Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 99 of 170 FirstFirst ... 89 98 99 100 109 ... LastLast
Results 2,451 to 2,475 of 4232

Thread: The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

  1. #2451
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,826
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I do not think that we should have a minimum wadge and I do not thing that there should be a regulated work week. Seriously, how many Planners do you know that limit themselves to a 40 hour work week? I know too many people who have been extremely successful because when they were young the tossed out the idea that they were only going to work 40 hours a week. For example, I work 3 days a week and sometimes those days are 14 to 15 hours long. But I spend the other 4 days with my family.
    The 8 hour work day has its roots in Britain in the first part of the 19th century. It was a response to workers being REQUIRED to work 10-16 hours a day, 6 days a week (and many were children). Without a law restricting these hours, an employer could require a much higher weekly workload. Failure to do so could mean being fired. Now, if you also remove the minimum wage, the potential for abuse increases even more (because people would need even more hours just to make the money they make today with protections in place). Overall, the wage gap (that is, the gap between what people earn and what stuff costs) is widening and it is harder and harder fo people to meet their needs with the income from low paying jobs. This is the reason I have a job providing housing to WORKING people who cannot otherwise afford a home and the stability that offers.

    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    But then again, if Unions are so wonderful, people will be falling over themselves to stay in and unions will have more money than ever before. OR, people will realize that some unions (Not all but some) don't represent the ideas and principles that they believe and get out.
    I take issue with the argument that because there has been corruption and abuse in unions that we should hamstring them so severely that they cannot adequately advocate for workers’ rights (which I feel is what these legislations are doing now). Do we say the same about government? (I suppose some do, but most do not) I feel there is room for reform in unions, yes, but this is not the way. Growing up in and around Philadelphia and knowing people who grumbled about abuse and corruption in their unions, I am not so naïve as to think they are always the shining examples of workers’ rights they are intended to be. But at the same time, I don’t think you just throw the baby out with the bathwater, remove most protections, minimum wage and limits on work hours and expect to have a reasonable outcome.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  2. #2452
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wherever
    Posts
    1,181
    It should also be noted that taking from one state directly weakens another. That's the main problem I see with the race to the bottom. For example, a blue state is not going to be able to support the education system a red state depends on if their tax base keeps getting siphoned to a red state. That's exactly what's going to happen if businesses continue to be drawn to red states for low taxes and regulations.

  3. #2453
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,295

    Tell me your kidding...

    Quote Originally posted by wahday View post
    The 8 hour work day has its roots in Britain in the first part of the 19th century. It was a response to workers being REQUIRED to work 10-16 hours a day, 6 days a week (and many were children). Without a law restricting these hours, an employer could require a much higher weekly workload. Failure to do so could mean being fired. Now, if you also remove the minimum wage, the potential for abuse increases even more (because people would need even more hours just to make the money they make today with protections in place). Overall, the wage gap (that is, the gap between what people earn and what stuff costs) is widening and it is harder and harder fo people to meet their needs with the income from low paying jobs. This is the reason I have a job providing housing to WORKING people who cannot otherwise afford a home and the stability that offers.
    So the answer to a government requirement is a government restriction? BRILLIANT! There are many places that will ‘mandate’ required overtime for salary employees to get particular projects done.
    As for minim wage, if you work a full time job at minimum wage, you make about $15,115. A person making that cannot afford to buy a house, maintain a house, and live on. Your right, the cost of stuff and the buying power is getting increasingly larger. Because it costs us more money to make stuff thanks to things like taxes, benefit packages, golden parachutes, union wages, increased shipping, production, storage, and packaging costs because of governmental regulations, and more taxes.
    Are there greedy business owners out there? I am positive of it. They are part of the problem and I doubt that anyone would argue that. But two stupids does not fix wrong. Government and forced union participation does not fix greed. Purchasing power does. If people don’t like how a company is operated, don’t shop in their stores or buy their products.
    Quote Originally posted by wahday View post
    I take issue with the argument that because there has been corruption and abuse in unions that we should hamstring them so severely that they cannot adequately advocate for workers’ rights (which I feel is what these legislations are doing now). Do we say the same about government? (I suppose some do, but most do not) I feel there is room for reform in unions, yes, but this is not the way. Growing up in and around Philadelphia and knowing people who grumbled about abuse and corruption in their unions, I am not so naïve as to think they are always the shining examples of workers’ rights they are intended to be. But at the same time, I don’t think you just throw the baby out with the bathwater, remove most protections, minimum wage and limits on work hours and expect to have a reasonable outcome.
    Now I am confused… so you are telling me that the way to fix corruption and abuse in unions is by requiring people to join a union if the work at a particular place? The right to work bill in Michigan only allows people to be in a union or not. It does not change OSHA laws, it does not change minim wage.

