• 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!

America may soon face its biggest labor strike in decades

Group rates for financial products backed by the union; could raise sufficient open interest in that sector.

Credit insurance, is one example. Child care is another.

Decreasing social and capital costs, is what unions can be good for.
 
What's not to love about any new managerial fashion and manner, in modern times.

Especially when unions would be able to claim, cheap labor means cheap skill sets.

Unions, don't have that problem.
 
Last edited:
Renae said:
Okay, you really wanna go there?
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...ears-of-shrinking-union-membership-in-one-map
The have an animated map showing the union membership rates collapsing.
Click to expand...



"you really wanna go there?"

Of course, I do. The last place you went ended up nowhere.

The “collapse” occurred years ago. I agree with that fact. I used the term “decimated.” However, when you say “collapsing”, that implies, if not explicitly, to the current time-period. Currently, it is not collapsing. As I already stated, over the last 11 years, the rate of union membership has been about the same, though it goes up and down year-to-year. I did completely refute the prior example you gave of WI as evidence to support your “collapsing” claim. You still cannot show any evidence of “collapsing.” Without the necessary evidence to support your claim, what you say is dismissed and your claim is thus unfounded. You’ve lost your point of debate. I need not argue the matter with you any further.
 
bluesmoke said:
"you really wanna go there?"

Of course, I do. The last place you went ended up nowhere.

The “collapse” occurred years ago. I agree with that fact. I used the term “decimated.” However, when you say “collapsing”, that implies, if not explicitly, to the current time-period. Currently, it is not collapsing. As I already stated, over the last 11 years, the rate of union membership has been about the same, though it goes up and down year-to-year. I did completely refute the prior example you gave of WI as evidence to support your “collapsing” claim. You still cannot show any evidence of “collapsing.” Without the necessary evidence to support your claim, what you say is dismissed and your claim is thus unfounded. You’ve lost your point of debate. I need not argue the matter with you any further.
Click to expand...

The only area unions are holding or gaining ground as a rule is Public sector, and in places where Union Membership is no longer forced but is a choice the membership greatly declines. What little rise or falls in small areas doesn't change two facts:

1. When given a choice, most people reject unions

2. Public Sector Unions have created unsustainable economic conditions across the country that will force cities and states to make drastic changes in the future.
 
Locally the UPS guy is working 12 hour days 6 days per week. Sometimes more. The company has them on tracking devices so they actually run back and forth to the truck to make deliveries. They make great money for delivery work, but it can be brutal. And the average weight of the package has really increased, what with people buying things like bar-b-que grills from Amazon. I even buy 31X10.5 truck tires online and UPS delivers them. They are heavy. I don't think being paid $35 per hour is all that much for this kind of work. BTW; it's been in the high 90's for the past two weeks here (100+ heat index). That's brutal, too.
 
Renae said:
The only area unions are holding or gaining ground as a rule is Public sector, and in places where Union Membership is no longer forced but is a choice the membership greatly declines. What little rise or falls in small areas doesn't change two facts:

1. When given a choice, most people reject unions

2. Public Sector Unions have created unsustainable economic conditions across the country that will force cities and states to make drastic changes in the future.
Click to expand...



What evidence you've provided to support your claims have been insufficient, as I have so refuted. Now, you continue to make further claims, different from what you've first have made and have been refuted, and without supporting evidence. You do not debate in a forthright manner and do not deserve a reply except for what I've continually asked of you. What proof do you have of your claim? And, now, I must add: Unless you agree that the claims you've made before are unsubstantiated, you are not an honest debater. You continually lose your points of debate and respond with throwing more of your own **** against the wall. There is no sense in my wasting time doing honest research to successfully refute your claims and just have you continue to repeat such an ignorant model of debate.
 
Renae said:
The only area unions are holding or gaining ground as a rule is Public sector, and in places where Union Membership is no longer forced but is a choice the membership greatly declines. What little rise or falls in small areas doesn't change two facts:

1. When given a choice, most people reject unions

2. Public Sector Unions have created unsustainable economic conditions across the country that will force cities and states to make drastic changes in the future.
Click to expand...




1. What you have said up until now has been proven unsupported. I gave you the facts that disproved your claim. All you can do is make another claim, after having failed to prove your initial claim(s), that you still do not provide evidence of support.

2. Again, you make a claim without any supporting evidence of any kind.
 
Floridafan said:
'Where does the $35.00 an hour come from? Your imagination?
Click to expand...


That's about what the average full time driver earns, but the strike isn't about raising those wages, it's the wages of parttimers who make $15 an hour.
 
TurtleDude said:
nah she's as centrist as you are

UPS drivers -its a tough job -I cannot recall if their wages are as good as the USPS. most USPS workers cannot find a similar job that pays as well
Click to expand...


Years ago, in the early 70s, I drove for a parcel delivery service in L.A ( they are no longer in biz ), I got no where near what UPS drivers were getting. One thing is certain, this is difficult work because you have to move quickly, and I'm not naturally fast at anything, so I quit.
 
Samhain said:
np. If there was a strike, Amazon would switch to a different service, and I think they would be unlikely to switch back. It might put UPS out of business without Amazon.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that?
 
Renae said:
Yes because 35 an hour just isn't fair.
Click to expand...

Try living in a major city with a family of four; I think it might be an eye opener for you. $35 an hour before taxes doesn't go that far.
 
Neomalthusian said:
This posturing by unions really annoys me. Why do they vote to strike "if necessary." If you want to vote to strike, vote to strike, and then go on strike. This would be like management getting approval from its board to fire all the union employees "if necessary." Or to get authorization to permanently replace as many economic strikers as possible as quickly as possible, "if necessary."

These pre-emptive "if necessary" strike votes are childish little attempts at coercion. They should be considered bargaining in bad faith on the part of the union.

You know what I bet will happen, if they do end up going on strike? They'll have to hold another, separate strike vote, this time to make it about some alleged "unfair labor practice." Why? Because then they can't be permanently replaced. Even though it's an economic strike, they'll call a ULP strike. They need that fake label to cowardly protect themselves from permanent replacement.



Workers don't get paid to strike. Every 2.5 days on strike is 1% of their annual wages. How much money do they want to voluntarily sacrifice in demonstration that they want more money?



LOL, was this a joke?
Click to expand...

As someone who spent over 19 weeks on strike I can say say that striking is serious business and not childs play. You risk being permanently replaced depending on the type of strike it is and you never make up the monies you lose by being out on strike. If they are going to strike you can bet that it's for a good reason; (usually over job security, financial package) I don't envy them, they are taking a real risk going out on strike. It may be that striking is the only leverage they have against the company at this juncture and no other options to use at this time.

So no, I don't think that this is a joke, it's obviously real business to them.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
That's about what the average full time driver earns, but the strike isn't about raising those wages, it's the wages of parttimers who make $15 an hour.
Click to expand...

The drivers of the big trucks, the semis, interstate drivers, not the local, full time delivery drivers. I provided those average salaries, and they are almost half of the $35/hr.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom