Obama: Back to the future......

[Peter_Puget]

Obama said:

“let’s allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country’s middle class again.”

 

 

but then again.....there is a sucker born every minute

[jordop]

Hey, when in Rome . . .

[JayB]

Unionization has certainly done wonders for the domestic auto industry, hasn't it.

 

The "card-check" legislation currently under consideration, that would replace secret ballot voting procedures in unionization votes with a system in which workers have to fill out cards in which they openly declare their votes should re-introduce quite a number of workers to the joys of Teamster style persuasion.

 

"Hey there - we noticed that you checked the no box on that card yesterday...."

 

The TSA workers are set to be unionized via a bill passing through congress as well. In short order the TSA will combine all of the efficiency of GM, with the charm of the Teamsters.

[dmuja]

Unions recently became fat and lazy and unfortunately part of the problem.

 

Having said that, I think they are still needed and we all owe some debt to them for helping to form a "middle class" in the US. The modern trend has been more and more wealth going toward the rich and less to the "non-rich" (except for Prez Clintons days) If unions were gone completely I think you would eventually have rich, poor and no in between.

 

.02$

[minx]

i don't think anyone should be surprised by this. targeting the middle class is always a popular campaign theme. perhaps even more for this election. the war is obviously unpopular so it's hard to leverage that position to stand out. the disparity between the "middle class" and the "upper class" in terms of earning and accumulation of wealth continues to grow. pretty easy to hang your hat on that one.

[Jim]

I'd qualify that and say some unions have become fat and lazy. Not all. In general what have unions accomplished?

 

eight hour work day

five day work week

health insurance

pensions

paid sick time

fair treatment for women, minorities, and the disabled

higher wages

overtime pay

job safety

paid holidays

paid vacation

family and medical leave

 

Market forces are cold and calculating. The Friedman-lovers think tha somehow the marketplace will take care of all this. History proves otherwise.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

For all you union critics out there: Research working conditions in 1900, prior to the labor movement, and let us know how great it would be to return to them.

 

You might also let us know why we should put our complete trust in corporate executive management. After all, they're such an admirable bunch.

[rbw1966]

And their salaries (the execcutives) are reflective of all their hard work.

 

They are clearly a selfless bunch.

[underworld]

and union bosses eat pretty high on the hog too...thanks to their dues paying members

 

they ARE what the proclaim they hate....

[underworld]

I'd qualify that and say some unions have become fat and lazy. Not all. In general what have unions accomplished?

 

eight hour work day

five day work week

health insurance

pensions

paid sick time

fair treatment for women, minorities, and the disabled

higher wages

overtime pay

job safety

paid holidays

paid vacation

family and medical leave

 

Market forces are cold and calculating. The Friedman-lovers think tha somehow the marketplace will take care of all this. History proves otherwise.

 

 

add to your list:

 

- seniority rule (at all cost)

- reliance (err...dependance) on a larger body

 

 

[Jim]

Union

 

Reliance on a larger body - of course - it's called collective bargining.

 

Ah, market forces at work..sort of.

 

The researches found that executive pay levels had exploded in the past decade from 22 times average weekly earnings in 1992 to 74 times average weekly earnings today. And in the finance sector the figures are more perverse, CEOs earning 188 times the salary of customer-service staff.

 

By analysing the performance of companies against three criteria - return on equity, share price change and change in earnings per share - the researchers found that excessive pay levels actually coincide with a worse bottom line.

 

"If you look at the numbers, it is accurate to say the more you pay a CEO the worse the company performs and the less you pay the better it performs," researcher Dr John Shields, from Sydney University's School of Business says.

 

Applying this analysis, the authors identified a performance-optimal range for executive remuneration of between 17 and 24 times average wage and salary earnings, beyond which the performance of a company begins to deteriorate. This means that any company paying its CEO more than $800,000 begins to be a bad bet.

 

This research shows that executive pay is not just a moral issue; it is a shareholder issue and it is a job-security issue. For workers, it shows that an excessively paid CEO is likely to preside over a weaker company, meaning their jobs are less secure.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2007 by Jim

[ivan]

and union bosses eat pretty high on the hog too...thanks to their dues paying members

 

they ARE what the proclaim they hate....

an issue that dues-paying union members have to care enough to correct - no need to throw the baby out w/ the bath-water

 

my union boss taught elementary school for 24 years

[sexual_chocolate]

Union

 

Reliance on a larger body - of course - it's called collective bargining.

 

Ah, market forces at work..sort of.

 

The researches found that executive pay levels had exploded in the past decade from 22 times average weekly earnings in 1992 to 74 times average weekly earnings today. And in the finance sector the figures are more perverse, CEOs earning 188 times the salary of customer-service staff.

 

By analysing the performance of companies against three criteria - return on equity, share price change and change in earnings per share - the researchers found that excessive pay levels actually coincide with a worse bottom line.

 

"If you look at the numbers, it is accurate to say the more you pay a CEO the worse the company performs and the less you pay the better it performs," researcher Dr John Shields, from Sydney University's School of Business says.