    Like I said before, there are some good things that unions still do for some people. I don’t think that they should be prohibited but people should be given the option.

    Quote Originally posted by Blide View post
    It should also be noted that taking from one state directly weakens another. That's the main problem I see with the race to the bottom. For example, a blue state is not going to be able to support the education system a red state depends on if their tax base keeps getting siphoned to a red state. That's exactly what's going to happen if businesses continue to be drawn to red states for low taxes and regulations.
    Taking from one city into another city hurts one city… same thing with neighborhoods… Look at inner city schools compared to the higher income suburban schools. It is the way the world works. One place is always in competition with another and use goods and services as an incentive.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  4. #2454
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,846
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post

    Taking from one city into another city hurts one city… same thing with neighborhoods… Look at inner city schools compared to the higher income suburban schools. It is the way the world works. One place is always in competition with another and use goods and services as an incentive.
    So we are to assume you are a social darwinist as well as follower of Ayn Rand? You seem to believe in the benevolence of corporations and the fact they will always do the right thing. In American, I suggest you read up on the robber baron and the working conditions of the late 1800s. For modern day examples, I suggest you look at counties without strong labor/environmental protections.

    Again you bring up the founding fathers and state's rights. We've covered this territory before. Next time before you try to bring up states rights, look at states that have weak environmental regulations/enforcement workplace protections and the right-to-work statutes..
    Last edited by Whose Yur Planner; 13 Dec 2012 at 1:56 PM.
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  5. #2455
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    So the answer to a government requirement is a government restriction? BRILLIANT! There are many places that will ‘mandate’ required overtime for salary employees to get particular projects done.
    As for minim wage, if you work a full time job at minimum wage, you make about $15,115. A person making that cannot afford to buy a house, maintain a house, and live on. Your right, the cost of stuff and the buying power is getting increasingly larger. Because it costs us more money to make stuff thanks to things like taxes, benefit packages, golden parachutes, union wages, increased shipping, production, storage, and packaging costs because of governmental regulations, and more taxes.
    Let me get this straight, just so I'm on the same page.

    It is your belief that the reason wages are low (at least in terms of buying power), is that it cost private businesses more money to make stuff, due to government regulation, among other things?

    And that if we reduced government oversight, it would be cheaper to make things, and private business would pass those savings on to its employees?
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  6. #2456
    Cyburbian hilldweller's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Land of Confusion
    Posts
    3,740
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I don’t think that they should be prohibited but people should be given the option.
    I agree. I don't see how it is constitutional to insist that an individual join and pay dues to an external organization in order to obtain a job.

  7. #2457
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,295
    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    So we are to assume you are a social darwinist as well as follower of Ayn Rand? You seem to believe in the benevolence of corporations and the fact they will always do the right thing. In American, I suggest you read up on the robber baron and the working conditions of the late 1800s. For modern day examples, I suggest you look at counties without strong labor/environmental protections.

    Again you bring up the founding fathers and state's rights. We've covered this territory before. Next time before you try to bring up states rights, look at states that have weak environmental regulations/enforcement workplace protections and the right-to-work statutes..
    You don't actually read my posts do you. If you did, I confirmed that there are greedy corporations and that if people actually gave a rip, they would not do business with them. I think that there needs to be increased education of what these companies do and let people decide where they want to spend their money.

