"...the Barnacles of Unionism wrapped around their necks."

[Ksandra]

I have a 5 day work week, 8 hours a day, and my career isn't unionized.

I think he was pointing out the fact you wouldn't have that 5 day 8 hour work week if it weren't for unions fighting for rights/laws in the past for everyone.

[Kuya]

But looking at the situation solely in terms of the present, it does seem a little bit arbitrary that a completely unskilled manufacturing worker 'deserves' to get paid twice as much as me because he's in a union. Wonderful, now he can support his two kids while my college degree can't even get me a living wage, because my industry doesn't have a history of unionization.

Does that mean that they're winning too much or that you're winning too little?

[Absolutely Virtue]

I think it's a sad state to be in when we look at people in strenuous factory jobs negatively for earning a nice middle class lifestyle with security while accepting that CEOs/executives are cool to make 90 times that much.

I don't know a lot of people accepting the escalation of CEO salaries. In fact, I think most people are railing against it. The mainstream media is all over that. The Washington Post (the paper I read) regularly kills them for it.

No one is denying that the factory workers deserve a living wage. But what you earn shouldn't be determined by what's 'fair,' but rather what the market will bear. And I believe the market is clearly telling us that you can't pay factory workers exorbitant salaries (there, I said it) for making inferior products and expect that shit to last.

I'm not attacking all factory workers. I'm attacking THESE factory workers who are contributing to the auto industry implosion, but refuse to see their role in this. Do you think it's okay for them to demand a wage that is TWICE that of their fellow workers, and then QQ when the whole fucking thing falls apart?

[Seraph]

I think it's a sad state to be in when we look at people in strenuous factory jobs negatively for earning a nice middle class lifestyle with security while accepting that CEOs/executives are cool to make 90 times that much.

I think it's a sad state when you can't realize everyone with their hand in the cookie jar is at fault, not just the prick who took the most cookies.

Those UAW salaries are way above the average American household income. Noone gets to cry a river here.

[Stiker]

I think it's a sad state when you can't realize everyone with their hand in the cookie jar is at fault, not just the prick who took the most cookies.

Those UAW salaries are way above the average American household income. Noone gets to cry a river here.

Everyone may have had a fault in it, but I think the major issue in general is that people like to use Unions as the scapegoat when in comparison they are only a very small part of a much larger problem.

[Obev]

This is a barnacle.

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/6039/barnaclepq4.jpg

How the hell do you wrap this around anyone's neck? Nonsensical metaphors make me cringe.

[Tristam]

Everyone may have had a fault in it, but I think the major issue in general is that people like to use Unions as the scapegoat when in comparison they are only a very small part of a much larger problem.

This ^

[Stiker]

This is a barnacle.

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/6039/barnaclepq4.jpg

How the hell do you wrap this around anyone's neck? Nonsensical metaphors make me cringe.

Well clearly he said that they won't be doing it!

[Obev]

Well clearly he said that they won't be doing it!

The burning fire of our capitalism won't be put out by the high-octane jet fuel of socialist propaganda, either.

[Seraph]

Everyone may have had a fault in it, but I think the major issue in general is that people like to use Unions as the scapegoat when in comparison they are only a very small part of a much larger problem.

I never said Unions were the sole reason for this issue, but I would not blow them off as having just a small part in it either. Take enough bricks out of a building for long enough, eventually the whole thing falls over.

They are about a third of the problem. I look at the car companies three major issues like this (in no particular order):

1. Too much money being paid to the CEOs and higher ups.
2. Too much money being paid out to the workers.
3. Too little market demand for their products (Too little income).

The companies are spending more than they make, and I have no idea how a government bailout will fix that. This isn't a lack of liquid equity, this is a broken buisness model. Unless there is insane change that occures in the next several months, they are toast. Loans only delay this result into some point in 2009 instead of 2008.

[Stiker]

I never said Unions were the sole reason for this issue, but I would not blow them off as having just a small part in it either. Take enough bricks out of a building for long enough, eventually the whole thing falls over.

They are about a third of the problem. I look at the car companies three major issues like this (in no particular order):

1. Too much money being paid to the CEOs and higher ups.
2. Too much money being paid out to the workers.
3. Too little market demand for their products (Too little income).

The companies are spending more than they make, and I have no idea how a government bailout will fix that. This isn't a lack of liquid equity, this is a broken buisness model. Unless there is insane change that occures in the next several months, they are toast. Loans only delay this result into some point in 2009 instead of 2008.

You forgot the part where they've been making shitty cars. Blaming that solely on demand would be misleading. Shitty business plans + inflated exec salaries alone would sink companies with non-unionized jobs.

[Olo401]

The teachers union is a problem. One one hand, yes it is too strong, on the other hand I do believe it is a necessity. For one, there is no moving in teaching. Once you become a teacher that's basically the highest, you can go and take classes/certificates to be come a principal or superintendent down the line, but that isn't really a "progressive moving up" more as a personal choice. Before the union, teachers were fired to calm down soccer-moms who's "perfect child" got a B. Or for radical-thinking like in Dead Poets Society (real story btw, teacher became a professor at my college).


The major problem I see with getting rid of the teachers union is that teachers are going to become way more obsessed with "teaching to the test" and making children think one way and one way only, in fear of getting fired. It's already started to happen with No Child Left Behind (the governments way of saying "fuck you" to the NEA). Because of it, now teachers can get fired if a certain percent of students in their class fail. So, what's been happening across the board? Teachers are dumbing down their classwork left and right and giving many students C's and B's when they should have gotten D's and F's, just so they won't get fired. If the union ceased to exist, then teachers will be so paranoid of doing anything out of the mold, that there would be no new thinking, and many kids would lose out.

