• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.

Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.[/QUOTE)

Greetings, Social Democrat. :2wave:

I don't understand your argument. If I am an employer, and I have two employees doing the same job, and I note that one of them is taking personal time to get more schooling or training, as an example, which one of them am I likely to promote to a higher position with more responsibility? I'm going to lose the best people to a competitor If their effort is not recognized at some point. Management almost always involves being responsible for decision making for the people you manage, plus longer working hours, and is worth higher pay. The saying that "cream rises to the top" has merit in most cases - otherwise it sounds like you are thinking of sweat shops, and most people leave those as soon as they are able.
 
Last edited:
Greetings, Social Democrat. :2wave:

I don't understand your argument. If I am an employer, and I have two employees doing the same job, and I note that one of them is taking personal time to get more schooling or training, as an example, which one of them am I likely to promote to a higher position with more responsibility? I'm going to lose the best people to a competitor If their effort is not recognized at some point. Management almost always involves being responsible for decision making for the people you manage, plus longer working hours, and is worth higher pay. The saying that "cream rises to the top" has merit in most cases - otherwise it sounds like you are thinking of sweat shops, and most people leave those as soon as they are able.

It is the rare person, indeed, that will gladly and willingly take on extra responsibility for no added compensation.
 
Management isn't a more important job, requiring more experience and more valuable skills....

Donchaknow?

let's examine the example of a hospital, where its administrators oversee/manage the activities of the well trained physicians/surgeons
does your observation apply?
 
Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.

Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.[/QUOTE)

Greetings, Social Democrat. :2wave:

I don't understand your argument. If I am an employer, and I have two employees doing the same job, and I note that one of them is taking personal time to get more schooling or training, as an example, which one of them am I likely to promote to a higher position with more responsibility? I'm going to lose the best people to a competitor If their effort is not recognized at some point. Management almost always involves being responsible for decision making for the people you manage, plus longer working hours, and is worth higher pay. The saying that "cream rises to the top" has merit in most cases - otherwise it sounds like you are thinking of sweat shops, and most people leave those as soon as they are able.
[emphasis added by bubba to facilitate this post]

let's say the other employee, the one not in school, consistently hits higher performance targets than the student and is found a better co-worker by the other employees
do you still make that same promotion decision?
 
let's examine the example of a hospital, where its administrators oversee/manage the activities of the well trained physicians/surgeons
does your observation apply?
Many doctors/surgeons are horrible business people and would go broke if they didn't hire someone competent to manage their offices for them.
 
I am familiar with concepts involving self management. And true examples are limited at best. Further, having leadership share decision making power is not some new idea, nor should it be considered a radical new business model. What I see is an attempt to co-opt a common business practice into something that it isn't.

Implementation of self-management does face some problems given the current structure of the employment hierarchy in the US. I support encouragement of self-management as an alternative business model with an eventual goal of an economy based on worker self-management. That being said, given the multiple examples of successful self-managing businesses today, and past countries where the entire country's economy was governed under self-management, I hardly see why the evidence that it is a successful business model are limited.

I understood you to mean two job positions. You see no difference in the salary potential of two different jobs is even more silly.

You conveniently ignored the rest. I take it that you never have signed the front of a paycheck.

A wage is what a worker's livelihood consists of, and I disagree with the premise that workers in some occupations are entitled to a higher standard of living than workers in other occupations. I'm not suggesting that everyone should be paid the same wage, but there is not a moral argument in favor of wage inequality, and said inequalities should be reduced.

If you must know, the answer is that I have, but I ignored it because your attempt to make this into a personal argument to prove some sort of point is asinine.

Sooner or later "worker self-management" leads to some animals being more equal than others.

Animal Farm was based on a criticism of Soviet-esque central planning, not worker self-management.

Greetings, Social Democrat. :2wave:

I don't understand your argument. If I am an employer, and I have two employees doing the same job, and I note that one of them is taking personal time to get more schooling or training, as an example, which one of them am I likely to promote to a higher position with more responsibility? I'm going to lose the best people to a competitor If their effort is not recognized at some point. Management almost always involves being responsible for decision making for the people you manage, plus longer working hours, and is worth higher pay. The saying that "cream rises to the top" has merit in most cases - otherwise it sounds like you are thinking of sweat shops, and most people leave those as soon as they are able.