 

Applying this analysis, the authors identified a performance-optimal range for executive remuneration of between 17 and 24 times average wage and salary earnings, beyond which the performance of a company begins to deteriorate. This means that any company paying its CEO more than $800,000 begins to be a bad bet.

 

This research shows that executive pay is not just a moral issue; it is a shareholder issue and it is a job-security issue. For workers, it shows that an excessively paid CEO is likely to preside over a weaker company, meaning their jobs are less secure.

 

 

boy i'd like to see where he pulled his stats on that one. seems a bit suspicious to say the least.

as far as ceo pay goes, how would you suggest changing things? seems analogous to sports figures making so much; companies (shareholders) are willing to pay to bring in the top talent.

it's not a pretty system we have in place, unbridled capitalism.

[JayB]

I'd qualify that and say some unions have become fat and lazy. Not all. In general what have unions accomplished?

 

eight hour work day

five day work week

health insurance

pensions

paid sick time

fair treatment for women, minorities, and the disabled

higher wages

overtime pay

job safety

paid holidays

paid vacation

family and medical leave

 

Market forces are cold and calculating. The Friedman-lovers think tha somehow the marketplace will take care of all this. History proves otherwise.

 

 

Even if this is true - and I think it is only partially true, and omits the contributions that advancements in productivity brought about by the dreaded marketplace (against a constant current of opposition from guilds, unions, etc) have made towards creating a world in which it's possible for a vastly expanding population produce enough to live on without constant toil (e.g. the 8 hour work-day), etc, etc, etc, etc - this does not constitute an argument for why they are necessary or beneficial today.

 

None of the regulations that you have cited owe their continued existence to unions, so what arguments can you make for their necessity today? If all workers would be better off under unions, how can you account for the existence of people who do not wish to belong to them, much less for the fact that the percentage of people in the private labor force has been steadily declining for decades?

 

 

[ivan]

unions are less necessary then in the past in that they have been succesful in winning the most important battles listed above - but no victory is forever, and organized groups of workers must maintain vigilance if their accomplishments are to be preserved

[JayB]

Union

 

Reliance on a larger body - of course - it's called collective bargining.

 

Ah, market forces at work..sort of.

 

The researches found that executive pay levels had exploded in the past decade from 22 times average weekly earnings in 1992 to 74 times average weekly earnings today. And in the finance sector the figures are more perverse, CEOs earning 188 times the salary of customer-service staff.

 

By analysing the performance of companies against three criteria - return on equity, share price change and change in earnings per share - the researchers found that excessive pay levels actually coincide with a worse bottom line.

 

"If you look at the numbers, it is accurate to say the more you pay a CEO the worse the company performs and the less you pay the better it performs," researcher Dr John Shields, from Sydney University's School of Business says.

 

Applying this analysis, the authors identified a performance-optimal range for executive remuneration of between 17 and 24 times average wage and salary earnings, beyond which the performance of a company begins to deteriorate. This means that any company paying its CEO more than $800,000 begins to be a bad bet.

 

This research shows that executive pay is not just a moral issue; it is a shareholder issue and it is a job-security issue. For workers, it shows that an excessively paid CEO is likely to preside over a weaker company, meaning their jobs are less secure.

 

 

I agree that overpaying top management is a bad business practice, but if the board of directors, elected by the shareholders to represent their interests, voluntarily overpays the CEO - how is this the business of anyone outside of the company anymore than it would be if someone decided that you were worth less than whatever it is that your current employer decides to pay you?

[JayB]

unions are less necessary then in the past in that they have been succesful in winning the most important battles listed above - but no victory is forever, and organized groups of workers must maintain vigilance if their accomplishments are to be preserved

 

Can you cite an example where this has actually happened? Union representation in the private workforce has been plummeting for decades, but the laws are still on the books, no?

 

I can cite quite a number of examples where unions have been instrumental in destroying the basis of their own employment, such as at GM.

 

I'd also don't think that government workers should have any privileges or covered by any rules that don't apply to all private sector workers. If the rules are good enough for folks working outside the government, they should be plenty good enough for the folks working inside it. This would effectively eliminating membership for government workers, but if they have to make do with the same rules and regulations that apply to the rest of us, this should hardly be considered either unfair or a hardship that they should be granted protection from.

[Mr_Phil]

Public education is another example of the power of the union.

[Jim]

Your straw dog argument is tiresome. Of course there are jobs where unions are not essential and the move to a service sector has also contributed to the reduced need. But - areas where works are more vunerable, such as hotel, fatory workers, jaintors, the folks who actually work with their hands, unions are a good thing. Without collective bargining they would get screwed.

 

And GM - as the rest of the US auto industry. If they would stop making shitty cars they might dig themselves outta that hole. And their largest liabilty is medical insurance. Even the big 3 have lobbied for some type of national health insurance because they see the competitive disadvantage they're stuck with.

 

And as far as the shareholders holding CEOs responsible. Most board members are appointed thru the inner buddy-buddy system and then put up for "election". It has become a circle of back-patters. You do me good, and I'll do the same. If there were market forces at work those poductivity gains and huge profits would would be reflected in worker's pay. Instead, and as usual in the US "free market", the elites pocket the profits, while real income for workers has been on the decline since the '80s.

