  Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 892 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 72.25.177.194 |
Came across this today & wondered: have unions outlived their usefulness? Michigan is mentioned in the article below - does Michigan/Detroit suffer from a national stigma because of unions? It’s Right and it Works Arizona’s right-to-work law turns 60 by Noah Clarke January 19, 2006 Pop the champagne corks: it’s time to celebrate. 2006 marks the 60th anniversary of Arizona’s right-to-work law, one of the great contributing factors to freedom and prosperity in our state. Article 25 of the state constitution says that “no person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of non-membership in a labor organization.” The right-to-work law allows citizens to decide whether or not they want to join a union, and prohibits discrimination against those who don’t. By ensuring membership in unions is voluntary, the right-to-work has allowed Arizona companies to create good jobs and keep them here. By way of illustration, between 1999 and 2004, United Auto Worker automotive plants lost 70,000 jobs while union-free automotive employment grew by 166,000. Moreover, every foreign car maker to build a plant in the US in the past decade has done so in right-to-work states. Right-to-work states are on sound economic footing. They have higher disposable income and faster economic growth. They create more jobs, and have more income equality and lower poverty rates than non right-to-work states. Americans have noticed. In the past five years over 3 million people moved to right-to-work states, abandoning union strongholds like New York, Michigan and California. Article 25 lets workers choose the kind of job environment they want—and that’s worth celebrating. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 109 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
It seems that everytime Granholm is directly asked about Michigan being a "right-to-work" state by WJR personnel, she usually changes the subject or talks around the issue, without answering it. Those states are where auto plants are (re)locating. | ||
Brian Member Username: Brian Post Number: 3277 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.37.84.189 |
Not a true statement. Income, healthcare and pension plans are all higher in jobs with unions versus the same jobs without. Retirement plans are funded by employees in non-union jobs while union jobs gain additional funding by the employer. This leads to higher overall wages because of this other non-disposable income. Additionally healthcare plans in union jobs offer more coverage for lesser cost to the employee than non-union jobs. The answer is that if Michigan had no unions or less unions jobs, the same would still occur. Other states have been offering huge incentives to attrack business from Michigan or instead of Michigan. These types of incentives are not written on in articles like the above. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 895 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.230.22.99 |
Brian - for now, I agree about the pensions & healthcare benefits. As you know, there is major trouble upon us - many (most?) of the companies offering full pension/healthcare to retirees are on the ropes and either have filed for or are contemplating bankruptcy. Once this realization hits and eventually is dealt with, the other shoe will drop - govt retirees who have the same thing, but whose employer need not sell products to keep things going, but merely raise taxes so the rest of us can pay for it. In either case, employers are looking to cut costs to remain competitive, and until union states figure a cheaper way, employers will head to where the incentives are - whatever those might be. | ||
Hardhat Member Username: Hardhat Post Number: 80 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.208.36.124 |
We're a nation of short memories. U.S. unions came into their own in the 1930s, allowing workers to have the ability to take a stand against 12-hour days, to bargain collectively for better wages and benefits, and to fight for safety on the job. Unions have had a pretty good half-century run of providing a compelling, valuable service: helping to create and sustain the middle class. There's an old line: "Unions, the folks who brought you the weekend," and it's not far from the truth. Michigan used to be a magnet for workers because of unions, but at this point in history, maybe the opposite is true. But those who predict the demise of unions are short-sighted. I'm surprised unions are even a target any more. Union members only make up 12 percent of the U.S. workforce, and most of them are in the government sector. Unions remain a whipping boy, but things change. At some point, the political landscape will shift, and the Wal-Mart wage scales prevalent in all the right-to-work states may very well bring about another movement toward unionization from workers sick of toiling for poverty wages. Or maybe a few more "incidents" at nonunion mines will spark a movement. Or maybe Chinese workers will rise up, form a union, take over their government, and raise wages. History has a funny way of taking unforseen turns. Whether they have been known as "guilds," "associations" "brotherhoods" or "unions," over the last 200 years U.S. labor has shown a remarkable resiliency. Just when the public thought unions were dead, they have always popped back up again. Don't write that obituary just yet. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 728 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.92.217 |
Thank you, Hardhat ... | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 214 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 207.200.116.139 |
Good post, hardhat. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 898 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.230.22.99 |
It all works as long as the public is willing to support it all through higher prices - the mother's milk of union contracts. I submit that if a person is free of addictions, he/she can lead a [poverty-free life on Walmart wages. | ||
Romanized Member Username: Romanized Post Number: 177 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 69.245.75.239 |