:2wave:

There's some issues with the meritocratic standards you're proposing. Effort certainly cannot accurately be measured by education in a society where education is not a right of all people. The fact that all members of the Supreme Court attended Ivy League universities comes to mind as an example of how education can be based on factors other than effort, but rather previous wealth from upbringing. This means that those coming from a wealthy background are going to be naturally predisposed to positions of management and higher pay, while those from a working class background do not have the resources to move up in society. It's not as though all occupations give workers a genuine ability to show off their talent and move up as a result; factory workers in assembly lines generally do the same action all day, and they don't have the opportunity to display their skills and potential by simply doing their job superbly. And if it's difficult for employers themselves to measure the talent of their employees, alternate employers are certainly not going to be able to do so. The principle that an underappreciated employee can simply go somewhere else where they are appreciated doesn't hold true for blue collar, working class occupations. Management is control over the livelihood of employees, so it is advantageous to the workers themselves to fill the position of management under the system of worker self-management because it means that they have control over their own livelihood.
 
[emphasis added by bubba to facilitate this post]

let's say the other employee, the one not in school, consistently hits higher performance targets than the student and is found a better co-worker by the other employees
do you still make that same promotion decision?

Greetings, justabubba. :2wave:

That's a toughie, because I wasn't thinking "student" but an employee who has been with the company about the same length of time - however, in the case you cited, assuming the above, I'd have to go with the high performer,because he'd have already proven his worth, especially if both are out in the field as sales reps, since that would impact my bottom line almost immediately. In order to give encouragement to the one not chosen, I would explain my decision, and assure him that he is still at the top of my list of possible future candidates for promotion.
 
Many doctors/surgeons are horrible business people and would go broke if they didn't hire someone competent to manage their offices for them.

the point being presented was that managers have a MORE IMPORTANT role than those they manage, and thus deserve more compensation
 
let's examine the example of a hospital, where its administrators oversee/manage the activities of the well trained physicians/surgeons
does your observation apply?

Hospital administrators do not manage physicians and surgeons. They manage everybody else. Physicians and surgeons are independent contractors and are invited to practice there by the other doctors on staff. Hospital administrators work for the board of directors and manage the hospital for the doctors. The doctors can remove a hospital administrator that doesn't get the job done. Some doctors take no compensation from hospitals. My father, a surgeon, was chief of staff of his hospital. He sat on the hospital board to represent the other doctors and was involved in consulting with hospital management on issues relating to medical practice. He was involved in accepting new members to the medical staff. It would be more accurate to say that the hospital administrators work for the doctors.

When a surgeon wants to schedule a surgery, he or his staff contact the hospital staff and schedule it. It is then the job of the hospital staff to be sure everything necessary is there for the surgeon to get the job done. The surgeon's staff will normally schedule an anesthesiologist of choice and surgical nurses and assistants of choice. When my father operated, he had a couple of favored anesthesiologists and surgical nurses that he chose for every procedure. The anesthesiologists were members of the medical staff and the nurses were employed by the hospital. You talk like the hospital administrator calls the doctor up and tells him to perform surgery on Tuesday morning. It doesn't work that way. Hospital management and staff work at the pleasure of the medical staff.
 
Implementation of self-management does face some problems given the current structure of the employment hierarchy in the US. I support encouragement of self-management as an alternative business model with an eventual goal of an economy based on worker self-management. That being said, given the multiple examples of successful self-managing businesses today, and past countries where the entire country's economy was governed under self-management, I hardly see why the evidence that it is a successful business model are limited.
The only "entire country's economy" you cited was Yugoslavia's under Tito's totalitarian regime. Held together by force, only to fall apart immediately upon the man's death, is hardly a shining example.

Nor was it the glorious workers paradise you seem to think it was.
 
the point being presented was that managers have a MORE IMPORTANT role than those they manage, and thus deserve more compensation

Managers, in a supervisory role, tend to manage multiple people and have more responsibility than workers who are usually only concerned about themselves. Hence, they do deserve more in compensation. It's also becoming increasingly common for a manager to be fired over a business' poor performance. "More important" is a subjective definition, as all are important in their own way, but the fact that they have more responsibility is not.
 
