• 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!

How many here belong a union in the public or private sector? Why? or Why not?

How many here belong to a union?


  • Total voters
    67
  • Poll closed .
Actually not only do they have the option of quitting, they do so fairly often. As I think I've pointed out to you two or three times now: one-third of US workers plan on quitting this year ALONE.
And I pointed out that that many new jobs will not be created and/or vacated, which just goes to show our expectations of reality seldom intersect it. But, hey, everyone needs hope. If 30,000,000 people think they can find a better job next year, more power to them. We'll ignore the simple fact that 30,000,000 new jobs (incl. retirements) will not happen. Moving from burger flipper I at McD's to burger flipper I at BK really isn't a step up.

I'm one of them. I will be leaving my current employer and (surprise) increasing my income by between 50-100%.
Toot! toot!

If you conned someone into paying you twice as much for doing the same job then Congrats! :)

My bet is, it's not the same job. And I wonder where the guy that used to fill this new position went? But, hey, maybe you managed to land one of the possibly 5,000,000 new jobs that will be created/vacated by retirement next year. Of course, that still leaves 25,000,000 people from your poll with shattered dreams.

No you don't. You have this industrial - era notion of labor immobility that is completely unconnected to the modern workforce.
Shall I look up the income mobility numbers for the US for you - again?
 
Last edited:
Most workers don't really have the option of quitting, either, and it doesn't do a bit of good to work "over there" when it's the same BS that's over here, as it usually is. Burger flippers at McD's have the same job, pay, and work environment as the burger flippers at BK - and most jobs are this way.

Sure they do. They can walk up to their boss and give their 2-week notice any time they want. They are not being forced to work there. The guy flipping burgers at BK can go flip burgers at McDonalds if they want, assuming McDonalds is willing to hire them. The reality is, in a free market, certain skillsets are worth a certain amount of money. If you want to make more money, you need to improve your skillset. Why do you think people should get more money just because they want it, not because they deserve it?

And why shouldn't I use common terms like that? Some people routinely talks about an "employment contract", which is complete crap, too. Joe uses his time and money to go to an employer (notice it's always on the employer's turf, never even neutral ground?) then gets hired as a mechanic - a job he likes and has done before - and everything is fine for two years. Then one day The Boss decides he needs four coffees for a meeting he's having so he tells Joe to go fetch them for him from Starbucks. Joe wasn't hired as a go-for, he was hired as a mechanic. Why should he be obliged to all-of-a-sudden become a go-for? Because if he doesn't, if he just tells his boss to shove it because that wasn't what he was hired to do, the boss fires him and his two years of employment can't even be used as a reference, thereby making Joe less marketable. Joe has no real choice but to fetch coffee, even if he hands in his two-weeks notice afterward. And you'll also note employers routinely expect two week's notice - but if a company decides to lay someone off they often get a notice late Friday afternoon to not come to work on Monday.

There is no neutral ground, the employee is *ALWAYS* inferior to the employer. Deal with it. You keep acting like they're equivalent and they're not.
 
There is no neutral ground, the employee is *ALWAYS* inferior to the employer. Deal with it. You keep acting like they're equivalent and they're not.

Thank you for making the point as to why employees need an equalizer. ;)
 
No, they just need to deal with reality.

They? See, it's attitudes like your's that convince me that there is still a need for unions. Your attitude is like "eff my employees." You couldn't give a crap about them, and it's quite obvious. They need protection from employers with attitudes like this.
 
They? See, it's attitudes like your's that convince me that there is still a need for unions. Your attitude is like "eff my employees." You couldn't give a crap about them, and it's quite obvious. They need protection from employers with attitudes like this.

I was one of them, years ago. Then I moved up the chain of command. I have no respect for people who sit on their thumbs for their entire lives and never better themselves, which is what you seem to support. You seem to think that people deserve to get more because they're breathing, not because they've earned it.
 