Hardhat, The issues you have raised are all addressed by rampent government intervention on one hand and market forces on they other. Unions are not taking on such issues any longer. Perhaps only 12% of workers are union, but MI has more than its fair share. That is why its economy is struggling. There will be no movement, esp. in this economy. There is no appetite for radicalism, when people see that in a global marketplace they can be easily replaced. The numbers don't lie, and a non-union marketplace is the way of the future. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 79 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 68.2.191.57 |
IMHO, speaking from Arizona, right-to-work laws only submerge the problem underground where it's harder to see and solve. The root problem is that people who will do a job well shouldn't be prevented from working. RTW rhetoric presumes that only unions prevent good workers from working. This is deceptive. The brutal reality is that there will always be those who decide who will work and who will not. They (whether you choose to call them a union or cabal or syndicate or office politician or nepotist or managerial crony monger, whatever) are presented with the temptation to profit by charging some form of admission (dues, fees, favors, loyalty, PAC contributions, whatever) to even the most skilled worker in return for permitting that worker to provide their contribution to society. If they choose, they can increase their profit by increasing their extortion (betrayal) of their own industry. Such "gatekeepers" (leeches) provide only a fraction of the value to the economy that the actual worker provides. It's not just as simplistic as opposing "unions." The solution? Fire those who divide the pie charts and hire instead those who bake the pie. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 733 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.92.217 |
Romanized, Quite the contrary, with the excesses of companies like Wal-mart in forcing employees to apply for food stamps or use Medicare; with companies like Enron looting its employees' pension plans; with other companies shutting down their pension plans for employees, while their executives' pay and benefits climb into the stratosphere... All this and the uncertainty of this economy is why union organizers are actually making inroads. You might try getting out of your comfort zone to talk to one. | ||
Hardhat Member Username: Hardhat Post Number: 81 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.208.36.124 |
"There will be no movement, esp. in this economy. There is no appetite for radicalism, when people see that in a global marketplace they can be easily replaced. The numbers don't lie, and a non-union marketplace is the way of the future." Romanized: I agree, a nonunion marketplace is the wave of the future. My questions are, why is that the case, for how long will that be the case, and most importantly, is that a good thing? I submit that if we look at history, then look at the world 50 or 100 or even 200 years from now, it will always be a good thing to have a system in place that speaks for the rights of workers. That should never go out of style. Why shouldn't workers be able to collectively bargain for a better paycheck? Why shouldn't workers be able to have a way to protest abysmal safety conditions in those West Virginia mines or even on Detroit construction sites? Why shouldn't workers be able to get together to fight for a good pension plan or health insurance? These were good things for workers a few decades ago, but not today. What changed? Today we're being force-fed the idea that American workers must get used to earning less in the New World Economy. Goodbye pensions, we can't afford them. Goodbye employer-sponsored health care, we can't afford that either. The alternative is, as you point out, to be replaced by those Third World workers, and we won't have a thing to say about it. That drumbeat of a message is put out as fact by the corporate powerbrokers and their friends in the White House, in the halls of Congress and the media. Corporations have completely sold out American workers in favor of maximizing profits by taking advantage of cheap labor overseas, and our lawmakers are allowing them to do it. Michigan's automakers, with prodding from unions 70 years ago, made Detroit a Mecca for workers seeking a better living standard. Now, those unions are our great state are being villified for clinging to the ways of the past, and being slow to embrace a future of lower wages and a service economy. In effect, the workforce here in Michigan has been reduced to Dickens' hungry Oliver Twist at lunchtime, who meekly asks his masters, "please sir, I want some more." Put me on the side of Americans who prefer to have unions around to help get our workers a little more, and raise living standards here and around the world. One day, we're going tire of this worldwide race to the bottom. When the worm turns, and unions become a force again, hopefully we will all ask why we didn't want it to happen sooner. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 900 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.230.22.99 |
Hardhat, the problem is not healthcare - it is lifetime healthcare, provided in the future, with no way to predict what costs will be - for workers who are no longer productive. If GM & Ford included future healthcare & pension obligations for retirees on their financials, they are bankrupt right now. Unfortunately, the pension game is notoriously bad in the unions - the treasure chest has been repeatedly looted, and workers receive a pittance compared to what they'd receive if, with even a limited amount of knowlege, they invested it on their own thru trusted financial institutions. We have a nanny mentality - look at the uproar when it was proposed that we (us, you and me) be allowed to choose the investments for just 2% of our social security dollars - the Dems scared the wits out of everyone and that idea became burnt toast. Sorry, I don't think the American worker is so helpless, and corporations so controlling (they don't have the only jobs in town, and they do compete with one another) that each worker must take minimal pay, working conditions, and other perks. With portable 401K money, eventual portable healthcare benefits, and half a brain, I think the worker can do better for himself on his own than he can thru the union. But he's gotta think, just a little. It is a different world today, and much easier for workers to see what is available elsewhere, including benefits. The "cradle-to-grave" days of the past are just that - past - gone - forever. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 734 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.92.217 |
