What's new

Good Article on the Impending Lockout by David Aldridge

You do realize that retirement, health insurence and other benefits made available in the work place came about due to goverment intervention in the work place. During a time of wage fixing companies needed ways to entice the best workers. So since they couldnt change salary, they started giving other benefits. Soon everyone had to have benefits to be competative.

Not all unions are bad, and not all buisnesses are bad. But the free market has been so messed with, that there are few options. If someone wants a full time employee, the employee has to take on more costs due to mandated benefits. This limites the willingness to hire. Since the employer has some control on wage, but little control on benefit costs. So most employers will put off the risk untill they are sure they can make up the difference in productivity.

Now in the NBA if they had some kind of partially garenteed contract, It would cover the players and teams. Say have a 2 year set salary and 2-3 year nagosiable salary. With performance expectations writen in the second part that would dictate the salary going forward. or have a restricted free agent type situation after that.
 
50-50 split of the $4 billion alone would mean $2 billion apiece for the players and owners, a net loss of $280 million in salaries for the players -- and, really, a net gain of $560 million for the owners, since they would pocket the $280 million from the players and, in turn, not have to pay that additional $280 million out.
Making $280 mln out of nowhere. I can't believe Aldridge is so dumb.
 
The idea that the only reason companies treat their employees with any kind of respect being solely due to unions is so antiquated it isn't funny. Fact is unions have been on the decline in a serious way in America for the past 40 years, yet the standard of living has steadily been increasing. At it's peak, about 40% of americans work in unionized jobs, while now it barely tops 10%.
 
What I would love to see is having guaranteed only 50-70% of the player contracts and the rest is paid depending on team results, not personal.
 
Incentives would be a good thing for the CBA. Get paid so much if you play X amount of games, points,assist,etc.
 
The idea that the only reason companies treat their employees with any kind of respect being solely due to unions is so antiquated it isn't funny. Fact is unions have been on the decline in a serious way in America for the past 40 years, yet the standard of living has steadily been increasing. At it's peak, about 40% of americans work in unionized jobs, while now it barely tops 10%.

Unions may be declining but they're role in raising the standards of workers cannot be denied. Unions were important in raising social consciousness about the plight of workers and need for decent wages, fair treatment, etc., etc. and creating vital countervailing power that forced corporations to pay decent wages and treat people like more than refuse. This helped lead in turn to changes in social and economic mores and institutions. To the extent unions are less relevant today, this is due in part to their past effectiveness.

Anyone who has understands anything about the industrial revolution understands why unions were absolutely essential. Anyone who further believes that without countervailing power by labor and continued public vigilance that corporations will treat workers with due dignity and is ignorant of history, human nature, and the nature of capitalism. (Read up on the industrial revolution and see what happens when corporations are unregulated and have no countervailing power. For those of you out there prone to knee jerk reductionism, no I'm not advocating 'socialism')

Sure unions can be corrupt, inefficient, etc. But even today they serve a critical if diminished role.

This is complex topic but since I'm on iPhone it's hard to write essay on it. I hope you get idea.
 
Last edited:
I think Unions were amazing...when they were needed. They are not needed anymore. Every positive you listed above can easily be taken care of in a better way. Unions are no longer necessary. They no longer bring anything of any worth to the table. Unions are around to keep union reps employed. That's it.
 
U
Anyone who has understands anything about the industrial revolution understands why unions were absolutely essential. Anyone who further believes that without countervailing power by labor and continued public vigilance that corporations will treat workers with due dignity and is ignorant of history, human nature, and the nature of capitalism. (Read up on the industrial revolution and see what happens when corporations are unregulated and have no countervailing power. For those of you out there prone to knee jerk reductionism, no I'm not advocating 'socialism')
.
The thing is without Soviets and european socialism american workers would never achieve what they have now. No matter what you think about socialism the fact that capitalists saw what happened in Europe made all the concession they made possible.
 
Every positive you listed for unions above either aren't needed anymore or unions do not do them.
 
Every positive you listed for unions above either aren't needed anymore or unions do not do them.

That is simply wrong. When human nature changes we may not need them. Until then there is need for countervailing powers including at times unions. That and prudent regulations. It's a balancing act. Hard to fund the balance, but not hard to figure out what corporations will do without either.
 