Sure they do. They can walk up to their boss and give their 2-week notice any time they want. They are not being forced to work there. The guy flipping burgers at BK can go flip burgers at McDonalds if they want, assuming McDonalds is willing to hire them. The reality is, in a free market, certain skillsets are worth a certain amount of money. If you want to make more money, you need to improve your skillset. Why do you think people should get more money just because they want it, not because they deserve it?
Yep - well aware of the situation. I moved up the ladder in surveying over a 25 year career (incl college courses while working full time) until I got to the point I'd have to give up the field and play office politics, which I turned down. All I ever expected was to be treated honestly and respectfully, which is why I stayed with the same employer for decades. But I spent a decade out of HS doing everything in the world and probably averaged over a job a year, so I'm not naive about the workplace, either.

Yes, I agree about skill sets, how could I not given my career? And I do think people should get a raise when they increase their skill set, which most do just by doing their job and trying to make it better. The only other "raise" should be from inflation because, most likely, the product price increases for inflation, too, just as everything else does. No reason to pay the worker less this year than he was paid last year when, in fact, he's probably gotten better at his job.


There is no neutral ground, the employee is *ALWAYS* inferior to the employer. Deal with it. You keep acting like they're equivalent and they're not.
Exactly the point we've been trying to make and the point so many other anti-union people have tried to refute. I'm glad one of you sees the situation as it truly is. :)
 
Exactly the point we've been trying to make and the point so many other anti-union people have tried to refute. I'm glad one of you sees the situation as it truly is. :)

Yes, I see it as it is, and as it ought to be. You seem to dislike reality.
 
Yes, I see it as it is, and as it ought to be. You seem to dislike reality.
If you mean I think the world could be a better place, then you're right, I dislike reality. That doesn't change my ability to see it like it is.
 
Last edited:
If you mean I think the world could be a better place, then you're right, I dislike reality. That doesn't change my ability to see it like it is.

I think it's perfectly fine the way it is, people need to accept their place in the world and if they don't like where they are, improve their place, don't try to change the whole system. The American way of life is based on bettering yourself, not on bringing the whole system down to your level.
 
I think it's perfectly fine the way it is, people need to accept their place in the world and if they don't like where they are, improve their place, don't try to change the whole system. The American way of life is based on bettering yourself, not on bringing the whole system down to your level.

I think that used to be pretty much the case, but many people seem to think we should all be equally miserable nowadays.
 
I think it's perfectly fine the way it is, people need to accept their place in the world and if they don't like where they are, improve their place, don't try to change the whole system. The American way of life is based on bettering yourself, not on bringing the whole system down to your level.
I don't want to bring the system down - but that doesn't mean it's perfect and can't use some improvement. Our latest Crash should be evidence enough of that.
 
I think that used to be pretty much the case, but many people seem to think we should all be equally miserable nowadays.
No, the problem nowadays is the poor are constantly being hammered with "you should be better than you are" instead of society simply accepting that some people are already as good as they're going to get - and could be quite happy about it if others would quit condemning their choices. (Not talking about you, there. I don't think you're that way - though I could be wrong.)

I grew up lower middle-class but went to HS with what would be millionaire's kids, today. They never looked down their nose at me because I was poor. It doesn't work that way, anymore. Now it's a shame to be poor - unless, of course, everyone around you is also poor.
 
Last edited:
And I pointed out that that many new jobs will not be created and/or vacated, which just goes to show our expectations of reality seldom intersect it. But, hey, everyone needs hope. If 30,000,000 people think they can find a better job next year, more power to them We'll ignore the simple fact that 30,000,000 new jobs (incl. retirements) will not happen. Moving from burger flipper I at McD's to burger flipper I at BK really isn't a step up.

Well that may or may not be true. But, since we know that:

A) the US workforce is highly mobile, with people often holding 8 or more positions over the course of their working lives and
B) the older workers earn significantly more than the younger workers, it would seem that _
C) your depiction of their job-hopping is inaccurate, and their picture of their job-hopping is correct.

I'm sorry if you apparently are unable to self-improve to the point where you are able to command superior levels of compensation. But you need to understand that that is not the general American experience.

See, if you were correct, then this chart here?

household-income-by-age-bracket-median-real.gif


wouldn't look like that, as there would be no major discernable differences.


If you conned someone into paying you twice as much for doing the same job then Congrats!

No Con needed.

My bet is, it's not the same job

:lol: actually, it is :). But my new employers will be compensating me for my superior education and abilities, whereas my current one does not. So, when this contract runs out.... :) I'm gone.