Now yes I do agree that something DOES need to be done (even my parents see it and they are teachers (well my dad's a retired professor). You do have teachers that don't do anything but give out worksheets because they know they won't get fired. And for that, the NEA is a mess.

But between the two, not having a teachers union is much scarier for education, then having one.

I completely agree with this. There absolutely should be merit-based pay for teachers, and the unions should absolutely allow it. And there's only one reason - merit-based pay not only ensures that the best teachers will rise to the top, but it also ensures that poor performing teachers will either do their best to improve their methods or they will find work elsewhere. This is a better alterenative to what we currently have in place, and the NEA's hesitation on this issue is seriously misguided.

As to what the merits should be, that's a different discussion - I think it should be a combination of how students receive a teacher's methods and the resulting grades.

[Seraph]

You forgot the part where they've been making shitty cars. Blaming that solely on demand would be misleading. Shitty business plans + inflated exec salaries alone would sink companies with non-unionized jobs.

Part of the lack of demand is BECAUSE they make shitty cars.

[Beckwin]

To be fair I haven't heard any UAW spokesperson rule out wage/benefits concessions or layoffs as a possibility in future contract negotiations. Of course, nobody in congress would dare pressure them to, so it's up to the heads of the big 3 to make it reality.

And I've heard plenty of commentary, even on NPR/CNN, to the tone of 'you union workers better not show any signs of resistance to sacrifice when every other american household is having to do with less in this day and age.'

$64k/year is a hard sell as 'middle class' in Michigan.

64k/year is a hard sell as upper class as well. I realize that Michigan probably has a relatively low cost of living, but still, 64k for a household allows for a stay at home parent and the ability to help the kids through college, not to mention some modest investment. Isn't that the "American Dream" anyway?

I think it's a sad state when you can't realize everyone with their hand in the cookie jar is at fault, not just the prick who took the most cookies.

Those UAW salaries are way above the average American household income. Noone gets to cry a river here.

So explain to me how UAW members would be helping the average American household by taking cuts. First off, the economy is already in the shitter outside of the auto industry, so it's not some magic panacea we get for keeping the big 3 afloat. Second, the labor savings would just go to execs/shareholders and not investing in a better business model. Third, because of existing model, it'd only be delaying the inevitable collapse.

It should be that other American households ought to be fighting for what the UAW has won.

I don't know a lot of people accepting the escalation of CEO salaries. In fact, I think most people are railing against it. The mainstream media is all over that. The Washington Post (the paper I read) regularly kills them for it.

The thing is, we've been accepting it for decades now (while unions have coincidentally been losing prestige). Only now that there's a crisis, people will take a harder look at who's making out like bandits in spite of it.

[Kuya]

I would be absolutely happy to let the auto companies fall because of the poor business ethics and perhaps even because of union ambition, if the government would and could support thousands and millions more of the unemployed with its arcs, but for some reason the same people who say the companies should fall also tend to oppose social programs with very poor detailing on what should stay and what should go assuming they don't mean all social programs. That is, assuming the "too big to fail" shit doesn't come to bite us on the ass. Which it will.

[Rhinox]

I have a 5 day work week, 8 hours a day, and my career isn't unionized.

I think he was pointing out the fact you wouldn't have that 5 day 8 hour work week if it weren't for unions fighting for rights/laws in the past for everyone.

Correct.

[Seraph]

So explain to me how UAW members would be helping the average American household by taking cuts. First off, the economy is already in the shitter outside of the auto industry, so it's not some magic panacea we get for keeping the big 3 afloat. Second, the labor savings would just go to execs/shareholders and not investing in a better business model. Third, because of existing model, it'd only be delaying the inevitable collapse.

The only way they save themselves is if this doesn't happen. My point was that they have a fucking horrible buisness model. The problem becomes that bleeding money to the CEOs and the workers just makes the company crash faster.

I have no problem with someone busting ass to make 64K a year. I have a problem when people sit around and make 64K a year, or would rather keep making 64K a year and watch their company implode a short time later.

I also have a problem when a major part of a new buisness model is 'we will sell off our jets.' These guys are probably doomed. ._.

[Absolutely Virtue]

It should be that other American households ought to be fighting for what the UAW has won.

Your argument is to have everyone else demand impossible wages at their job, thereby driving all of their respective employers out of business?

The way to solve this is (because I'm VERY smart, obviously):

1. Fix the shitty product
2. Fix the salaries paid to EVERYONE, execs and factory workers alike

This takes cooperation though. I don't see anyone on either side willing to do that.

The thing is, we've been accepting it for decades now (while unions have coincidentally been losing prestige). Only now that there's a crisis, people will take a harder look at who's making out like bandits in spite of it.

Agreed, no argument there. But if this is the change agent we need, then I'll take it.

[Absolutely Virtue]

I have no problem with someone busting ass to make 64K a year. I have a problem when people sit around and make 64K a year, or would rather keep making 64K a year and watch their company implode a short time later.

Also this^. Eloquently says in two sentences what my rambling ass has been trying to convey all afternoon. Well done.

[Stiker]

Part of the lack of demand is BECAUSE they make shitty cars.

Part but not the sole reason. Demand can go down because of other factors like the economy going to crap and people not spending. And again, not adjusting to that is a bad business plan.