"the treasure chest has been repeatedly looted..." That's pretty funny. If you looked into the looting of pensions, there are far more companies guilty of this. The biggest lie Republicans try to push is that the average American is better off figuring out the stock market and investing their own money. Do you have a 401k? Care to share with us how it's done for the last three years? Compare that to the defined benefit pension a few are still lucky enough to have. So when the baby boomers retire in huge numbers, get ready for your tax money to bail them out when huge numbers can't make it on the measly payout from all those 401ks. | ||
Romanized Member Username: Romanized Post Number: 178 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 69.245.75.239 |
Hardhat, Workers should have the right to do whatever they like. Companies should have a similiar right. I would not have a problem with union activities if the state and federal government were not standing behind unions with a club. Businesses should have the right not to let the union in the door to do the negotiation. Businesses should have the right to fire people that do not come to work. Period. When this is the case we will be in agreement. Besides, these topic are not at issue here, forced representation and forced union dues are. Most important in my mind is the governments coercive role in all these issues. I think the governor knows this is a problem killing her state, but is afraid to say it. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 903 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.230.22.99 |
Pffft - where do you think defined benefit pension plans invest their money? This isn't rocket science, and please don't try to unload it on the Republicans, that simply highlights your ignorance. Companies are bailing out of those plans (thankfully, since the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp won't be able to handle all the claims - you as taxpayer will foot the bill) since they don't want the liability (nor do their stockholders - you??) Today, the average worker can do just fine investing the same amts in CD-like investments, lower interest but safe-safe-safe. If you want to take the risk and hope for >15% interest year after year, fine - but it is on your dime. Don't cry from your crib that your union/company/government can't think these things through when you can't yourself!! | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 904 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.230.22.99 |
Romanized - You could have written the article that started this thread. I would only add that workers need to step up and demand that their dues not be directed to political causes that are not in agreement with their own - vast amounts of these dues go for this and most workers are either unaware or feel that they have no say. They do, indeed. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 735 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.92.217 |
"Workers should have the right to do whatever they like. Companies should have a similiar right." Wow. Isn't that called "anarchy"? | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 907 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.230.22.99 |
Pffft - no, within the limits of the law it is called "democracy" | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 111 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
It's called, "Taking care of business." | ||
Everyman Member Username: Everyman Post Number: 21 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 24.136.14.239 |
economically, there are two ways for the workers to take their medicine: (1) have powerful unions, no right to work laws, etc. - this leads to compensation being above the equilibrium point for these (largely) uneducated workers. the workers with jobs are better compensated, but less jobs are provided by employers. this is one of the reasons MI unemployment is so high. (2) let it be a bit more "free market" - ironically, this is probably the more egalitarian solution. sure, workers will make less (equilibrium is probably somewhere between 8-16 bucks an hour, no?), but more people will be able to get jobs since employers would be willing to employ more people. unemployment would be lower. though some would have to give up an artificially high lifestyle, their brothers will be able to work instead of get unemployment, beg, or be homeless. i, as a worker, would want #2. i'd rather be assured work, at, say, 14 bucks an hour, than live on the high horse for a limited time and then be in a jobs bank until it's probably eliminated or scaled way back next contract. | ||
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker Post Number: 534 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.79.94.64 |
Why does everyone think ALL union workers live "high on the hog". Im in a union and I don't make tons. I appreciate my crappy union for at least affording me the opportunity and ability to make more than the average slave wage for the industry. BTW we out produce almost all comparable companies without or with unions. We union workers get vilianized because of some "lazy" union workers. Most union workers dont get the inflatedly HUGE wages you all think. Those jobs are getting outsourced so you dont have to worry about them or their middle class incomes soon. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 736 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.92.217 |
They've already been outsourced, much of them! It's amazing how unions are this bugaboo to people who excuse corporations every malfeasance in the book. What is the psychology behind "corporations good, workers bad"? Unless you own a factory in China or Mexico and wish to keep the UAW out and wages to $1 an hour, what horse do you have in this race? | ||