I completely disagree. Society has completely changed from when unions were started. When unions were started, there was no tv, no mass media, no drudgereport/politico/huffington post, no tmz, no dateline, etc. If Nike was running a sweat shop, there was no public humiliation to encourage change. Women couldn't own land or really even work, etc. It was almost impossible to quit Nike, move to another state and work for Reebok.

Today, if Nike has a sweat shop, every news outlet would be talking about it non-stop. Politicians and Lawyers would pounce to make a name for themselves. Women's groups would beat down Nike's doors to further their cause. I am sure Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would find a way to get their names on tv.

Today, if you are getting screwed pay wise, it is very easy (relatively speaking) to quit working for GM and move to LA and work for Toyota. There are jobs out there, you just have to look (a little harder these days). Heck, it isn't that hard to take control of your life and start your own business.

I do believe that unions had their place, and they were extremely valuable, but in today's world where everybody is a reporter (blogs, youtube, fanatical 24 hr news/media/entertainment) there are much more efficient ways to spread the good word. Throw in the fact that there is plenty of opportunity in this country and it is easy to move thousands of miles (and no, you do not deserve to live in the big city, in the big house. If you can't find a job, then get off your *** and move to Fargo, ND where there is a job), we have more control over our wages. The problem is, we are taught that if we aren't given everything we want, we need to jump on youtube and complain about and then tell everybody how Obama is going to pay for mortgage and gas and blame everybody other than ourselves. Unions aren't needed anymore, just more personal responsibility.

Anyways, that is my opinion and I won't take over this thread anymore. My point is out there, agree or not.
 
Incentives would be a good thing for the CBA. Get paid so much if you play X amount of games, points,assist,etc.

That would be good. Say every player on the winning team gets $5,000, losing team gets $2,500. High scorer, high rebounder, high assister gets a bonus of $500. Or, for every point/rebound/assist you get, you get $25. That way, you are motivated to win first, then get yours. I like it, it would just be hard to find the right balance to encourage winning above all else, and getting yours is secondary.
 
That would be good. Say every player on the winning team gets $5,000, losing team gets $2,500. High scorer, high rebounder, high assister gets a bonus of $500. Or, for every point/rebound/assist you get, you get $25. That way, you are motivated to win first, then get yours. I like it, it would just be hard to find the right balance to encourage winning above all else, and getting yours is secondary.

That would be ridiculous. I meant more by the season, like NFL does with its players.
 
Every positive you listed for unions above either aren't needed anymore or unions do not do them.

You are either a fool or just selfish or both. Unions no longer needed? Here come's 112 hour work weeks for $0/75/hour:


"Bridge Comes to San Francisco With a Made-in-China Label
nytimes
DAVID BARBOZA, On Sunday June 26, 2011, 1:26 am EDT

SHANGHAI — Talk about outsourcing.

At a sprawling manufacturing complex here, hundreds of Chinese laborers are now completing work on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

Next month, the last four of more than two dozen giant steel modules — each with a roadbed segment about half the size of a football field — will be loaded onto a huge ship and transported 6,500 miles to Oakland. There, they will be assembled to fit into the eastern span of the new Bay Bridge.

The project is part of China’s continual move up the global economic value chain — from cheap toys to Apple iPads to commercial jetliners — as it aims to become the world’s civil engineer.

The assembly work in California, and the pouring of the concrete road surface, will be done by Americans. But construction of the bridge decks and the materials that went into them are a Made in China affair. California officials say the state saved hundreds of millions of dollars by turning to China.

“They’ve produced a pretty impressive bridge for us,” Tony Anziano, a program manager at the California Department of Transportation, said a few weeks ago. He was touring the 1.2-square-mile manufacturing site that the Chinese company created to do the bridge work. “Four years ago, there were just steel plates here and lots of orange groves.”

On the reputation of showcase projects like Beijing’s Olympic-size airport terminal and the mammoth hydroelectric Three Gorges Dam, Chinese companies have been hired to build copper mines in the Congo, high-speed rail lines in Brazil and huge apartment complexes in Saudi Arabia.

In New York City alone, Chinese companies have won contracts to help renovate the subway system, refurbish the Alexander Hamilton Bridge over the Harlem River and build a new Metro-North train platform near Yankee Stadium. As with the Bay Bridge, American union labor would carry out most of the work done on United States soil.

American steelworker unions have disparaged the Bay Bridge contract by accusing the state of California of sending good jobs overseas and settling for what they deride as poor-quality Chinese steel. Industry groups in the United States and other countries have raised questions about the safety and quality of Chinese workmanship on such projects. Indeed, China has had quality control problems ranging from tainted milk to poorly built schools.

