A GREAT primer on the problem with gov't unions...

[Havensdad]

Sorry, havensdad, but you have it all wrong. The 50's to 70's are the

primary years when government regulation was widely supported and

unions were bearing the fruit of their labor, a very prosperous time for

workers.

You incorrectly assert that all unions were the product of, and regulated by, government. That is NOT the case. The union my father was in, had NO government backing, nor interference [well, other than the NLRA]. It was a strictly private, worker ran union.

It was only AFTER the government got involved, that things got out of hand, the thugs took over, and it stopped having anything to do with workers rights or pay. You need a serious history lesson.

After the government became involved, and the union became unsustainable, then, yes, they were shut down. Government involvement, and the open borders supported by liberals, is what led to my Father's low wages; along with increased government regulation (OSHA, for one), and HUGE taxation. A company is going to only pay so much. They are going to make a profit. And if most of that money is going to the government, and union dues, that means less money for the worker.

But not in this link. Of course there are correlations between government
regulation and inflation but nothing that fully offsets the level of wages. There are no numbers here to back up anything
The paper begins to explain this but then is convieniently cut off. You have to subscribe to see the rest. Typical ploys of unaccessible abstracts, papers and such from the right that cannot be shown but to only the previleged.


The link between relative falling wages, middleclass decline and union

decline is an obvious one indeed and thankfully the clear majority of

American people after seeing the result of declining union influence are

now returning to increased support for unions and government unions(see

first page).

It is sickening for a body to control wages for all people, rather than those wages being based on performance. Only very lazy, or completely blind people would support such insanity.

 

[Sonjeo]

You incorrectly assert that all unions were the product of, and regulated by, government. That is NOT the case. The union my father was in, had NO government backing, nor interference [well, other than the NLRA]. It was a strictly private, worker ran union.

It was only AFTER the government got involved, that things got out of hand, the thugs took over, and it stopped having anything to do with workers rights or pay. You need a serious history lesson.

After the government became involved, and the union became unsustainable, then, yes, they were shut down. Government involvement, and the open borders supported by liberals, is what led to my Father's low wages; along with increased government regulation (OSHA, for one), and HUGE taxation. A company is going to only pay so much. They are going to make a profit. And if most of that money is going to the government, and union dues, that means less money for the worker.

I think there is a mindset placed in you by the indoctrination of too much Foxnews, Beck and Limbaugh. Why? History. It is as if you have to ignore it in order to maintain your political view. You said it yourself, in the 50's and 70's workers were making much higher wages. Consult any history book. This is when unions proliferated and government regulation of business was fully involved and widely supported. Companies profited, money went to the government and union dues and whaaaat? Yes again, as you say and history supports, more money for the workers, much higher wages.

And I did not say government unions, I said unions. Unions and government unions both were at the top of their influence in the 50's & 70's. This is why your father was making relative high wages then. After that prosperous time for workers in the 50's & 70's Reagan/Bush41 were not involving government in union business, they were doing just the opposite, that is, except to bring unions down. The conservatives, erroneously believing company profits would voluntarily translate into higher labor wages, continually laud them for just that and it is the mentality that came forth from that in which you are influenced now but how interesting that you or others would reach back and attempt to re-write history to justify yourselves but I guess I cannot blame you since the fruits of those policies have now in fact lead to relative lower wages however the conservatives should show a litte backbone and own up to it.

If only the conservatives then would have known that their policies would actually have lowered wages now. No doubt with the NAFTA tree trade treaties just down the line, in the early 90's, weakened union political power was needed to pass those free trade treaties on their despicable fast track and oh but how it all played in so well.

 

[sag38]

Who was it that really pushed for NAFTA?

It's so interesting that whenever I see a Ford plant or a GM plant it isn't Ford shirts that I see the workers wearing or GM shirts. They wear union garb. Who are they working for? Who is paying the wages? It's time workers realize that it's not the union they work for but the government (the people), a corporation (stock holders), small business owners, etc. Plus, it seems that today's unions don't give a rip if the state goes in hole or a company falls on it's face. They couldn't care less about the education of children. All they care about is getting more and more and more. Well, reality has come home to roost. The unrealistic pensions, benefits, etc. that governments, etc. have been strong armed and manipulated into paying have led many governments into the proverbial hole. But, you keep drinking the union koolaide Sonjeo and maybe we will see you out there with the rest of the union thugs using school children to chant for your cause.

 

[Havensdad]

I think there is a mindset placed in you by the indoctrination of too much Foxnews, Beck and Limbaugh. Why? History. It is as if you have to ignore it in order to maintain your political view. You said it yourself, in the 50's and 70's workers were making much higher wages. Consult any history book. This is when unions proliferated and government regulation of business was fully involved and widely supported. Companies profited, money went to the government and union dues and whaaaat? Yes again, as you say and history supports, more money for the workers, much higher wages.