The only "entire country's economy" you cited was Yugoslavia's under Tito's totalitarian regime. Held together by force, only to fall apart immediately upon the man's death, is hardly a shining example.

Nor was it the glorious workers paradise you seem to think it was.

*Yugoslavia and Revolutionary Catalonia.

I don't condone Tito's totalitarian actions, but free speech in Yugoslavia was fairly unrestricted, and Yugoslavia was far less totalitarian and had a far higher quality of life than communist countries and was on par with the western world in terms of development. Yugoslavia fell because the ethnic tensions that Tito managed to suppress during his rule turned into all out conflict after his death. The fall of the country had nothing to do with self-management.

Revolutionary Catalonia only existed as a self-managing economy for a couple of years, but it was not held together by totalitarianism, and the fall of the country was because of invasion by a neighboring country (Spain).
 
Implementation of self-management does face some problems given the current structure of the employment hierarchy in the US. I support encouragement of self-management as an alternative business model with an eventual goal of an economy based on worker self-management. That being said, given the multiple examples of successful self-managing businesses today, and past countries where the entire country's economy was governed under self-management, I hardly see why the evidence that it is a successful business model are limited.



A wage is what a worker's livelihood consists of, and I disagree with the premise that workers in some occupations are entitled to a higher standard of living than workers in other occupations. I'm not suggesting that everyone should be paid the same wage, but there is not a moral argument in favor of wage inequality, and said inequalities should be reduced.

If you must know, the answer is that I have, but I ignored it because your attempt to make this into a personal argument to prove some sort of point is asinine.



Animal Farm was based on a criticism of Soviet-esque central planning, not worker self-management.



:2wave:

There's some issues with the meritocratic standards you're proposing. Effort certainly cannot accurately be measured by education in a society where education is not a right of all people. The fact that all members of the Supreme Court attended Ivy League universities comes to mind as an example of how education can be based on factors other than effort, but rather previous wealth from upbringing. This means that those coming from a wealthy background are going to be naturally predisposed to positions of management and higher pay, while those from a working class background do not have the resources to move up in society. It's not as though all occupations give workers a genuine ability to show off their talent and move up as a result; factory workers in assembly lines generally do the same action all day, and they don't have the opportunity to display their skills and potential by simply doing their job superbly. And if it's difficult for employers themselves to measure the talent of their employees, alternate employers are certainly not going to be able to do so. The principle that an underappreciated employee can simply go somewhere else where they are appreciated doesn't hold true for blue collar, working class occupations. Management is control over the livelihood of employees, so it is advantageous to the workers themselves to fill the position of management under the system of worker self-management because it means that they have control over their own livelihood.

The Soviet regime began with worker self-management and always claimed the reforms implemented by Comrade Stalin were merely the fuller realization of the concept. And I'm sure Clarence Thomas's parents would be surprised to learn they were wealthy.
 
A wage is what a worker's livelihood consists of, and I disagree with the premise that workers in some occupations are entitled to a higher standard of living than workers in other occupations. I'm not suggesting that everyone should be paid the same wage, but there is not a moral argument in favor of wage inequality, and said inequalities should be reduced.

If you must know, the answer is that I have, but I ignored it because your attempt to make this into a personal argument to prove some sort of point is asinine.

You are pontificating on putting controls on society to remedy your own perceived inequalities in life or standards of living. An evaluation of whether you are ignorant or naïve is far from asinine--of course, that wasn't the only point to which you neglected to reply.
 
The Soviet regime began with worker self-management and always claimed the reforms implemented by Comrade Stalin were merely the fuller realization of the concept. And I'm sure Clarence Thomas's parents would be surprised to learn they were wealthy.

I'm not advocating for an establishment of a vanguard party or anything remotely similar to the Soviet Union's structure of government, so it puzzles me why you'd think that advocating for self-management is advocating for Soviet economic policy. In regards to Clarence Thomas, you're pointing at the exception to the rule.
 
How often to do you thinks unions are able to get everyone to join the union?
How often? Depends on the position, the union, the state, etc.


Sorry, but it pretty much does.
No. Not even close. Essentially every employee has the right to unionize.