But executives and officials who have awarded the various Chinese contracts say their audits have convinced them of the projects’ engineering integrity. And they note that with the full financial force of the Chinese government behind its infrastructure companies, the monumental scale of the work, and the prices bid, are hard for private industry elsewhere to beat.

The new Bay Bridge, expected to open to traffic in 2013, will replace a structure that has never been quite the same since the 1989 Bay Area earthquake. At $7.2 billion, it will be one of the most expensive structures ever built. But California officials estimate that they will save at least $400 million by having so much of the work done in China. (California issued bonds to finance the project, and will look to recoup the cost through tolls.)

California authorities say they had little choice but to rebuild major sections of the bridge, despite repairs made after the earthquake caused a section of the eastern span to collapse onto the lower deck. Seismic safety testing persuaded the state that much of the bridge needed to be overhauled and made more quake-resistant.

Eventually, the California Department of Transportation decided to revamp the western span of the bridge (which connects San Francisco to Yerba Buena Island) and replace the 2.2-mile eastern span (which links Yerba Buena to Oakland).

On the eastern span, officials decided to build a suspension bridge with a complex design. The span will have a single, 525-foot tower, anchored to bedrock and supported by a single, enormous steel-wire cable that threads through the suspension bridge.

“We wanted something strong and secure, but we also wanted something iconic,” said Bart Ney, a transportation department spokesman.

A joint venture between two American companies, American Bridge and Fluor Enterprises, won the prime contract for the project in early 2006. Their bid specified getting much of the fabricated steel from overseas, to save money.

California decided not to apply for federal funding for the project because the “Buy America” provisos would probably have required purchasing more expensive steel and fabrication from United States manufacturers.

China, the world’s biggest steel maker, was the front-runner, particularly because it has dominated bridge building for the last decade. Several years ago, Shanghai opened a 20-mile sea bridge; the country is now planning a much longer one near Hong Kong.

The selection of the state-owned Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Company was a surprise, though, because the company made port cranes and had no bridge building experience.

But California officials and executives at American Bridge said Zhenhua’s advantages included its huge steel fabrication facilities, its large low-cost work force and its solid finances. (The company even had its own port and ships.)

“I don’t think the U.S. fabrication industry could put a project like this together,” Brian A. Petersen, project director for the American Bridge/Fluor Enterprises joint venture, said in a telephone interview. “Most U.S. companies don’t have these types of warehouses, equipment or the cash flow. The Chinese load the ships, and it’s their ships that deliver to our piers.”

Despite the American union complaints, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, strongly backed the project and even visited Zhenhua’s plant last September, praising “the workers that are building our Bay Bridge.”

Zhenhua put 3,000 employees to work on the project: steel-cutters, welders, polishers and engineers. The company built the main bridge tower, which was shipped in mid-2009, and a total of 28 bridge decks — the massive triangular steel structures that will serve as the roadway platform.

Pan Zhongwang, a 55-year-old steel polisher, is a typical Zhenhua worker. He arrives at 7 a.m. and leaves at 11 p.m., often working seven days a week. He lives in a company dorm and earns about $12 a day.

“It used to be $9 a day, now it’s $12,” he said Wednesday morning, while polishing one of the decks for the new Bay Bridge. “Everything is getting more expensive. They should raise our pay.”

To ensure the bridge meets safety standards, 250 employees and consultants working for the state of California and American Bridge/Fluor also took up residence in Shanghai.

Asked about reports that some American labor groups had blocked bridge shipments from arriving in Oakland, Mr. Anziano dismissed those as confused.

“That was not about China,” he said. “It was a disagreement between unions about which had jurisdiction and who had the right to unload a shipment. That was resolved.”
 
LOL. This is hilarious. First, the labor was done in China, not here. Americans were not making $12 a day. Apples to oranges. Second, did you read the blurb about the helpfulness of unions? Ha ha.

"Reports that some American labor groups had blocked bridge shipments from arriving in Oakland."

Oh, the unions are against Chinese slave labor. Wow, what great things unions are...but wait, lets read the next line:

"That was not about China...It was a disagreement between union about which had jurisdiction and who had the right to unload a shipment."

LOL. Unions, in this country, are unnecessary. They are a hinderance to the cause. Nice try though. All they do in the US is slow work down and increase costs.
 