And I wonder where the guy that used to fill this new position went?

:shrug: it may be a new position altogether, or that guy apparently moved on and up himself.
 
I was one of them, years ago. Then I moved up the chain of command. I have no respect for people who sit on their thumbs for their entire lives and never better themselves, which is what you seem to support. You seem to think that people deserve to get more because they're breathing, not because they've earned it.

Who said anything about people sitting on their thumbs? What makes you think people who are in a union are NOT hard workers. I will tell you that this isn't true.

What makes you put yourself so far above your fellow humans anyway? Why do you think you are so much "better" than anyone else?

Perhaps you had opportunities that other people don't? Did you ever think about that? Not everyone has a "brain for business" you know. Some people will be laborers and construction workers or electricians and plumbers. Why should they make less? Are the jobs they do not valuable overall?

I think you need to be knocked down off your high horse. :mrgreen: Your posts are becoming QUITE arrogant.
 
Well that may or may not be true. But, since we know that:

A) the US workforce is highly mobile, with people often holding 8 or more positions over the course of their working lives and
B) the older workers earn significantly more than the younger workers, it would seem that _
C) your depiction of their job-hopping is inaccurate, and their picture of their job-hopping is correct.
I believe you've misinterpreted my picture of "job hopping" (and I suspect intentionally because you had no where to go the other way). You can hop all you want but if you're not getting a better deal the hop was worthless. 99% of the time if you're getting more pay it's because the job has changed (i.e., it has different/more requirements). Janitor I is Janitor I and, assuming there are no other qualifications, will pay the same just about everywhere. If Joe, a burger flipper I at McD's, trades jobs with Bill, a burger flipper I at BK, that isn't "changing jobs" to me. There's no "upward mobility" going on there - it's just a lateral move and usually occurs because of boredom or a personally clash or someone needing to move to another location. Regardless of the reason, it's still not a change of jobs.

I'm sorry if you apparently are unable to self-improve to the point where you are able to command superior levels of compensation. But you need to understand that that is not the general American experience.
I'm sorry you feel only poor, lost souls who can't do well on their own can have my beliefs. Once again you've shown yourself to be quite wrong.


See, if you were correct, then this chart here?

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...usehold-income-by-age-bracket-median-real.gif

wouldn't look like that, as there would be no major discernable differences.
Your chart is as irrelevant now as it was two pages ago. This shows income, not pay from job compensation.


No Con needed.

:lol: actually, it is. But my new employers will be compensating me for my superior education and abilities, whereas my current one does not. So, when this contract runs out.... I'm gone.
And why would God's gift to employers take such a lower paying job (essentially half pay IIRC) when he has the "superior education and abilities" you claim to have?


:shrug: it may be a new position altogether, or that guy apparently moved on and up himself.
If he moved on and up then someone else somewhere along the food chain has retired, died, etc. Job openings can only be created from new jobs in the marketplace or retirements from the workforce. But, hey, if you're saying Obama's economic policies will create 30,000,000 new jobs and/or allow 30,000,000 to retire then I'm good with that admission. :D




You already presented all this and I already addressed it - including your personal horn blowing - about two pages ago, depending on how you display pages. You 'seem' to have missed it but I'm more willing to bet you simply had no counter and ignored it as you do anything else that doesn't move your position forward.
 
Last edited:
Europe took your approach - how's that working out for them???

On the contrary. Europe tried the "Balanced Approach" of imaginary spending cuts an very real tax increases. Answer, so far, not well.
 
On the contrary. Europe tried the "Balanced Approach" of imaginary spending cuts an very real tax increases. Answer, so far, not well.
So spending more and taxing less - the exact opposite of Europe - was the correct course! :)
 
I believe you've misinterpreted my picture of "job hopping" (and I suspect intentionally because you had no where to go the other way). You can hop all you want but if you're not getting a better deal the hop was worthless. 99% of the time if you're getting more pay it's because the job has changed (i.e., it has different/more requirements). Janitor I is Janitor I and, assuming there are no other qualifications, will pay the same just about everywhere. If Joe, a burger flipper I at McD's, trades jobs with Bill, a burger flipper I at BK, that isn't "changing jobs" to me. There's no "upward mobility" going on there - it's just a lateral move and usually occurs because of boredom or a personally clash or someone needing to move to another location. Regardless of the reason, it's still not a change of jobs.

