What's new
By:
Filters

Vitriolic Rhetoric in Wisconsin

Millsapa said:
Your question: If the union is worthless, why is that a sticking point for either side, let alone both sides?

I guessed with this question you were asking why both sides care more about "collective bargaining" than teachers having to contribute to their health care and benefits
I'm not sure who you consider to be the sides, but I was answering why the Democrats care more about the union than the teachers the union supposedly represents.
The Democrats both state and nationally are supporting the unions side with money and protesters. Why are they doing that? Because they care about teachers personally? No, they already threw the teachers under the bus. They just don't want to give up the mandatory dues they provide, and the power they have to elect their candidates.

Not all teachers want to be in the union, especially if they are Republicans. I heard an interview with a Wisconsin teacher who said her complaint with the union was that even though she didn't want to join it she still had to pay 80% of the union dues. She also complained that her forced union dues went to support candidates that she didn't agree with. Why doesn't she get a choice on whether to pay union dues to a union she doesn't want to be a part of?
Click to expand...
#1: You're crazy if you think most, or even a large percentage of those protesters in Wisconsin are just tools the democratic party sent from other states. They are Wisconsin citizens.

#2: Someone said unions are worthless and only bargain for benefits and pay the company would give non union workers anyway. If that were true, then there would not be thousands of workers protesting in order to keep their right to collective bargain. And that certainly wouldn't be the only sticking point.

#3: I agree that nobody should be forced to join a union. And nobody should be forbidden from joining one either.


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Lower production cost does not mean more production, cheaper goods, etc. More often than not, cheaper production costs just means a bigger salary and bonus for the executives, and possibly a dividend for the shareholders. For example, Apple didn't lower their prices when they started sending work overseas. Neither did Microsoft.
Click to expand...

That's what the uneducated, uneconomic, stone age argument says. I was keeping it short so my response ended up too vague and open to interpretation, so let me provide a little more. Cherry picking individual circumstances makes for a good emotional story, but it doesn't really tell you much of anything (actually, Apple's pricing doesn't say what you would like it to as their pricing has come down while product value has increased). The Law of Diminishing Returns says your unqualified "more often than not" claim is only going to be correct on a short-run basis in some circumstances. Long term, cheaper costs will lift the standard of living of all.

GVC said:
If nothing is produced, how do you spend a wage? Clearly, it is not wages that directly stimulate economic growth. What a stupid assertion.
Click to expand...

If you don't have a wage then how can you buy something that is produced? My my, we have a terrible chicken and egg dilemma here.

Radical supply-siders might call it a stupid assertion, but it's not such a radical claim to 1/2 the economic profession who consider themselves some form of Keynesian. Animal Spirits, my friend. Animal spirits.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
 
GVC said:
If nothing is produced, how do you spend a wage? Clearly, it is not wages that directly stimulate economic growth. What a stupid assertion.
Click to expand...

Wow you are the master of the out of context. Go back and re-read. I said the wage paid AND THE AMOUNT OF THOSE WAGES THAT PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SPEND. That is simple economics. Spend money the economy expands, stop spending and it contracts. Stop wages, or reduce them, and spending is likely to decrease. Raise wages and spending is likely to increse. If you seriously think I am trying to cover literally every single facet of macro-economics and union-management dynamics, and you insist on taking one part of a sentence as the whole of the meaning then you are truly being the stupid one. All I was doing was pointing out areas where unions are not helping but rather hurting american employees.

To summarize my position on unions. I deal with unions on a regular basis. I have been involved in many negotiations of CBA's in more than one industry. I have yet to see a union that truly makes things better for employees beyond what the company would have offered to begin with over the long term. That is largely why unions are decreasing. Another reason why union membership is dropping off is that companies have made moves away from union friendly states and even into other countries. Unions have an impact on these decisions but are obviously not the only factor invovled in such a huge decision. But when a plant moves for whatever reason, most often the move ensures that the union does not follow. And obviously employees are not clamoring for more unionization or the rates would be staying the same or increasing rather than dropping off. The day of the union is rapidly coming to an end. Except in the public sector, which is a whole other discussion.