Also, because of unions, which are driving up the costs of doing business, we are losing more businesses overseas, which means more jobs overseas, which means instead of lower paying jobs in the US we have zero paying jobs in the US.

Again, show me someone that has gone out on their own, actually ran a business and they are for unions. The only people for unions are union members and politicians, who want their votes. If Christie can make NJ a right to work state, that would be huge, as it would essentially kill the union strangle and pressure on a lot of state's important voting blocks.
 
I completely disagree. Society has completely changed from when unions were started. When unions were started, there was no tv, no mass media, no drudgereport/politico/huffington post, no tmz, no dateline, etc. If Nike was running a sweat shop, there was no public humiliation to encourage change. Women couldn't own land or really even work, etc. It was almost impossible to quit Nike, move to another state and work for Reebok.

Today, if Nike has a sweat shop, every news outlet would be talking about it non-stop. Politicians and Lawyers would pounce to make a name for themselves. Women's groups would beat down Nike's doors to further their cause. I am sure Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would find a way to get their names on tv.

Today, if you are getting screwed pay wise, it is very easy (relatively speaking) to quit working for GM and move to LA and work for Toyota. There are jobs out there, you just have to look (a little harder these days). Heck, it isn't that hard to take control of your life and start your own business.

I do believe that unions had their place, and they were extremely valuable, but in today's world where everybody is a reporter (blogs, youtube, fanatical 24 hr news/media/entertainment) there are much more efficient ways to spread the good word. Throw in the fact that there is plenty of opportunity in this country and it is easy to move thousands of miles (and no, you do not deserve to live in the big city, in the big house. If you can't find a job, then get off your *** and move to Fargo, ND where there is a job), we have more control over our wages. The problem is, we are taught that if we aren't given everything we want, we need to jump on youtube and complain about and then tell everybody how Obama is going to pay for mortgage and gas and blame everybody other than ourselves. Unions aren't needed anymore, just more personal responsibility.

Anyways, that is my opinion and I won't take over this thread anymore. My point is out there, agree or not.

You are correct in some particulars but incredibly naive about what corporations will do if they can get away with it. Recent financial crisis case in point. Exploitation and bad corporate behavior continues on massive scale today, your faith in everything you cite in controlling excesses of corporations Without countervailing labor power quaint but very Polyannish.

It appears we are at impasse. I'll leave there like you and let thread continue.
 
You are correct in some particulars but incredibly naive about what corporations will do if they can get away with it. Recent financial crisis case in point. Exploitation and bad corporate behavior continues on massive scale today, your faith in everything you cite in controlling excesses of corporations Without countervailing labor power quaint but very Polyannish.

It appears we are at impasse. I'll leave there like you and let thread continue.

Good point. That is why we have laws, and they are in jail. We do not need new laws, we do not need more unions, we do not need more restrictions. What we need is politicians who are not corrupt, and enforce those laws instead of letting people skirt the laws or pass laws that lead to this crap (and that goes for both sides). The bad corporate behavior that you cite has nothing to do with unions, as most of the corruption did not hurt the employees, but hurt the general public (investors, whether stocks, housing, etc). Put those people in jail, enforce the laws we have and it will be pretty good. There will always be corruption, unions or not, there will always be people who take advantage of others. If we enforce those laws and put those people in jail and make them pay, then hopefully there will be less corruption, and less people taking advantage of others (and that includes all this MLM crap that goes on in the US and mainly Utah).

But if we are at an impasse, then I hope my guy wins the election. :D
 
LOL. This is hilarious. First, the labor was done in China, not here. Americans were not making $12 a day. Apples to oranges. Second, did you read the blurb about the helpfulness of unions? Ha ha.

"Reports that some American labor groups had blocked bridge shipments from arriving in Oakland."

Oh, the unions are against Chinese slave labor. Wow, what great things unions are...but wait, lets read the next line:

"That was not about China...It was a disagreement between union about which had jurisdiction and who had the right to unload a shipment."

LOL. Unions, in this country, are unnecessary. They are a hinderance to the cause. Nice try though. All they do in the US is slow work down and increase costs.

I understand all that: I read the article. Did you get the point that an American bridge is being built by folks working 16 hours per day, 7 days per week, for $0.75/hour? Corporations will do that right here right now as soon as they can which the way this nation is going will be very soon. Michele Bachman wants to eliminate the minimum wage. Bet that makes you smile.

Unions are bad. Not having unions is much much worse.
 
Back
Top