    Personally, I shop local, buy from farmers markets or directly from organic farms, and whenever possible, try to research a company before I do business with them. I don't trust the government to do the right thing for me... just look at Monsanto and Dow Chemical.

    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    Let me get this straight, just so I'm on the same page.

    It is your belief that the reason wages are low (at least in terms of buying power), is that it cost private businesses more money to make stuff, due to government regulation, among other things?

    And that if we reduced government oversight, it would be cheaper to make things, and private business would pass those savings on to its employees?
    Mostly it is taxes, but some of it is because of government regulation. There is also union influences and corporate greed that go into it too. For example, if you look at the distribution of most products, produces are taxed on the raw goods, taxed in the production of these raw goods, taxed in the shipping of those products (gas taxes, property taxes for national, regional, and local distribution centers), and then passed onto the consumer. In Michigan, business are also taxed on the personal property used to sell those goods to the end consumer. Then there is the labor costs. A substantial portion of GM's labor costs is in pension programs for employees that don't actually work for them anymore. All of these costs are added to the product. Every time the minimum wadge goes up, the prices tend to go up too because employers need to pay the new wage.

    I believe in small business far more than major corporations. Will there be corporate greed. Sure. But I choose to spend my money with people who I know will benefit.

    Both the republicans and democrats are spending out of control on things that they should not be spending money on. If they cut budgets and restructured the tax code so to fair tax or a flat tax, then I believe we would be in a better place.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  8. #2458
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    I wonder if those at the top simply make too much money? I think they could easily spread that around to their employees and still be filthy rich.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mcdona...050001809.html

    Shareholders, not employees, have reaped the rewards. McDonald's, for example, spent $6 billion on share repurchases and dividends last year, the equivalent of $14,286 per restaurant worker employed by the company. At the same time, restaurant companies have formed an industrywide effort to freeze the minimum wage, whose purchasing power is 20 percent less than in 1968, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that advocates for low- and middle-income workers.

    The money to help our workers is there, it's just not happening. The rich keep getting richer. This is great, but it can't be done at the expense of the middle class.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  9. #2459
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,826
    Originally posted by michaelskis
    So the answer to a government requirement is a government restriction? BRILLIANT!
    Did I say government restriction? What I said was “reform” and I think there are ways to do that. I also don’t think the right-to-work law addresses the problems sometimes faced with unions and the ensuing corruption. What it does is weaken their base and financial abilities, not make them better functioning organizations.

    But here is what I was getting at with respect to “reform.” I work for a non-profit corporation which, like unions, must subscribe to certain regulations in order to continue enjoying our tax-free status. These regulations and requirements change from time to time in order to fix problems that were not anticipated when the status for these kinds of groups was first drafted. This happens all the time. We pass laws and then make modifications to those laws as their implementation illustrates unanticipated consequences. It’s fine tuning. I guess you could call that “more regulation” but I see it as a refinement of the system to make it function better, more fairly and more equitably.

    Originally posted by michaelskis
    As for minim wage, if you work a full time job at minimum wage, you make about $15,115. A person making that cannot afford to buy a house, maintain a house, and live on. Your right, the cost of stuff and the buying power is getting increasingly larger. Because it costs us more money to make stuff thanks to things like taxes, benefit packages, golden parachutes, union wages, increased shipping, production, storage, and packaging costs because of governmental regulations, and more taxes.
    So, it’s - at least partly - the fault of the unions, with their insistence on safe working conditions, a 40 hour work week and minimum wage that is driving up the cost of living? I didn’t know that. I guess if they all worked for less then stuff would be cheaper, huh? Oh, but then people would be earning less, so they still would have to deal with the income gap and not be able to afford things. And those pesky taxes – what a drain on the economy! Building roads to transport items to market, provide subsidies to industries, move people to work and back, and pay for schools. We should definitely do away with that...(and yes, I am kidding about this...)

    This seems to be a contradictory argument. On the on hand, you say the unions have been driving up the cost of things by insisting on higher wages, and making it more difficult for working people to meet their basic needs. On the other hand, if those workers didn't demand such high wages, stuff would cost less while at the same time giving them less money for their work to...continue not being able to afford things.