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker Post Number: 535 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.79.94.64 |
Exactly Pffft. So why use unions as a "scapegoat". As I say most union workers dont make the wages, or the power people think. | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 622 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.209.166.121 |
It's not the unions per se that have been so destrutive; it's the broader Southeast Michigan culture of victimization, defeatism, entitlement and inertia, that chokes off personal initiative, risk taking, innovation and adaptation, and condemns our area and its people to perpetual suffering. The economcy and the country -- including the auto industry -- are doing great. Jobs are plentiful. States are running budget surpluses. Only here in wacky Michgan are we mired in this outdated 20th century mindset of the "worker" and the "power people," whimpering in fear that these stupid Big Three automakers will lay us off. It's pathetic. You are totally in control of your life and your destiny. Get skills. Move south. Work for Toyota. Take f'ng charge. Even wacky Michigan has and will continue to have a shortage of skilled labor, while a significant portion of her people wallow in ignorance and entitlement, too apathetic or busy watching football to acquire new skills. | ||
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker Post Number: 536 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.79.94.64 |
I know its easy because its very cheap to go to school to learn a skill or get an education. One of the easiest thing that our glorious state and country give us. Its just the "lazy" peoples fault because "everyone" can afford to learn a new skill or get an education. The state even helps us out by lowering tuition for college and universities. he he he he he nice huhh. | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 895 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 64.142.86.133 |
Michigan does have a union problem. At least in the auto industry the focus and battle seems to be how to keep from getting laid off, how to prevent people who aren't the correct "classification" from doing your job, and whom do you tell when one of these work rules is violated? It is still the game of protecting what's "yours" and keeping the "man" from taking it away. Meanwhile, those companies that aren't stuck in this rut are the ones that take it away from everybody. I still maintain that I don't have a problem with unions. What I do have a problem with are unions who came about to protect worker rights (like the UAW) who have now become union to protect people from getting fired when they should be and/or laid off when they are no longer needed (like what happens in every other job). The second problem I have is that I should NEVER, EVER be forced to join a union. Why should I pay dues to an organization I have no interest in being a part of? Oh, because I benefit from the collective bargaining? Well what if I think I'm better off on my own or disagree with your collective bargaining? What a load of crap. Maybe Wal-Mart does need a union. Fine. But do I think the UAW position on saving all jobs, protecting the lowest denominator from being fired for doing something stupid, preventing the job from getting done because its in a different classification, and the constant head-butting this causes with management is outdated and ridiculous? You bet your ass. So yeah, I agree that many unions of today need to go or be significantly restructured. Fight for worker's rights and protect whats reasonable. No copay health insurance isn't reasonable. Being paid 95% of your pay for sitting in a jobs bank isn't reasonable. Preventing someone from being fired for doing something they should be fired for isn't reasonable. Will note this article is pretty poor. 3 million people moved to right-to-work states. Funny that a lot of them are south and west. Thats the general migration as is. And higher disposable income. Could it be because these state's are driven mostly by high tech or other service jobs, not manufacturing? Probabaly. I doubt its the right to work that causes much of it. (Message edited by Jerome81 on January 23, 2006) | ||
Everyman Member Username: Everyman Post Number: 22 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 24.136.14.239 |
"Why does everyone think ALL union workers live 'high on the hog'. Im in a union and I don't make tons." - That was relatively spoken on my part. Compared to what would probably be a proper wage, many union workers make 2 (or even 3) times as much as their skillset is worth. It's inefficient, and it hurts the economy. Trust my, I know. My dad lives in a suburban home, has 2 newer cars, a big screen, and a new kitchen/bathroom, etc. He worked for J+L Steel and now is in the DCX jobs bank. Even he admits that he lives with a higher quality of life than his education should allow, but, in his words "Hey man, if that's the way the game is, who am I to complain or say no?". It's a terrible system, and considering that workers' rights are more or less entrenched, I am looking forward to the unions getting owned when the contracts come up. RE: Education It's not cheap, but it is easy to go to school. In addition, financial aid is pretty much always available to cover tuition + living expenses. Talk to old Sallie Mae and financing an education isn't an issue. | ||
Hardhat Member Username: Hardhat Post Number: 82 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.144.94.214 |
"Compared to what would probably be a proper wage, many union workers make 2 (or even 3) times as much as their skillset is worth." = Everyman pulling numbers out of his nether region. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 37 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 67.107.47.65 |
That's what I want to know. Everytime one of these type of threads come up I am amazed at some of the attitudes. | ||
Everyman Member Username: Everyman Post Number: 23 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 24.136.14.239 |
Hardhat, I think the average auto line worker makes like $26 an hour. One half of that is $13. This still is possibly a bit higher than the equilibrium wage rate, hence the 2 (or more) times as much statement. I'd bet you could build a factory, then throw an ad in the freep or news offering $13/hr. and get enough workers to run the factory. | ||
