees - then the union is minimally impacted.
And if a large percentage don't pay the fees - then the union would be largely impacted (and maybe even die).
But if a large percentage aren't paying the fees - isn't this an indication that the union itself is charging too much for the services it is rendering to it's members?
Sounds like a decent balancing mechanism at this point to have more and more people not paying union fees rather than giving the union itself a "monopoly" where union leaders could make bad decisions and take advantage of the union members.
So if we have a large percentage not paying the fees - then the union would weaken. As more and more refuse to pay the fees.
Perhaps the union even dies.
And the company continues to move forward. As the union weakens, maybe the company starts to take advantage of the workers... less raises, less perks... and the workers fall behind industry standards.
So... what's stopping the workers from creating another union at this point?
Or making the existing-but-weak one strong again?
No one's proposing rules that prevent unions from existing. Only a rule that can cause them to weaken - as decided by the very workers the union is intended to protect.
There's a strong analogy with the anti-vaccination movement.
I don't think there is.
With vaccines - there's nothing else in place to prevent diseases from spreading if they are not used.
With unions - there's plenty of laws now that prevent many things from occurring even if the unions disappeared completely.
For example, wiki says that company scripts are illegal in the UK.
Although I couldn't find anything saying they're illegal in the US... I couldn't find much information on them at all. Are they still in use anywhere?
Why not pass a law forbidding scripts rather than refusing to weaken unions at the decision of the workers they are protecting?
If the workers desire protection - then I think it's rather obvious that they'll pay the dues and only an insignificant minority would refuse.
There are also minimum wage laws in place now.
As well as mandatory holidays and hours-worked-per week/day and such labour laws and regulations.
These rules would be in place regardless of the union being present or not.
Therefore... although the vaccine analogy may be loosely used for certain aspects unions provide that are not covered by other laws... the broad usage of the analogy you're using is clearly not a valid analogy.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2136 by NoNukes, posted 07-03-2018 11:35 AM Stile has replied
 Message 2146 by Percy, posted 07-06-2018 11:18 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2137 of 4573 (835887)
07-03-2018 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2136 by NoNukes
07-03-2018 11:35 AM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
NoNukes writes:
No, not paying the fee isn't an indication that the service is too dear, particularly when the alternative is to let someone else pay.
Too dear?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I was implying that not paying meant the service wasn't dear enough (not good enough) for the payment.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
New guy is hired on.
He gets the same pay and benefits and everything that union members get right now.
He gets a choice to pay union fees, which is obviously less money to him.
This is balanced by the union fighting for more benefits and more pay.
1 - Pay union fees.
Helps union stay strong or get stronger.
Will likely be chosen if current level of pay and benefits are below industry standards.
2 - Do not pay union fees.
Will weaken union.
Will likely be chosen if current level of pay and benefits are above industry standards.
The alternative isn't to "let someone else pay" because if everyone does that then there is no one else paying. The union weakens and then the workers may eventually be under industry standards.
At this point more workers would likely understand the benefits of the union to them personally and pay the fees.
Your idea only seems to make sense when an insignificant portion of the workforce is not paying the fees.
Sure... you're right for the 1%. But who cares since it's meaningless?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2136 by NoNukes, posted 07-03-2018 11:35 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2138 by NoNukes, posted 07-03-2018 1:05 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2139 of 4573 (835893)
07-03-2018 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2138 by NoNukes
07-03-2018 1:05 PM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
NoNukes writes:
So there is no implication by not paying that the service is not worthwhile. That is, of course, one possibility, but not paying is not evidence that the service is not worthwhile.
I think we're talking about different things meaning "the service" for this statement in contention.
And, personally, I'm not very attached to that statement. I'm more attached to my idea of ebb-and-flow for unions and how viable that might be in helping the company move along in a healthy way for all involved (workers and employers).
I'm not even going to mention "the service" and see if you think anything doesn't make sense in this idea:
Union has done a fantastic job - workers are now getting above-industry-standards compensation (pay and benefits/perks) for their work.
On average:
-most new workers will likely not pay the union fees. They're already getting more than industry standards, there's likely some limit the company can realistically pay.
-new workers will likely want to pocket the union fee themselves
-if this trend continues, union will eventually have fewer members and grow weaker
-weaker union will have less bargaining power with the company
-yearly raises become lower and lower
-eventually, if this trend continues, we get to:
Union is weak and unable to negotiate well - workers are not getting below-industry-standards compensation for their work.
On average:
-most new workers will likely pay the union fees. They're trying to band together and get the company to pay them what they deserve.
-if this trend continues, union will eventually have many members and grow stronger
-stronger union will have more bargaining power with the company
-yearly raises become more and more
-eventually, new hires will start to not-pay the union fees and we cycle around to the top where the union has done a fantastic job again...
Do you see any reason why such a scenario wouldn't work? Or why it might be bad (detrimental to the point of abuse) for workers or bad (detrimental to the point of having to go out of business) for the company?
In this sort of scenario - workers don't have to have any long-term view. They just do whatever's best for them at the time.
When I said "not paying indicates that the service from the union isn't worthwhile.." I'm not saying that the current-service from the union is poor. I'm saying that the current-service from the union is actually great - the workers are in a fantastic position - however, this means that the union is actually "not necessary" at this time. If the union is not necessary... then their services are not worthwhile for the dues payment... when everything's going great for the worker because of past union success.
The argument could be that a constant union is always necessary.
But I don't see much of a difference between a constant union and a constant threat of a union (a union that could be created instantly by workers at any time.) Other than the real union would get dues when no more union-work is currently required (workers are already doing great).
I am assuming that workers can join/leave unions at any time.
Or minimally - on short contracts. Is this true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2138 by NoNukes, posted 07-03-2018 1:05 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2140 by jar, posted 07-03-2018 2:47 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2141 of 4573 (835896)
07-03-2018 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2140 by jar
07-03-2018 2:47 PM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
jar writes:
The only real power is the possibility of mass walkouts and in most cases the company is then free to simply replace the striking workers.
Agreed.
It is not easy to create a Union under US laws, much less create one that the companies need to recognize.
Ah... now this is an issue for my idea.
(In the sense of exchange-of-information - I have no idea how easy/hard it is to create a union in Canada. I would assume the process is similar to America.)
This issue would have to be overcome with the right regulations behind recognizing unions that are required and expectations that they might grow weaker or even non-existent (dormant?) for years without being required again before anything like my idea was implemented. If unions are too difficult to form (with full recognition) a company could easily create a strategy to push the union into a weakened state and keep it there for their own profit. That would not help workers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2140 by jar, posted 07-03-2018 2:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2142 by jar, posted 07-03-2018 3:20 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024