    These supposed reasons for the high cost of stuff doesn't translate well to all items either. Consider housing, which is determined by the market and what it will bear. Especially the resale of existing homes. My house was built in 1907. Labor costs were very low then, as were materials. And yet, its a rather expensive house today and this has nothing to do with taxes, high labor wages, safety requirements or any of that.Its what the market will bear that sets that price and that is determined by a number of factors, none of which include "taxes, benefit packages, golden parachutes, union wages, increased shipping, production, storage, and packaging costs because of governmental regulations, and more taxes." No one even knows how much it cost to build that home back then.

    Originally posted by michaelskis
    Are there greedy business owners out there? I am positive of it. They are part of the problem and I doubt that anyone would argue that. But two stupids does not fix wrong. Government and forced union participation does not fix greed. Purchasing power does. If people don’t like how a company is operated, don’t shop in their stores or buy their products.
    You don’t have to agree, but for clarity’s sake, the criticism of not requiring workers to pay the union dues centers on the “free-rider” phenomenon. Unless non-union employees pay fair share fees, they are benefiting from collective bargaining without paying union dues. Thus, the services provided to them by the union contract are being subsidized by paying union members. That’s argument, just so we are clear on what aspects of this the opponents are referring to. Personally, I agree with that sentiment.

    I think the purchasing power argument is fraught with complications and, frankly, a bit naive. So many consumables are made of parts or labor or resources drawn from a myriad of sources and its unrealistic to think that the average consumer is able to research the construction of their tennis shoes enough to determine whether they can morally back their purchase or not. How about your power bill? Was any of that electricity made form coal? Where did it come from? Which company runs that mine? What are the working conditions for those workers? Who has the time and information necessary to do this? And often the information just isn't there. There is not requirement (sorry, meant "restriction") on food manufacturers to say where their corn comes from, so if non-GMO is important to me (or something similar), how could I find out?

    Another good example is gasoline. There is a movement to encourage people to only buy at places where they know the oil has come from certain places. But it turns out, because of how refineries operate and how the system of supply is managed country-wide, that is is impossible to tell if a particular shipment or vendor of gas gets it from a specific place.

    Originally posted by michaelskis
    Now I am confused… so you are telling me that the way to fix corruption and abuse in unions is by requiring people to join a union if the work at a particular place?
    No, I am saying that the right-to-work law does nothing to address these issues as I don't think not requiring people to pay union dues gets at the underlying issues. Its not even a red herring. Its a strategy to reduce the power and influence of unions. What it does is potentially reduce the union coffers and therefore the ability they have to advocate for their workers. Again, consider the “free-rider” argument here if you want to understand where the critics are coming from. There are other actions required to address union corruption.

    Originally posted by michaelskis
    The right to work bill in Michigan only allows people to be in a union or not. It does not change OSHA laws, it does not change minim wage.
    My minimum wage comment was in response to your statement:

    Originally posted by michaelskis
    I do not think that we should have a minimum wadge and I do not thing that there should be a regulated work week.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  10. #2460
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    I think all property should be taxed, regardless of who owns it. This means religious institutions, non-profits,etc. This would help wouldn't it?
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  11. #2461
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wherever
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    You don't actually read my posts do you. If you did, I confirmed that there are greedy corporations and that if people actually gave a rip, they would not do business with them. I think that there needs to be increased education of what these companies do and let people decide where they want to spend their money.
    That is a really idealistic way of viewing things. Most people are ignorant of or don't care about the awful things companies do as long as they're able to purchase things as cheap as possible. Just imagine if people cared enough to spend a little bit more to buy American goods, the country's economic situation would be entirely different than what it is now.

    As it stands right now, most shareholders of companies only care about profits. It's never "just good enough" with companies as they're always looking for ways to improve profits. Labor becomes an obvious way of squeezing out more profits as the company's expansion slows. There are some companies like Costco that are under constant pressure to cut employee benefits so their profit margins will be more in line with their competition (Walmart / Sam's). It's disheartening how some companies just view their employees as numbers and not actual human beings.