And I did not say government unions, I said unions. Unions and government unions both were at the top of their influence in the 50's & 70's. This is why your father was making relative high wages then. After that prosperous time for workers in the 50's & 70's Reagan/Bush41 were not involving government in union business, they were doing just the opposite, that is, except to bring unions down. The conservatives, erroneously believing company profits would voluntarily translate into higher labor wages, continually laud them for just that and it is the mentality that came forth from that in which you are influenced now but how interesting that you or others would reach back and attempt to re-write history to justify yourselves but I guess I cannot blame you since the fruits of those policies have now in fact lead to relative lower wages however the conservatives should show a litte backbone and own up to it.

If only the conservatives then would have known that their policies would actually have lowered wages now. No doubt with the NAFTA tree trade treaties just down the line, in the early 90's, weakened union political power was needed to pass those free trade treaties on their despicable fast track and oh but how it all played in so well.

WOW, you don't know what you are talking about!

#1 NAFTA was pushed, not by some Republican, but by none other than Bill Clinton and the other liberals who push for a one-world economy. You are deranged.

#2 I did not get my information from "Fox News," but from my father, my uncles, and the other union folks in and around my family, ALL of which (with the exception of myself) are liberal, democrat people.

#3 You are WRONG. There was next to NO government interference in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. No OSHA. No EPA. No regulatory commission. When these things started to be pushed, and INSANITY ensued, the government DESTROYED the wage level. One notable thing that happened; I personally witnessed a man on a scaffold get his hand pinched between the scaffold, and a razor-sharp piece of flashing. My brother, courageously, jumped up on a railing, grabbed the flashing, and yanked it, saving the mans finger from being pinched off. A government OSHA goon, true to form, summarily had my brother fired and black-balled from the plant. This kind of ridiculous government interference is what caused wages to go down.

#4 The other thing that caused wages to go down, of course, was the influx of illegal workers, and the refusal of liberal goof balls to enforce the borders. You cannot compete with a guy who does not have to pay the (enormous) taxes that the liberal government loonies have placed on everyone.

#5 Again, as one who has seen these things first hand, and have had them told to me by people who have historically supported "your" side of things, I think I have a pretty good take on things. The government needs to stay out of things. A company should be able to hire whoever they choose, union or non, and the worker is free to form whatever kind of collective he desires...WITHOUT preferential treatment given to them AGAINST those who wish not to join...anything else, is un-American, socialist drivel.

 

[rbell]

Our typical union apologists need only to look at Detroit.

What went wrong?

Unions did.

We started building a substandard product...and it cost too much to boot. We can't afford the work force we have at the Big 3; and with the UAW the way it is, we could often times choose to use the word "work" loosely.

Anyhow...it's simple cause-and-effect; but I don't expect the blinded to see it.

 

[Sonjeo]

Being adamant when you are right is one thing, havensdad, but being so when you are wrong is becoming a bit of a spectable here.

WOW, you don't know what you are talking about!

#1 NAFTA was pushed, not by some Republican, but by none other than Bill Clinton and the other liberals who push for a one-world economy. You are deranged.

NAFTA was signed by Republican president George Bush in 1992 and supported by Republicans. Clinton continued it with majority support from Republicans. Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that Bush/Clinton/Republicans and Democrats supported NAFTA.

This issue is not onesided except thru your onesided political view brought to us by the onesided Foxnews/rightwing radio talk world which cast one side on the wrong side of everything and it shows in most of your opinion.
If you don't get your info from Foxnews then you get it from those sources around you that do.

Deranged? Name calling is a sign one is losing the debate but I think I can call you uninformed and therefore easily deluded by the extreme right.

#3 You are WRONG. There was next to NO government interference in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. No OSHA. No EPA. No regulatory commission. When these things started to be pushed, and INSANITY ensued, the government DESTROYED the wage level. .

This is more typical over dramatic demonization that is regularly pushed by Foxnews/radio talk and embarrasingly parroted again here by you. This is what is consistently pushed by the extreme right to "modify" your brain and is working brilliantly here.
Although I didn't mention either, the EPA and OSHA were formulated in the late 60's and signed in 1970 by, yes, Republican Richard Nixon.

By the way, if the conservatives would have had their way there would be no workers comp. Companies would not voluntarily provide it, which might give you a hint why government was involved in different ways in the first place. Are are you ready to bear all the brunt of your on job injuries? Didn't think so. If your not careful that onesided world is going to give you a onesided historical brain, havensdad.

One notable thing that happened; I personally witnessed a man on a scaffold get his hand pinched between the scaffold, and a razor-sharp piece of flashing. My brother, courageously, jumped up on a railing, grabbed the flashing, and yanked it, saving the mans finger from being pinched off. A government OSHA goon, true to form, summarily had my brother fired and black-balled from the plant. This kind of ridiculous government interference is what caused wages to go down.

You provide nothing to show that this is more than just the sorry judgement of this one OSHA person and has nothing to do with the overall notion of government involvment or lowering of wages but after seeing the misinformation you have already erroneously posted we can be sure you don't get the whole story on this either.

#4 The other thing that caused wages to go down, of course, was the influx of illegal workers, and the refusal of liberal goof balls to enforce the borders. You cannot compete with a guy who does not have to pay the (enormous) taxes that the liberal government loonies have placed on everyone.