Northend Member Username: Northend Post Number: 644 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 69.212.62.92 |
In 30 minutes, Ford is about to tell a lot of unions dudes that their salaries will now be paid in Canadian dollars..... | ||
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker Post Number: 537 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.79.94.64 |
Im a steelworker. Wages are not what they use to be. Actually from what ive read steelworker's union has never had as much "sucess" as the uaw. But to speak for my company we make more than the average in the industry, but they run our company very well. As being in a union we have virtually no power. But as i do know we out produce most companies in our field. Union jobs are not the same anymore. Most peoples opinion of unions is of past factories or old contracts. | ||
English Member Username: English Post Number: 477 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.248.9.83 |
SOLIDARITY FOREVER! I'm a reviewer for Kirkus. I *just* finished reviewing a book set in New York at the turn of the last century BEFORE unions. It had me in tears. Absolutely horrendous to think that 100 years ago, conditions for much of the working class were dismal, and life for those who toiled in factories was nasty, brutish and short. If workers wanting a living wage was the factor driving the economy into the ground, how do we explain the panics of the last two decades of the 19th century, or the stock market crash of 1929? Aren't Meijer's and Costco's employees unionized? If so, compare the stores and the product in Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. What conclusions can we draw from that comparison? We really need to be asking the hard questions here. Because I'm not angry with my parents' generation demanding their pensions. I'm not even as enraged by union corruption or welfare recipients milking the system, because our corporate media likes to whistle-blow in that sector when every segment of the economy has its abusers. Why single out the few without shining the light on all? Because really, I would like to know just how many LearJets, platinum bathroom faucets, and Roman toga parties the corporate upper crust needs. People say that America is a meritocracy, and those who succeed work harder than everyone else, made more sacrifices, got more education, etc. so they deserve their lifestyle. Well, the great American working class aren't exactly slouches. How many of us, whatever our race, creed or culture, were raised by men and women who did back-breaking labor, often sacrificing their health and strength, working all kinds of crazy hours, never once complaining because they believed that their labors would not be in vain? Do you mean to tell me that they're less worthy of being able to sit down and relax in their old age than those born sucking on silver spoons? Why is it that Americans never, ever hold their upper class accountable? It might be that, as my best friend (who is British) says, that since we don't have a blood aristocracy, people are seduced by the American dream... the fallacy that with hard work, everyone can live like a king. Which is why you get people voting against their own economic interests. It's really quite frustrating. (Message edited by English on January 23, 2006) | ||
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker Post Number: 538 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.79.94.64 |
WONDERFUL english i love it | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1188 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150 |
You are all missing the boat, the union stronghold in its birthplace is causing undue hardship on the economy of Michigan. Cobo has/had the highest rates for its staff in the country. It costs companies too much to put a convention on in Detroit. DDOT has the highest costs of any Bus system in the country. The UAW and its member spout off all the time about people not buying American Products, well then the cars has a price set on it before it even leaves the assembley line to cover wages and benefits to a mostly unskilled workforce. And add into the fact that their cars are grossly overpriced to aid in covering these costs and to help subsidize employee purchase programs for their cars, is it any wonder why people are buying other cars from other companies. It flat out costs too much to do business here in the unionzed fields. Instead of acting like you are constantly at war with execs, who you think you deserve equal footing and pay as them, work with them to ensure your prosperity. Instead you fight and get pushed closer and closer to your death. This is global marketplace that we have never seen and while Michigan die trying to hold onto something that will neve return the rest of the world is passing you by. The name of the game is to adapt to change no longer soldiarity in a system that is passed its time. The inabilty to change has killed many companies/ideas and people. (Message edited by _sj_ on January 23, 2006) | ||
English Member Username: English Post Number: 478 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.248.9.83 |
Thank you, Steelworker. I'm the third generation of union blue in my family.  I cannot believe someone said that without addictions you could live on a Wal-Mart salary. Man, that really put me in teacher scold mode... I wanted to assign the book *Nickled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America* for homework! The writer actually attempts to live on a Wal-Mart salary... you get to read all about her fun little adventure. (Not.) | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 913 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 72.25.177.194 |
The reason for "Why is it that Americans never, ever hold their upper class accountable?" is the same reason we don't reward those who fail. In America, our system gives greater rewards to those who take risks, and some of those risk-takers also hire employees, who agree in advance to take a certain pay rate. If they fail, they don't appear to have "LearJets, platinum bathroom faucets, and Roman toga parties" - and please spare the details on the corporate crooks who've managed to do so by bilking others. Get real - if you want the big rewards, then take some big risks. Otherwise, work for someone taking big risks. And if you take big risks and fail, you won't be bailed out and rewarded. | ||