  12. #2462
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    5,279
    Quote Originally posted by Blide View post
    This is a really idealistic way of viewing things. Most people are ignorant of or don't care about the awful things companies do as long as they're able to purchase things as cheap as possible. Just imagine if people cared enough to spend a little bit more to buy American goods, the country's economic situation would be entirely different than what it is now.

    As it stands right now, most shareholders of companies only care about profits. It's never "just good enough" with companies as they're always looking for ways to improve profits. Labor becomes an obvious way of squeezing out more profits as the company's expansion slows. There are some companies like Costco that are under constant pressure to cut employee benefits so their profit margins will be more in line with their competition (Walmart / Sam's). It's disheartening how some companies just view their employees as numbers and not actual human beings.
    What you're getting at, and which I agree with, is that people will act in their own selfish self-interest. That is why sweat shop labor continues to exist--people don't care about the working conditions of who makes their product as long as they get it as cheap as humanly possible. M'skis and the people he associates with may be an anomaly in this regard, but that is fundamental human nature for most people. It is why Walmart exists. It is why so many consumer goods are outsourced for manufacture overseas. It is why so many people that show up at public meetings go on & on about their "prop-ty rights" and that they can "do wha' I want" with their land, but want to regulate the ever-loving daylights out of their neighboring property. To put it in planner terms, it is the "Tragedy of the Commons" applied to human labor as a resource.

    Keep in mind that I'm far from pro-union, but pure right-to-work has critical problems as well. Things like definitions of work weeks, Federal Labor Standards, payment of overtime, working conditions, etc. are regulated for good reason--the free market failed in those arenas due to selfish actions. These regulations don't necessarily create a level playing field--they create an artificial bottom for the benefit of society.

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

  13. #2463
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,295
    Just so I am clear now, there have been several people who have criticized everything under the sun regarding EVIL corporations, but I have yet to hear a good argument on why giving someone the freedom to choose where they want to work is a bad thing.

    Union people can go on being union people, but it is no longer a requirement. As for the free loader issue, the law DOSE NOT SAY THAT. (I hope I was clear there).

    Quote Originally posted by the bill
    “Bargaining representative” means a labor organization recognized by an employer or certified by the commission as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the employer.
    If I were a union rep, I would say, we are only here on the union members behalf.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  14. #2464
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,826
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I have yet to hear a good argument on why giving someone the freedom to choose where they want to work is a bad thing.
    What is this in reference to? Are people not able to choose where they work?! I was not aware. The bill "is a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers or requiring fee payment to unions that have negotiated the labor contract the workers work under." What?! MORE regulation?!

    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Union people can go on being union people, but it is no longer a requirement. As for the free loader issue, the law DOSE NOT SAY THAT. (I hope I was clear there).
    Not as clear as if you spelled it DOES, but...

    I'm not sure if you expected the law to use the term "free-rider" but I think there is a pretty good case for that argument that free-riding occurs in states with RTW laws. Indeed, in the states with RTW laws, union membership has fallen. But of course, it is a complex issue. Here is some research that has been done by economists trying to understand this dynamic and if it is indeed an issue of note. The last one notes that up to 30 percent of covered members are true free riders in states with RTW laws. Not as significant as some have asserted, but not insignificant, either. My point simply being that we are not pulling this idea out of nowhere - its an actual phenomenon studied by economists:

    Zax, Jeffery S. and Casey Ichinowski. "Excludability and the Effects of Free Riders: Right-to-Work Laws and Local Public Sector Unionization."
    Davis, Joe C. and John H. Huston. "Right to Work Laws and Free Riding"
    Chaison, Gary N. and Dileep Dhavale. "The Choice between Union Membership and Free-rider Status."