Back to the economy. Do a quick google on wages and the economy if you want to see the connection. It is a complex thing, the economy, and lots play into how it functions, such as US monetary policy, cost of capital, tax structure, and trade policy. But wages are fundamental as they give people spending power, which largely drives the economy. Of course workers get their wages as a trade-off for production, but you are being incredibly naiive if you think worker productivity is the factor that drives the economy. Worker income, which is obviously affected by productivity, is the driver, combined with their spending habits. But worker income is affected by much more than their output, as is a company's success and their ability to provide a wage for that production.

If you really want to get in-depth there are mounds of reading material out there. There is no way I can (or want to) cover every single facet of the economy and union-management dynamics in a forum.

Some links:

https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E5DB1131F934A15753C1A9659C8B63

https://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010093609/fix-economy-fix-wages

https://www.vermontbiz.com/node/17081

The effect of US monetary policy on the economy:

https://www.frbsf.org/publications/federalreserve/monetary/affect.html
 
VINYLONE said:
What I think it comes down to is who you side with...corp or peep.
Click to expand...

I think it is trying to do all we can to get corp and peeps to work together. As a GM I always look for ways to make my employees' jobs better, and get them more money, as it helps drive the goals of the organization. In the end a healthy company is of value to everyone employed there. We engage in improvement activities to drive savings in my budget, and during this rough time for the past few years I have made sure that I turned those savings into wage increases for my employees. I have foregone a raise for 4 years running now so that cost is not in the budget, but we have given at least a cost of living adjustment to our workers each of those 4 years. This has been about an average of 5% increase, just ahead of inflation, but it is better than other companies with no raises, decrese in pay, or laying people off.

I think the more adversarial the relationship between the employers and the employees the worse things are. We all want a better standard of living and we all have to work together to get there.
 
SaltyDawg said:
#1: You're crazy if you think most, or even a large percentage of those protesters in Wisconsin are just tools the democratic party sent from other states. They are Wisconsin citizens.


#2: Someone said unions are worthless and only bargain for benefits and pay the company would give non union workers anyway. If that were true, then there would not be thousands of workers protesting in order to keep their right to collective bargain. And that certainly wouldn't be the only sticking point.

#3: I agree that nobody should be forced to join a union. And nobody should be forbidden from joining one either.
Click to expand...

#1 Didn't say they were Democrat tools sent from another state. They are plenty of tools from within the state.
#2 That someone wasn't me. Public employee unions successfully negotiate unsustainable pension and benefit packages with the shills that they elect to office. That is why Walker wants to take that part of their collective bargaining away.
#3 Nobody is forbidden from joining them.
 
franklin said:
That's what the uneducated, uneconomic, stone age argument says. I was keeping it short so my response ended up too vague and open to interpretation, so let me provide a little more. Cherry picking individual circumstances makes for a good emotional story, but it doesn't really tell you much of anything (actually, Apple's pricing doesn't say what you would like it to as their pricing has come down while product value has increased). The Law of Diminishing Returns says your unqualified "more often than not" claim is only going to be correct on a short-run basis in some circumstances. Long term, cheaper costs will lift the standard of living of all.



If you don't have a wage then how can you buy something that is produced? My my, we have a terrible chicken and egg dilemma here.

Radical supply-siders might call it a stupid assertion, but it's not such a radical claim to 1/2 the economic profession who consider themselves some form of Keynesian. Animal Spirits, my friend. Animal spirits.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...

Well said Franklin. I would rep you if I could but I have to spread some around first.
 
VINYLONE said:
What I think it comes down to is who you side with...corp or peep.
Click to expand...

More like tax payers vs. Big Labor.

Wisconsin_Protest_Signs.png


I would only change salaries to benefits and pensions.
 
franklin said:
If you don't have a wage then how can you buy something that is produced? My my, we have a terrible chicken and egg dilemma here.

Radical supply-siders might call it a stupid assertion, but it's not such a radical claim to 1/2 the economic profession who consider themselves some form of Keynesian. Animal Spirits, my friend. Animal spirits.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...
Dude said that it is the wage paid and the amount of that wage that is spent that directly drives economic growth. There is no chicken and egg dilemma here. There is at least as much production as there is consumption in the global economy. Consumption can't grow without a growth in production. How that growth in production is achieved is up for debate, sure, but clearly economic growth requires productivity gains.
 
Aside from that, he seems to be arguing against himself, since union workers are paid higher wages than their non-union counterparts. If higher wages lead to greater economic growth, shouldn't loggrad be for unions?
 