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker Post Number: 539 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.79.94.64 |
since everyone hates unions you must miss the days of Wage Slavery. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 740 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 12.34.51.20 |
I'd love to time-travel Karl back to 1930... | ||
Hardhat Member Username: Hardhat Post Number: 83 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.144.94.214 |
Karl, Your point about risk-takers being rewarded may apply to a few start-up business owners, but I fail to see how overpaid corporate honchos who bounce around from one company to another can be classified as big risk takers. They're nearly always just a soft, golden-parachute landing away from another job. Hell, at their wage level, who needs another job? The non-sensical American system that awards lousy company managers with huge paydays is completely out of whack with reality, but here we are. And you and your ilk complain because workers want to get together in unions to do a little better for themselves? Spare me the high-falutin' economic talk about risk-reward. Most Americans just want a stable job they can go to every day and earn a decent living. But those same corporate leaders are helping pull the rug right out from under U.S. workers, by sending jobs overseas because Americans aren't willing to work for poverty wages. Yes, that may be the current economic model around the world - but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight it. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1189 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150 |
Don't fall into that trap. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 741 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 12.34.51.20 |
And the guy who inherits his father's company, the slacker who got Cs in college but was born to the "right" parents -- he's part of the corporate elite because he's a risk taker and he's being rewarded? You have got to be kidding. A Bill Ford Jr., who I do respect, comes along once every three or four generations. Most trust fund Juniors are barely able to feed themselves. | ||
Everyman Member Username: Everyman Post Number: 24 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 24.136.14.239 |
English, you completely didn't address the issue. In this discussion, working conditions and wages have been separated. The lame appeal to emotion of "OMG WTF look at the conditions 100 years ago" is pretty damned intellectually dishonest. Brutal working conditions have been legislated against enough so that it's not really an issue anymore. So the only real is wages. I honestly think that the equilibrium price for an unskilled laborer is probably 11-15 bucks or so (let's say 13). At 40 hours, that's 520 a week, or probably like 400 or so net. That's 1600 a month. People should be able to live off 1600 a month in this kind of economy. There are quite a few rentals and houses in the Metro area that can be had for < 500 a month, add in other expenses and these people should be able to scrape by. To argue that workers without a valuable skillset deserve nice new shiny things is ludicrous. | ||
Northend Member Username: Northend Post Number: 661 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 69.212.62.92 |
Everyman for himself! | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2543 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.229.124.31 |
TheNEW AMERICAN DREAM! Scraping by!! The "Leaders and Management" have led the American economy to where it is today with their vision and forward thinking. Now "labor" is to bear the brunt of the pain. I've worked in the past with those "unskilled and semi-skilled" workers. Much of their time was spent in making the demands of "educated management" be able to succeed. | ||
Everyman Member Username: Everyman Post Number: 25 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 24.136.14.239 |
In fact, if something like this were in place, a lot of these workers would be living in the affordable city instead of Plymouth/Canton, Southfield, Livonia, Sterling Heights, wherever. And isn't the growth/revitalization of the city what most of us are here for in the first place, anyway? | ||
Czar Member Username: Czar Post Number: 2864 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 129.137.167.90 |
Do you think someone making 1600 a month would be able to afford car insurance in Detroit? | ||
Everyman Member Username: Everyman Post Number: 26 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 24.136.14.239 |
The American Dream is scraping by while tinkering with some sort of invention or making a website or something of that nature. The Carnegie-esque American Dream isn't about working for someone else, it's about being your own man/woman, and offering something special to the market, be it a skillset or a product. The other side of the American Dream is making it through each day with food on the table. It's about not dying from a poor potato harvest, a poor rice harvest, or some sort of European war. It's about survival and feeling somewhat secure in the fact that you will be able to feed and clothe your family and give them a better opportunity through the *educational* (probably) system. | ||
Everyman Member Username: Everyman Post Number: 27 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 24.136.14.239 |
EDIT: This is for Czar Get a car for a two grand or so. For a 25 year old and a 24 year old living at Elmer's Hamburgers on Chicago in 48204 driving a 1997 Ford Escort LX Sedan (typical car, no?) I was able to get a quote for PLPD for about a $1000 a month. Suppose they can't pay cash and have to finance, you could probably get the payment < $100 as well on this type of vehicle. Throw in about $100 a month in gas and that's ~$300 total dollars. Add that to ~$500 in rent/house and that's $800 dollars. There's still ~$800 left over for utilities and necessities and guess what, this is only accounting for ONE INCOME. Alone, a single person could make it work, add in another income and the only reason they couldn't make it work is because they are living beyond their means (Message edited by Everyman on January 23, 2006) | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 916 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 72.25.177.194 |