    This last one has a link:
    Sobel, Russell "Empirical Evidence on the Union Free Rider Problem: Do Right-to-Work Laws Matter?"
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  15. #2465
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,739
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    I think all property should be taxed, regardless of who owns it. This means religious institutions, non-profits,etc. This would help wouldn't it?
    I believe only government should be tax exempt. Charities, churches, and the like although great institutions... should not be tax exempt.... explain to me why they should be different from a business?
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  16. #2466
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,295
    Quote Originally posted by wahday View post
    What is this in reference to? Are people not able to choose where they work?! I was not aware. The bill "is a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers or requiring fee payment to unions that have negotiated the labor contract the workers work under." What?! MORE regulation?!
    It was governmental regulation that granted them the power and protection to require people to join the union if they worked at a union shop in the first place. Before that, a business owner could just fire people if they tried to form a union in fear that if the union got too big, they would have more control than the business owner. Now it provides people the freedom to choose. So, no it is not more governmental regulation.

    Quote Originally posted by wahday View post
    I'm not sure if you expected the law to use the term "free-rider" but I think there is a pretty good case for that argument that free-riding occurs in states with RTW laws. Indeed, in the states with RTW laws, union membership has fallen. But of course, it is a complex issue. Here is some research that has been done by economists trying to understand this dynamic and if it is indeed an issue of note. The last one notes that up to 30 percent of covered members are true free riders in states with RTW laws. Not as significant as some have asserted, but not insignificant, either. My point simply being that we are not pulling this idea out of nowhere - its an actual phenomenon studied by economists:

    Zax, Jeffery S. and Casey Ichinowski. "Excludability and the Effects of Free Riders: Right-to-Work Laws and Local Public Sector Unionization."
    Davis, Joe C. and John H. Huston. "Right to Work Laws and Free Riding"
    Chaison, Gary N. and Dileep Dhavale. "The Choice between Union Membership and Free-rider Status."

    This last one has a link:
    Sobel, Russell "Empirical Evidence on the Union Free Rider Problem: Do Right-to-Work Laws Matter?"
    I am sure that free-riding does exist some places. But the bill does not require it as some people claim it does.

    Perhaps we should just all become owners or CEO's of businesses since that is where all the money is.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  17. #2467
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Perhaps we should just all become owners or CEO's of businesses since that is where all the money is.
    Are you saying this facetiously? I can't tell. Because this is clearly not a possibility. I'm with you on the RTW legislation, but I also think that corporate greed, at the expense of labor, is destroying our middle class. There's a shit load of money in this country, but it's all tied up in Wall Street and at the tops of the corporate ladders. Capital NEEDS labor.

    "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

    -Abraham Lincoln
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  18. #2468
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,395
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    Are you saying this facetiously? I can't tell. Because this is clearly not a possibility. I'm with you on the RTW legislation, but I also think that corporate greed, at the expense of labor, is destroying our middle class. There's a shit load of money in this country, but it's all tied up in Wall Street and at the tops of the corporate ladders. Capital NEEDS labor.

    "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

    -Abraham Lincoln
    BTW, the brownshirts in Michissippi not only have the RTW and the likely abortion ominbus "success", but my sister may have just lost her job of 24 years as a speech pathologist because there will no longer be special education services in Michissippi for kids under 6, presumably to drive poor people out of the state. She was told by administration that there is a good chance there will be a vote to ensure she can't get her pension until 65 either. I suspect her daughter - also a teacher - is next.

    I'm not hopeful there will be a run on torches and pitchforks in that state to take back democracy, which is one of the reasons why I left.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  19. #2469
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,295
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    Are you saying this facetiously? I can't tell. Because this is clearly not a possibility. I'm with you on the RTW legislation, but I also think that corporate greed, at the expense of labor, is destroying our middle class. There's a shit load of money in this country, but it's all tied up in Wall Street and at the tops of the corporate ladders. Capital NEEDS labor.

    "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

    -Abraham Lincoln
    Maybe not corporate CEOs, but I am a big supporters of smaller businesses. That was one of the things that I loved best about my last job. It was an employee owned company and a great system for who was 'running' the place. Anyone could work their way up if they wanted to and worked hard enough.