Except that mostly people don't do that. If you would ever both to read the article I continually cite you, you will note that most of them are leaving for higher paying positions. The vast majority of Americans, as we grow, add skills and experience that allow us to move up the ladder; either with our current employers, or by seeking new ones.

I'm sorry you feel only poor, lost souls who can't do well on their own can have my beliefs.

:shrug: your flat refusal to accept basic statistical reality further indicates that reason is not driving your response, but rather emotion.

Your chart is as irrelevant now as it was two pages ago. This shows income, not pay from job compensation.

Which is a distinction without a difference. Not least because the largest portion of compensation (and the most rapidly rising one) over the past couple of decades has been healthcare, which gets more expensive the more you age. If those shifts in wages were reflecting a constant total compensation package then young people would be getting paid more than old people, not the other way around. :)

Had, for example, compensation remained largely constant across age groups, while the mixture shifted between wage and benefits, you would see a decrease in the relative wage income of older workers, as healthcare costs have increased at an above-inflationary rate for the past 30 or so years. However, you will notice that when we look to see if that is the case, what we notice is that in fact the exact opposite has occurred:

household-income-by-age-bracket-median-real-growth.gif


So, in fact, when we shift from simple "income" to "compensation" the data is even more in my favor.

And why would God's gift to employers take such a lower paying job (essentially half pay IIRC) when he has the "superior education and abilities" you claim to have?

Because taking this job allowed me to get that superior education and job experience. :) Like most Americans, as I grow, I add skills and experience that make me worth more in the job-market.

If he moved on and up then someone else somewhere along the food chain has retired, died, etc. Job openings can only be created from new jobs in the marketplace or retirements from the workforce.

That is simply mathematically farcical. For the extreme example to demonstrate the rule, if you had a single organization with a single hierarchy that was a straight ladder and held 30 million positions, then only 1 person would have to retire and 1 new job would have to be created at the bottom for 30 million people to move up.

But, hey, if you're saying Obama's economic policies will create 30,000,000 new jobs and/or allow 30,000,000 to retire then I'm good with that admission.

:lol: Even within the false boundaries of the model you are arguing (see immediately above), you are confusing "jobs created" with "net jobs created". Even in the middle of the downturn the American economy was still a churn-and-burn of jobs created and destroyed. The relevant question is - which number is higher, and by how much. So, for example, when we say "In April of 2013 there were 174,000 jobs created", we don't mean that 174K jobs were created and everyone else just stuck tight. We mean that 2,300,000 periods of employment ceased, and 2,474,000 periods of employment began. A-B="Jobs Created".
 
So spending more and taxing less - the exact opposite of Europe - was the correct course! :)

Well, no. If the correct direction to go in is North, and your buddy fails by going West, the solution is not East.
 
I don't want to bring the system down - but that doesn't mean it's perfect and can't use some improvement. Our latest Crash should be evidence enough of that.

Lots of people do want to reduce the system to the lowest common denominator, want to make minimum wage a living wage, want to be able to raise a family on a ditch-digger's salary, want to afford smartphones while working as a door greeter at Walmart, etc. There is no expectation that you need to work your way up and earn a good living, you should just be handed it on day one.

That's just stupid.
 
Lots of people do want to reduce the system to the lowest common denominator,
No

want to make minimum wage a living wage,
Yes

want to be able to raise a family on a ditch-digger's salary,
Yes, but certainly not in luxury

want to afford smartphones
not just no but hell no! They still need a cheap phone, though.

while working as a door greeter at Walmart, etc. There is no expectation that you need to work your way up and earn a good living, you should just be handed it on day one.

That's just stupid.
You should not be handed a "good living" at all, but we - as a society - should provide enough to live poorly yet safely and quit insisting that "everyone can be rich if they work hard enough". What nonsense! Certainly wealth can come from any social class (always easier the higher up you start, though) but that doesn't mean we're all going to get rich even if we study and work our asses off for 50 years. If everyone managed a college degree or a good 2-year trade school we'd still need janitors and burger flippers for society to function. That isn't going to change anytime soon and making those people into pariahs and insisting they must keep up with the Jones's doesn't do a damn thing except lead to discontent because not everyone has the ability to become rich or keep up with the Jones's.
 