Everyman - I will presume you meant PLPD for about $100 a month, not $1000 - or is insurance in 48204 really that high? | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1369 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
There's been some very good comments from both the pro and con perspectives on the this subject... and I think that points up one of the diifficulties with this discussion. I work in the construction industry but not in jobsite labor. As such I've had some incredibly frustrating experiences with unions, but at the same time I've dealt with some really great people. (By way of explanation, our company only has a couple installation employees, who are unionized at a lower paying classification. Most of our work is done by subs, and most of the time they are unionized.) I'm a believer that unions have been great for this country. As to whether they still serve a positive funcion or a negative one, I don't think there's any easy answer to that question. I can argue it both ways, as this thread has pointed out. When I've had negative experiences with unions, most of it has revolved around union rules. I have no beef with people making a decent living. This has pointed up what I think is the biggest frustration people in construction and other industries feel towards unions - that now they have become institutions in their own right. The best people work with me and try not to let petty rules get in the way of getting a job done. Sometimes I run into people who are just plain asses about everything, though. Two examples: In the "old days" (say 20 years ago - and it may still be true some places for all I know) you couldn't change a lightbulb in an industrial plant unless you were a union electrician. It's those kinds of turf battles that drive me nuts. More recently, I spoke with a contractor who sent a sprinkler valve out to St Louis to a project he was doing there. Before the fitters would install it they took it apart and re-assembled it (on his time) because they said there was a possibility that it could've been made in a non-union plant. Many people can probably think of their own litany of abuses at the hands of union rules or whatever. Fortunately. most of the people I deal with don't have these small minds and dinosaur-like attitudes. I think that if this kind of crap wasn't going on more people would be open to the many good things that unions do. I'm not a lover of big corporations. They have an vested self-interest and often operate to the disadvantage of not only their workers but the population as a whole. I'm not even saying that under the rules they have to play by that they could or should do something different. But it still sucks. If they could pay all of their workers a dollar an hour, I'm sure they would. Anyone who thinks there's something altruistic about capitalism isn't reading the same newspaper that I am. But the idea that the people calling the shots are all idiots who make all the mistakes and the common workers have to fix it is a joke, too. That's not how it works. Unions and corporations are two intransigent institutions battling each other to the detriment of the economy and the common person. That's how I see it, anyhow. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 743 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.92.217 |
Don't agree with your conclusion, Lyn. When unions and management work well together, it can smooth labor relations, ease problems and help keep the business humming. The union offers a structure, so that an employee who does wrong has representation, gets help and/or discipline. Smart managers want a union steward in disciplinary meetings, so that there can't be a lawsuit down the road from an employee who can go into court and say anything they want. Without the union steward as a third party observing in a problem situation, it's the company's word versus the employee's, and that can slap the company in the face, trust me. It's in the union's interest to have a productive, happy worker working for a productive, happy company. Otherwise the worker is fired, and/or the company goes away, as does the union. You've got to stop using "the union" as a straw man in these debates about the local economy, and look hard at the real, challenging issues. | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1373 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
Pffft, I think that you are presenting a one-sided view of what I said. If you re-read what I said, I never ever ever used "the union" as a straw man in any debate about the local economy. (I think it's ridiculous and unfair (dare I say rediculous?) to blame it most or all on unions.) My only point is that there are plenty of problems to go around. "The union" is not faultless. That said, I think your points outside of that are well made. In industry that may be exactly how things work for all I know. I don't have the experience in it to really comment on the points you presented, and they make sense to me. It hasn't been my experience in construction, however. I typically like the workers and foremen - with some exceptions here and there - and more often than not find them willing to work through almost anything, but I find the union stewards very obstructionist and petty. | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 624 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 12.108.190.1 |
It's not the unions, it's our Michigan mind set. No wonder people in Detroit are always carping about "greedy corporations." They're wimpering in the corner, helpless and impotent, in the face of the all powerfull oligarchy of "lifetime" employers who have complete control over their lives. It just sounds so dismal. (Message edited by ray on January 23, 2006) | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 745 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.92.217 |