    I totally agree with the corporate greed thing. There are too many major corporations out there that line the pockets of the CEO's and board members. That is why whenever possible, I shop local or eat local. It is also the reason that I don't attend professional sporting events. I rather pull up a bar stool and watch the game on a big screen. Beer is cheaper too!
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  20. #2470
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,826
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    It was governmental regulation that granted them the power and protection to require people to join the union if they worked at a union shop in the first place. Before that, a business owner could just fire people if they tried to form a union in fear that if the union got too big, they would have more control than the business owner. Now it provides people the freedom to choose. So, no it is not more governmental regulation.
    Well, I was being a little sarcastic, but the language is a verbatim description of the bill I saw in an article describing it. Still, in terms of the definition of "regulation," it certainly is:

    Regulation is the promulgation, monitori and enforcement of rules. Regulation creates, limits, or constrains a right, creates or limits a duty, or allocates a responsibility.
    This bill certainly fulfills this definition. It is not a repeal of a law. It is the addition of a new one that modifies a pre-existing one. That's more regulation in that it "creates" the right of a worker to not join a union and also "limits" the right of unions to compel membership.

    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I am sure that free-riding does exist some places. But the bill does not require it as some people claim it does.

    Perhaps we should just all become owners or CEO's of businesses since that is where all the money is.
    I'm not sure you know what "free riding" is. Its not something a bill can require - its a side-effect. Free riding is what occurs when workers who are not part of a union reap the benefits of the collective bargaining agreements negotiated by that union. So, a worker at a given employer enjoys security of wages, pensions, etc. that were negotiated by the union but never had to pay the dues that go to paying for the collective bargaining process (lawyers fees, PR/Marketing monies for the campaigns, etc.).

    The bill does not "require" free riding, it creates the potential for free riding by allowing people to opt out of paying dues. How could one "require" free riding anyway?

    Just to be clear, this impacts the types of jobs where only union workers can be hired (though that will now change). Such an arrangement is called a "union shop." Many industries have such arrangements.

    Not sure what you are getting at with the CEO comment. People are not saying unions should get more power and higher wages. Critics of these bills are arguing that this takes power away from the unions. I think those critics are ok with the current arrangement (though I am personally dismayed but some unions' cases of corruption, which RTW bills do not address in any way)
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  21. #2471
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,295
    Quote Originally posted by wahday View post
    I'm not sure you know what "free riding" is. Its not something a bill can require - its a side-effect of RTW legislation. Free riding is what occurs when workers who are not part of a union reap the benefits of the collective bargaining agreements negotiated by that union. So, a worker at a given employer enjoys security of wages, pensions, etc. that were negotiated by the union but never had to pay the dues that go to paying for the collective bargaining process (lawyers fees, PR/Marketing monies for the campaigns, etc.).

    The bill does not "require" free riding, it creates the potential for free riding by allowing people to opt out of paying dues. Just to be clear, this impacts the types of jobs where only union workers can be hired (though that will now change). Such an arrangement is called a "union shop." Many industries have such arrangements.

    Not sure what you are getting at with the CEO comment. People are not saying unions should get more power. Critics of these bills are arguing that this takes power away. I think those critics are ok with the current arrangement (though I am personally dismayed but some unions' cases of corruption, which RTW bills do not address in any way)
    I understood what you met. I have seen drafts of bills that would require nonunion and union people to receive the same pay and benefits, but it was not included in the bill. I guess my questions regarding it are as follows:

    If the union employee has a higher level of pay and benefits than a non union person, if corporations are so greedy why would the spend the extra money on the nonunion person?
    When it does occur, is it the fault of the employee who does not want to join the union and help pay for political campaigns or other activities that he does not support, or is it the fault of the employer?
    Why would it be wrong for a nonunion employee to negotiate* with the employer for the same package as the union employees? They just to the negotiating themselves.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  22. #2472
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,826
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    If the union employee has a higher level of pay and benefits than a non union person, if corporations are so greedy why would the spend the extra money on the nonunion person?
    I am not clear on what you are asking here. You said in the first sentence that the nonunion person earns less. But in the second you imply that the employer will pay more on that employee. ??