[ivan]

i'm not an economist nor terribly fluent in business history (worst grade i ever got was econ201), so i have no examples at hand of unions succesfully defending a benefit they've won in the past - seems obvious enough though - every couple of years my school district negotiates a contract with its employees - who'd do the bargaining if it wasn't our union? i know from personal experience in my district though that employers are keen to cut expenses when possible and will take away things they've given in the past (sick days, proffesional development money, calendar days, etc) unless we collectively pitch a fit about it.

 

i'm sure there are examples of unions killing the golden goose - what human endeavor isn't fraught w/ disasters? i know even the early 20th century unions weren't altogether benevolent and angelic organizations, but as tvash pointed out, i still wouldn't have liked being an industrial worker prior to their creation

[JayB]

"But - areas where works are more vunerable, such as hotel, fatory workers, jaintors, the folks who actually work with their hands, unions are a good thing. Without collective bargining they would get screwed."

 

Your original argument was that without Union protection we'd all revert back to late 19th century working conditions, or some variant thereof, no? This is a new argument, but what of the old one?

 

With regards to hotel workers, factory workers, etc - there are a considerable number of these workers who have made a voluntary decision to perform these jobs for the wage that the employer offered. My sense is that these people sized up the options available to them given their geographic situation, skill-set, and education level and concluded that this was the best way for them to make a living at the present time. How, exactly, is this being screwed?

 

If the state were either preventing them from moving, seeking employment in other fields, advancing their skills, etc - or if they were contending with a national monopoly in which all factories, hotels, etc were controlled by a single entity - then I'd agree with you. The only place where this actually happens these is under communist/socialist rule.

[tvashtarkatena]

[quote=JayB

I can cite quite a number of examples where unions have been instrumental in destroying the basis of their own employment, such as at GM.

 

 

No, I don't believe you can, actually.

 

GM self destructed due to a number of factors, the primary one being that they did not choose to produce what the market wanted to buy. Their profit margin, for example, on their SUV and light truck lines is hefty: they just stuck with these monsters long after demand for them began to decline.

 

In addition, GM suffers more than other automakers from a poor pay in to pay out ratio for their enormous retirement/benefit plans. Ironically, this is a result of their longevity, or continued success; the longer they stay in business and more productive (per employee) they become, the more retired folks they need to cover with fewer active workers paying into the plan. GM is a poster child for doing away with corporation based retirement benefits plans and replacing them with a single nationwide plan which would level the playing field for older companies, like GM, who have tried to make good on their commitment to their retired workforce. In addition, such a nationwide plan would make our workforce much more fluid, a good thing to correct regional and industry by industry labor imbalances. Given your free market POV, I'm sure you'd agree with me that such a single payer system would be a good idea.

 

I've read nothing credible which points to unions as the main cause of GM's demise.

[JayB]

[quote=JayB

I can cite quite a number of examples where unions have been instrumental in destroying the basis of their own employment, such as at GM.

 

 

No, I don't believe you can, actually.

 

GM self destructed due to a number of factors, the primary one being that they did not choose to produce what the market wanted to buy. Their profit margin, for example, on their SUV and light truck lines is hefty: they just stuck with these monsters long after demand for them began to decline.

 

In addition, GM suffers more than other automakers from a poor pay in to pay out ratio for their enormous retirement/benefit plans. Ironically, this is a result of their longevity, or continued success; the longer they stay in business and more productive (per employee) they become, the more retired folks they need to cover with fewer active workers paying into the plan. GM is a poster child for doing away with corporation based retirement benefits plans and replacing them with a single nationwide plan which would level the playing field for older companies, like GM, who have tried to make good on their commitment to their retired workforce. In addition, such a nationwide plan would make our workforce much more fluid, a good thing to correct regional and industry by industry labor imbalances. Given your free market POV, I'm sure you'd agree with me that such a single payer system would be a good idea.

 

I've read nothing credible which points to unions as the main cause of GM's demise.

 

If your argument about longevity being the sole reason for GM's woes, why isn't every single employer that's been in existence since for 60 years or more suffering from these same problems?

 

Are you honestly claiming that the union had no role whatsoever - via strikes or the threat thereof - in securing the pay and benefits which have rendered their labor uncompetitive? The "jobs bank," which has been paying thousands of workers full-time wages with benefits for doing nothing since the early 80's was management's idea?

 

It's also worth noting that the reason that the American car makers favored the big gas guzzlers was that, given their cost structure, they made little or no money on sub-compacts that sell for far less than trucks and SUV's.

 

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

"Given your free market POV, I'm sure you'd agree with me that such a single payer system would be a good idea."

 

Single nationwide health-insurance market with the tax-benefits associated with paying for health benefits transferred to individuals rather than tethered to employers - yes. Nationalization of health-care, no.

 

None of this would help domestic automakers, who - along with their employees - dug their own graves.

[Jim]

The only place where this actually happens these is under communist/socialist rule.

 

I commend you on your self-restraint. You waited until the second page to start waving this flag. Again.