Republican George W. Bush supported the "lax" bipartisan immigration reform bill. You can build all the "berlin wall" fences along our southern border you want but if you don't shut the tap off at the source illegal aliens will crawl over, under this way and that to get at jobs companies offer. Stop companies from allowing illegal employment with laws that have teeth and the river of illegals will dry up.

#5 Again, as one who has seen these things first hand, and have had them told to me by people who have historically supported "your" side of things, I think I have a pretty good take on things.

Should I laugh or should I cry.



You are not defending your faith here, havensdad, you are defending a fallable political ideology, a very fallable, error-prone political ideology. You need to reset and re-up new news sources. Diversify, because in our political climate the truth, where politics is concerned, is not on any one side.

 

[sag38]

Yep, still losing the argument and still blaming Bush. It's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault.

 

[carpro]

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy

What Unions Do: How Labor Unions Affect Jobs and the Economy

Published on May 21, 2009 by James Sherk

What do unions do? The AFL-CIO argues that unions offer a pathway to higher wages and prosperity for the middle class. Critics point to the collapse of many highly unionized domestic industries and argue that unions harm the economy. To whom should policymakers listen? What unions do has been studied extensively by economists, and a broad survey of academic studies shows that while unions can sometimes achieve benefits for their members, they harm the overall economy.

Public employee unions harm the economy even more. They siphon money directly out of taxpayers pockets with nothing at all for the taxpayer to show for it.

 

[billwald]

The taxpayers get the services they vote for. In Washington State half the tax money goes for stuff that were approved in a general election.

 

[carpro]

The taxpayers get the services they vote for. In Washington State half the tax money goes for stuff that were approved in a general election.

No, they don't.

Payroll dolars for bloated employee salaries take away from the services either voted for or forced on the public by government.

The higher the cost of administration , the less that goes for the service. Government is incredibly inefficient at delivering services. Outrageous employee salaries only exacerbate the problem.

 

[glfredrick]

The following quote is from someone very famous in history.

I'll withold the actual citation for a bit as I check to see responses.

Just curious...

An element in the population theory was that it is supposed to lessen the competition among workers. The associations, by contrast, have the purpose of removing it and replacing it by union of workers.

The economists are right when they remark against the associations:

1. The costs which they cause the workers are mostly greater than the rise in the gains they want to get. In the long run they cannot withstand the laws of competition. These combinations bring about new machines, a new division of labour, removal from one place of production to another. In consequence of all this a reduction of wages.

2. If the combinations were to succeed in keeping the price of labour so high in one country that profits fell significantly in relation to the average profit in other countries, or so that capital was held up in its growth, stagnation and recession of industry would be the consequence, and the workers would be ruined together with their masters. For that, as we have seen, is the condition of the worker. His condition deteriorates by leaps and bounds when productive capital grows, and he is ruined from the start when it declines or remains stationary.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/12/31.htm#C7

 

[billwald]

>These combinations bring about new machines, a new division of labour, removal from one place of production to another. In consequence of all this a reduction of wages.

YES! That is how it works. In the 1950's Mack Truck moved from Plainfield, NJ to N. Carolina (?) where labor was cheaper. (Mack is back in PA . . . union labor more efficient in the long run?) Boeing has just built a major facility in North Carolina.

But scab states are still covered by the federal minimum wage so the manufacture of most all consumer goods has gone off shore (90% of clothing in China). Only high tech industrial/commercial goods are still manufactured in the US.

Why else is the quality of household appliances so poor? Because there NO quality control in China. The production and shipping cost of a toaster or whatever is so low that it is cheaper for Wal-Mart to replace it no questions asked than to have a quality control program in China.

With gas close to 4 bucks . . . your web purchased toaster is a dog it will cost you more to return it than to buy a new one. Printers - it is cheaper to buy a new printer than to buy ink for one.

The only way to have manufacturing jobs in the US is to dump free trade and have import duties on all consumer goods. This country is BIG ENOUGH to be its own market. The working people don't need foreign sales to have a decent life here.

 

[Havensdad]

The only way to have manufacturing jobs in the US is to dump free trade and have import duties on all consumer goods. This country is BIG ENOUGH to be its own market. The working people don't need foreign sales to have a decent life here.

I actually agree with this. However, there are certain products, mostly metals and oil, that HAVE to be imported to some degree, although we could certainly lessen this by drilling more in the gulf, and in Anwr.

The only way this would work, though, is to simultaneously reduce government regulation, taxation, and interference. Also, workers would need to be able to tell the union bosses to go milk a motorcycle; individual merit needs to be the rule of the day. Workers who are not producing get canned. Workers who do better, and work harder, get pay raises and other incentives, as each company sees fit. No more union dues...

Of course, doing away with Free Trade will never happen, as long as the liberal Globalist Democrats are in charge, nor will our dependence in foreign oil go down, thanks to the liberal tree huggers...

 

[glfredrick]

http://www.peoplesworld.org/marxism-lives-marxism-and-labor/

The site above is pro-labor.