As an employer I can't stop you have unionizing, and when you do, I must negotiate with you and provide you certain things.
Do you understand the concept of the union? Collective bargaining? Power in numbers?

Yes, it could be, but benefits aren't a necessary component of it.
In negotiations between a union and the employeer they are almost always a component and a necessary component.

So unions decide who is going to be hired? News to me.
:dohNever said that. They are involved in voting up or down the contract bargained to...

Those are not necessary parts of the agreement.
:doh




That's not what I said.
No it is.
"I guess racism in the past was ok too then. Hell, I bet hating on gays was completely fine and dandy too. Gosh, your logic is just fantastic."



No, I'm saying that the employer must talk to unions.
Yes... That is what a non-right to work state is...


It has to do with the possible consequences for not negotiating with the union. Government doesn't just allow businesses to stop their places of employment from being a union shop.
Because its a right. And this case the USSC is going to be hearing is literally government employees negotiating with other government employees.
 
that isn't the issue.

She is not just paying for union dues and contracting. Her complaint is that unions are spending her dues on political campaigns that do not reflect her
views as a person.
But they dont.... Union dues do not go to lobbying efforts. Her complaint is about that she believes that collective bargaining is a violation of her first amendment rights.

however at the same time the union politics should be a separate fund in which if member choose they can pay into.
the people that just pay for the contracting part would of course pay a lower rate than people who choose to donate
to political campaigns.

in the last election the largest teachers union spent 22m dollars in super packs.

with all their complaining about teacher pay I am sure that 22m dollars would have been spent better helping the people
they represent instead of giving it to some political campaign.

the fact that unions are misusing due money to push political agenda's vs helping the people they are supposed to represent is more telling
of why her case is valid.
Union dues do not pay for lobbying efforts, campaign efforts, etc.
 
You thinking the union benefits them does not mean they actually benefit them. In fact, not long ago there was a bakery union that literally killed thousands of jobs for non-bakery union members, and the bakery union members.

:lamo Better healthcare, education money, better pay, vacation, etc doesnt benefit people better? Im guessing that why 9 times out of 10 you compare a union job to a non-union job that union job has better pay and benefits.
 
Better healthcare, education money, better pay, vacation, etc doesnt benefit people better? Im guessing that why 9 times out of 10 you compare a union job to a non-union job that union job has better pay and benefits.

Since unions are so amazing, I could definitely see them growing in size once people learn these absolutely true "facts."

12.11.12-Union-Membership.jpg
 
Since unions are so amazing, I could definitely see them growing in size once people learn these absolutely true "facts."

12.11.12-Union-Membership.jpg

So lower union membership means.... What exactly? Their benefits are ****ty?

Are you using the fact that union membership has drastically declined overtime (which is true, and I have never said that wasnt true) equated to what?
 
Either the value is dropping, or everyone is brainwashed.

Or...
1.)Massive offshoring of jobs ("free trade", globalization)
2.)Right to work laws, states attacks on unions
3.)Taft-Hartley Act
 
Or...
1.)Massive offshoring of jobs ("free trade", globalization)
2.)Right to work laws, states attacks on unions
3.)Taft-Hartley Act

1) That is the problem with minimum skill jobs.
2) The state not forcing you to pay union dues is ideal.
3) The state still forces companies to employ people that are not working, which is quite ridiculous.
 
1) That is the problem with minimum skill jobs.
So we ship them to where children do them? Pay them around .20 cents an hour? Sometimes you know just use slaves? Ship them to countries with no labor laws?

2) The state not forcing you to pay union dues is ideal.
And of course this is your opinion, thus moving forward their agenda...

3) The state still forces companies to employ people that are not working, which is quite ridiculous.
:lamo No it doesnt.

But then again you asked the reason why we are seeing the downfall and it seems like your opinion on why its downfalling is now not that they were some sort of outdated process or some sort of "brainwashing" or whatever it was you said, to now being "yea we have these laws and the system is now downgrading it, and I'm all for it".
 
So we ship them to where children do them? Pay them around .20 cents an hour? Sometimes you know just use slaves? Ship them to countries with no labor laws?


And of course this is your opinion, thus moving forward their agenda...


No it doesnt.

That is what happens, yep.

Forced payment without consent is ideal to you?

You can fire strikers?
 
Back
Top Bottom