    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    When it does occur, is it the fault of the employee who does not want to join the union and help pay for political campaigns or other activities that he does not support, or is it the fault of the employer?
    Well, it’s the dues that go to pay for the union’s work for collective bargaining activities. The employer never pays toward the union dues (it would suggest influence pedaling). I’m not sure I would call it a “fault” though. It’s a consequence and I don’t necessarily fault an employee who takes the savings in union dues by not paying. However, I think these folks maybe do not realize that the working conditions, pensions, pay rates, and other worker protections are often things that have been negotiated over many years and for which they gain notably. For employers that have a union shop (an agreement btw employer and employee that says they can only hire union workers), compelling new employees to join the union and pay union dues is the way they continue to fulfill this requirement. My friend who used to work for a university library had to do this when he was hired, for example.

    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Why would it be wrong for a nonunion employee to negotiate* with the employer for the same package as the union employees? They just to the negotiating themselves.
    In free-riding, the nonunion employee is not negotiating their own contract independent of the union. The union advocates for ALL workers and that nonunion worker would enjoy whatever terms were negotiated by the union on their behalf (again, often over the course of a long period of time and beginning well before new hires come on board). However, the nonunion worker would not have contributed to the union coffers if they opted out. One could see this as representation without taxation in a manner of speaking (not that union dues are taxes – I’m just taking liberties here)

    Nonunion employees statistically have lower levels of education (this is not just my impression but a researched reality) and are likely less familiar with the contract negotiation process than the union organization which has institutional knowledge, experience and capacity exceeding that of most individuals.

    I think a question you are getting at is why would an employer hire union over nonunion workers? I think that is a reasonable question and one that the internets may have some insight about. Maybe someone else can chime in on that one.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  23. #2473
    Cyburbian Bubba's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Above urban19's plane field
    Posts
    2,324
    OK, looks like the RTW/Michigan debate has taken over this thread (for now), and, I have to admit, as much as I tried to ignore it, the wharrgarbl from both sides of the debate has been a bit deafening (note - I'm not addressing that last comment to anything anyone has posted here). I don't have a dog in the fight (thus the trying to ignore it)...but the most even-handed take I've seen on it has been from a labor relations attorney I know (corporate counsel for a company with a lot of unionized employees, including in Michigan). So, to summarize everything I've seen from him on the debate over the last few days:

    Ultimately, it's not that big of a deal.



    I now return y'all to your regularly scheduled slap-fight.
    I found you a new motto from a sign hanging on their wall…"Drink coffee: do stupid things faster and with more energy"

  24. #2474
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,295
    Wow… now that is stupid. Governor Snyder will likely veto gun bill.

    This would have changed the way people could carry in schools. Right now, according to an Attorney General ruling, a person is permitted by right to open carry if they have a CPL within public schools. LINK

    The proposed bill would have required them to conceal it in schools and permit it in other ‘restricted’ places, unless those places were on private property and the owner posts no weapons at the door.

    So people will still be able to open carry in public school areas if they have their CPL, but they cannot carry if they go into most restaurants that serve alcohol or arenas even if the owners say it is ok.

    BILLIANT!
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  25. #2475
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Wow… now that is stupid. Governor Snyder will likely veto gun bill.

    This would have changed the way people could carry in schools. Right now, according to an Attorney General ruling, a person is permitted by right to open carry if they have a CPL within public schools. LINK

    The proposed bill would have required them to conceal it in schools and permit it in other ‘restricted’ places, unless those places were on private property and the owner posts no weapons at the door.

    So people will still be able to open carry in public school areas if they have their CPL, but they cannot carry if they go into most restaurants that serve alcohol or arenas even if the owners say it is ok.

    BILLIANT!
    The only time I want a gun in any school is if a peace officer is carrying it.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

+ Reply to thread
Page 99 of 170 FirstFirst ... 89 98 99 100 109 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 6
    Last post: 04 Sep 2013, 8:26 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last post: 30 Apr 2013, 2:53 PM
  3. Rules discussion thread
    Cyburbia Issues and Help
    Replies: 12
    Last post: 16 Mar 2012, 9:37 AM
  4. The non-political political thread
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 19
    Last post: 17 Sep 2004, 1:17 PM