Ray -- Riiiight. Those Ford Wixom employees had jobs for life, didn't they? Lyn, it was really others who were doing the straw-man thing. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 114 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
The "Peter Principle" applies to union membership also. Besides, where could overpaid employees go and pull in anywhere near the income and perquisites the auto firms reluctantly paid, based on their level of skills/expertise/education? I'm not easily taken in by this phony "loyalty!" As with most things: Follow the money. | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 898 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 64.142.86.133 |
What was the line I read? Something about people get caught in the rat race of life. They're slaves to the money they earn. They get a raise and instead of using those raises to get out of the race, the greater money comes in and goes right out the other side to a bigger home, a new car, a new tv, a big vacation,etc. And the guy's main point was that he didn't pay his workers more because he didn't have to. If he didn't pay enough, they wouldn't stick around. The original conditions the unions fought against are mostly regulated against. I say let the companies decide what to pay. If people aren't willing to work for those wages, they'll have to increase. But being forced to pay ridiculous wages is also wrong. | ||
Johnnny5 Member Username: Johnnny5 Post Number: 140 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 71.227.95.4 |
""""EDIT: This is for Czar Get a car for a two grand or so. For a 25 year old and a 24 year old living at Elmer's Hamburgers on Chicago in 48204 driving a 1997 Ford Escort LX Sedan (typical car, no?) I was able to get a quote for PLPD for about a $1000 a month. Suppose they can't pay cash and have to finance, you could probably get the payment < $100 as well on this type of vehicle. Throw in about $100 a month in gas and that's ~$300 total dollars. Add that to ~$500 in rent/house and that's $800 dollars. There's still ~$800 left over for utilities and necessities and guess what, this is only accounting for ONE INCOME. Alone, a single person could make it work, add in another income and the only reason they couldn't make it work is because they are living beyond their means "" Everyman, "Making it work" and living are two completely different things. Include the cost of food, medical bills, dental bills,clothing, car repairs(try finding a dependable car for $1000.00), prescription drugs, children, education, retirement savings,buying a home, taxes (sales,property, etc) and god forbid someone wants to have some leisure activities. A $13.00 an hour job is fine when you're young, healthy, strong and childless, but it's a near poverty level wage when it comes to raising a family on one income. | ||
Everyman Member Username: Everyman Post Number: 29 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 24.136.14.239 |
Johnnny5, Note that I said that was on one income, as you noticed. People can get roommates, spouses, friends, whatever and make the living situation an economy of scale. Read Jerome's post. More often than not, people get a newer car, big tv, take a vacation, etc. These are luxuries, not necessities. Same with eating out or having a system in your car or whatnot. If people live frugally, they can scrape by on that. Given a lack of education/marketable skills, they should be thankful to have enough to scrape by instead of bitching about what they don't have. I mean shit, my mom raised me on bad hairdresser wages. She'd work during the day then go do fades in jails/juvey halls in the evenings. Why? So we could make it. I will always be grateful and feel bad about what she went through to keep me fed, but that's what happens when you don't have a skill to offer that the market really demands. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 747 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 71.144.85.254 |
The people living in those McMansions out in Rochester Hills, Novi etc. are living beyond their means -- how much equity is owned in any of those houses? The middle class won't save, but we expect more of the poor. | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1386 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
"Llyn, it was really others who were doing the straw-man thing." A-HA! | ||
Carptrash Member Username: Carptrash Post Number: 1430 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 72.16.51.242 |
I have not read every post on this thread, but when I read the begining my carpsense went. well do the math. So I got a map showing all the RTW states -there were 23 of them, and the No Rights ones, 28, [51 because Washington DC was included,] and then found a 2004 per capita income and added and divided and came out with RTW states = $29,400 and the no Rights states = $34,000. so . . . . . . ......... what's so great about working in a RTW state again? | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 901 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 64.142.86.133 |
The poor and middle class have taken the brunt of the world's costs since the beginning of time. I highly doubt that will change anytime soon. Which is a big reason why nearly everyone in this world desires to grow up to be rich. Once you get there, you're set. Until you are, you will almost certainly remain at the mercy of those who already are. They control the jobs. They control the money. They control the government. You can live in such a stucture, but you can't have it all. Or you can have it all, but you're gonna have to claw your way into that elite. It isn't just given. Sure there are heirs and such. But SOMEONE in the family had to earn all the money. Like I said. Once you're set.... | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3094 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
Not everyone in the world. That's quite and exaggeration. Most everyone inside the capitalist world, true. But it has been pretty well studied that some of the happiest people in the world (or at least they claim this) are from some of the poorer countries of the world, and are much less keen to the idea of hording material wealth (probably because many of these countries offers very little in terms of a social ladder on which to climb up). |