I think one thing being overlooked here is the unions in the private sector vs unions in the public sector. I am in no way, shape or form responsible for what the unions negotiate for their retiring members in the private industry. The company they worked for gets to worry about. In the public sector however, we are all paying for the retirement of public employees. When a teacher retires at 70% of their highest paid three years (or whatever it is), that is a liability that doesn't come off the books until they die (correct me if I am wrong). That is just not sustainable.
 
Yeah trying to simplify the economy is a huge can of worms. And getting into Keynesian and classical economic schools of thought is just way too big for this venue.
 
GVC said:
Dude said that it is the wage paid and the amount of that wage that is spent that directly drives economic growth. There is no chicken and egg dilemma here. There is at least as much production as there is consumption in the global economy. Consumption can't grow without a growth in production. How that growth in production is achieved is up for debate, sure, but clearly economic growth requires productivity gains.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Standard of living gains require productivity gains. On the other hand, economic growth can be achieved through maximization absent productivity gains. Short term growth, or even long term growth without a living increase, requires no more than maximizing capacity utilization and population growth. Overcoming deflationary pressures requires spending growth, not necessarily production increases (which can hinder recovery). Similarly, labor participation rate increases can fuel GDP growth. This has been a lagging factor since about 2002, when a 50 year pattern peaked and reversed.

Productivity gains during a d-process, as Ray Dalio called it, leads to more unemployment, which leads to more wage pressure, which leads to less stability, which leads to lower consumption, which leads to more trinkets and widgets sitting on the warehouse shelves, which leads to layoffs, which leads to more wage pressure... Just keep producing MORE!
 
franklin said:
That's what the uneducated, uneconomic, stone age argument says. I was keeping it short so my response ended up too vague and open to interpretation, so let me provide a little more. Cherry picking individual circumstances makes for a good emotional story, but it doesn't really tell you much of anything (actually, Apple's pricing doesn't say what you would like it to as their pricing has come down while product value has increased). The Law of Diminishing Returns says your unqualified "more often than not" claim is only going to be correct on a short-run basis in some circumstances. Long term, cheaper costs will lift the standard of living of all.
Click to expand...
Apple started outsourcing in mid/late 2006, and continued outsourcing more and more over the next couple years. The first major product they released during that time was the iPhone in June of 2007 for $521.49. The Verizon iPhone they just released is $749.99. I don't see how that is cheaper. Better, sure- which it should be since it's using technology from 3 years later. But it isn't any cheaper.

There are plenty of examples of companies outsourcing to save money only to see the execs get huge raises/bonuses. There are also plenty of examples of unions taking pay cuts and benefit cuts only to see the execs get huge raises/bonuses. It's not an isolated case at all. I would bet it happens more often than not.
 
Surely said:
I think one thing being overlooked here is the unions in the private sector vs unions in the public sector. I am in no way, shape or form responsible for what the unions negotiate for their retiring members in the private industry. The company they worked for gets to worry about. In the public sector however, we are all paying for the retirement of public employees. When a teacher retires at 70% of their highest paid three years (or whatever it is), that is a liability that doesn't come off the books until they die (correct me if I am wrong). That is just not sustainable.
Click to expand...
The obvious answer here is for you to vote in candidates who won't agree to unsustainable deals (assuming that is really an issue).

I still think an honest days work should merit a living wage and future retirement though. If a decent blue collar job is no longer good enough to live the American dream then all hope is lost.
 
Funny, I've heard a lot of negative opinions about unions.

Not gonna say which one I'm involved in, but recently they raised our dues by 125 %.

Outrageous, I know.

Many of our members fought tooth and nail to dump the union.

Once they realized they'd lose vacation, seniority, and their balls, they changed their mind.

That's right, we now pay WAYYYYYY more than we did a few months ago, but we still have it better than getting cornholed without the union. FACT.



- Signed, hate the Union, but hate management MORE
 
VINYLONE said:
Ahhhh, good to see Godwin's Law in full effect...Thank you Sapa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Click to expand...

Ya gotta laugh. . . . even with those you disagree with. The cartoon was clearly meant to go overboard for laughs. . . . while still containing some elements that might possibly start some thinking. . . .

I've been listening to Tim Conway Jr. on KFI. He's on a tear about the way public employee comp is so far outta line with private sector comparables, while California State is going under for the third time.

There really has to to be some give here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top