Last edited:
Except that mostly people don't do that. If you would ever both to read the article I continually cite you, you will note that most of them are leaving for higher paying positions. The vast majority of Americans, as we grow, add skills and experience that allow us to move up the ladder; either with our current employers, or by seeking new ones.
If you move up the ladder then it's a different job, not the same one. You continue to misunderstand my position.


:shrug: your flat refusal to accept basic statistical reality further indicates that reason is not driving your response, but rather emotion.
No, you made direct reference to my "unabl(ity) to self-improve to the point where you are able to command superior levels of compensation.", which not only assumes I didn't self-improve but also assumes I didn't command superior levels of compensation - by which I assume you mean more pay. Obviously your response was emotional because you know nothing about my life for a fact and even the facts I have revealed aren't enough for you to conclude any of the above without your own emotional response getting in the way of reason. In other words, labeling my responses as emotional is the pot calling the kettle black.


Which is a distinction without a difference. Not least because the largest portion of compensation (and the most rapidly rising one) over the past couple of decades has been healthcare, which gets more expensive the more you age. If those shifts in wages were reflecting a constant total compensation package then young people would be getting paid more than old people, not the other way around.

Had, for example, compensation remained largely constant across age groups, while the mixture shifted between wage and benefits, you would see a decrease in the relative wage income of older workers, as healthcare costs have increased at an above-inflationary rate for the past 30 or so years. However, you will notice that when we look to see if that is the case, what we notice is that in fact the exact opposite has occurred:

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-income-by-age-bracket-median-real-growth.gif

So, in fact, when we shift from simple "income" to "compensation" the data is even more in my favor.
You have obviously never looked at how employers pay for group health insurance, though it's possible there have been radical changes in the last four years since my semi-retirement.


Because taking this job allowed me to get that superior education and job experience. :) Like most Americans, as I grow, I add skills and experience that make me worth more in the job-market.
I see. So when you took your current job you didn't have these skills. Do you honestly believe without these additional skills you could "command superior levels of compensation"? My guess to your answer is "no". Keep making my point and we'll eventually get there.


That is simply mathematically farcical. For the extreme example to demonstrate the rule, if you had a single organization with a single hierarchy that was a straight ladder and held 30 million positions, then only 1 person would have to retire and 1 new job would have to be created at the bottom for 30 million people to move up.

:lol: Even within the false boundaries of the model you are arguing (see immediately above), you are confusing "jobs created" with "net jobs created". Even in the middle of the downturn the American economy was still a churn-and-burn of jobs created and destroyed. The relevant question is - which number is higher, and by how much. So, for example, when we say "In April of 2013 there were 174,000 jobs created", we don't mean that 174K jobs were created and everyone else just stuck tight. We mean that 2,300,000 periods of employment ceased, and 2,474,000 periods of employment began. A-B="Jobs Created".
So you believe each field has eight levels of hierarchy? I supposed that's possible but it seems pretty top-heavy compared to reality. Instead of showing statistics on what people expect to do, why don't you show statistics on what people did last year and see if the two are even close?
 
I have had two union jobs in the past (early 80's) but after seeing what each stood for I secured positions where my performance as an individual could be graded and rewarded.
After looking at the poll, I noticed that Unionists on this forum are a higher proportion than unionism is in the general population. Currently unions have about 12% of the work force, and the numbers are going down. Automobile manufacturing is moving to non-closes shop states, Aircraft manufacturing is doing the same. Unions are the "elite" of the work force in that they make huge wages as compared to the lower wage workers; such that lower wage workers cannot afford to buy union made products. That is where the disparity of income hurts the normal worker; not the very high income of the rich.

Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap
April 24, 2012: 5:00 AM ET
Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

When someone blames the rich he over looks the things one can do to elevate their position in life and increase their own wealth.
 
When someone blames the rich he over looks the things one can do to elevate their position in life and increase their own wealth.
Well that's just nonsense. If everyone had a college degree or two years in trade school we would still need burger flippers and janitors. Someone has to work for a living, we can't all be at the top.
 
Back
Top Bottom