• 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 .
Rocketman said:
anyone but you, that is apparent and sad
Click to expand...

Totally NOT sad. As a matter of fact, I am extremely happy I'll have you know. :mrgreen:
 
ChrisL said:
Totally NOT sad. As a matter of fact, I am extremely happy I'll have you know. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Most liberals on the government teet are, we are not surprised
 
Rocketman said:
Anyone with any life experience knows that companies are closing and the unions are part of the problem. Sucks to be you.
Click to expand...
I guess my 50+ years doesn't qualify as "life experience" then. :lamo


Ed:
And I don't get a government check.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket??? :lamo again
 
Rocketman said:
Most liberals on the government teet are, we are not surprised
Click to expand...

Well I am neither of those things. I am employed, and I'm not even a union member. I only know about them because I dated a guy who was in one, and my uncle is also in one. So go on with your assumptions. It's really quite amusing. :2razz: I've got to have dinner now, but I'll be back later so you can call me a poopy head or something. :lol:
 
MoSurveyor said:
I guess my 50+ years doesn't qualify as "life experience" then. :lamo
Click to expand...

IF you are denying unions are much of the problem, no you don't count
 
ChrisL said:
Well I am neither of those things. I am employed, and I'm not even a union member. I only know about them because I dated a guy who was in one, and my uncle is also in one. So go on with your assumptions. It's really quite amusing. :2razz: I've got to have dinner now, but I'll be back later so you can call me a poopy head or something. :lol:
Click to expand...

"you dated a guy":lamo:lamo Post whatever you want I realize now how much your argument has been about nothing
 
Rocketman said:
IF you are denying unions are much of the problem, no you don't count
Click to expand...

Why would a union work against it's members' interests to shut down a business, and if they did, why would their members go along with it? Your premise is frankly insane.
 
Rocketman said:
IF you are denying unions are much of the problem, no you don't count
Click to expand...
Sucks to be you.


And I bet MY Mopar is bigger than your Mopar! :tongue4:
 
MoSurveyor said:
Again you're trying to apply a commodities model to people
Click to expand...

No, I am applying economics to labor. You seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp this basic concept - labor obeys the laws of supply and demand.

A supply/demand model might work for iron ore and paper but it can't work for people because you can't just park them in a warehouse and shut down production for awhile until the price goes back up.
Click to expand...

Really? Here I thought we had a thing called "Unemployment".

Unless you're willing to let those idle people die, the supply cannot be adjusted to the demand.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing "what we want to have happen" with "what really happens". Just because labor is the thing that most of us sell doesn't mean that there will magically be infinite demand for it at the prices we would prefer.

As a society we've decided not to let people die
Click to expand...

That is correct - we have a social welfare system. In no way whatsoever does that invalidate the basic point that A) labor obeys the laws of supply and demand and B) workers have the ability to seek better compensation.

So, what happens then? The people that are still working pay for those people to be idle, which reduces consumer spending and drags the economy further down.
Click to expand...

Wrong. What happens is that the supply of available labor is increased which means that it's price drops, which means that demand (at the lower price) is higher.

At least, this is what happens until someone (and by someone I mean "government") decides to jack with that process by putting price controls on labor.






Saw this today and thought it rather apropos for this discussion:


One in three employees (33 percent) say they plan to look for a new job this year and nearly one in five (18 percent) say they'll be looking in the next three months, according to a new survey by Harris Interactive for job-search site Glassdoor.com.

Over at Indeed.com, their survey showed the number of employees making a New Year's resolution to get a new job jumped to 38 percent.

Part of this shot of confidence comes from the early signs of recovery in the job market, like the December jobs report, and part of it comes from the fact that most companies, while more stable than in recent years, are not confident enough to start handing out raises....

And, of course, the No. 1 reason people cited when it comes to accepting a job offer is money.

Nearly three out of four (73 percent) cited salary and compensation as their top deciding factor, followed by location/commute (55 percent), career growth opportunities (30 percent) and the amount of work expected (22 percent)...
Click to expand...

Huh. Looks like American workers think that your theory of labor immobility and an inevitable race to the bottom is crap.
 
MoSurveyor said:
rocketman said:
Anyone with any life experience knows that companies are closing and the unions are part of the problem.
Click to expand...
I guess my 50+ years doesn't qualify as "life experience" then. :lamo
Click to expand...

Was it during this fifty years?

union-membership-mark-perry-blog.jpg



....cause.... this rough half-century (well, 62 years) seems to rather credit his thesis. If unions were succesfull models of organization, we would see them expanding as they beat out the competition.
 
Rocketman said:
"you dated a guy":lamo:lamo Post whatever you want I realize now how much your argument has been about nothing
Click to expand...

You've been using nothing BUT anecdotal evidence, and unlike you I have provided links to data. I figured it was okay for me to use an anecdotal story since it seems to be the only evidence that you've been using.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Sucks to be you.


And I bet MY Mopar is bigger than your Mopar! :tongue4:
Click to expand...



I have a 69 Super Bee w/440 and an 09 Challenger SRT8........you?
 
cpwill said:
Was it during this fifty years?

union-membership-mark-perry-blog.jpg



....cause.... this rough half-century (well, 62 years) seems to rather credit his thesis. If unions were succesfull models of organization, we would see them expanding as they beat out the competition.
Click to expand...
That doesn't address the quesiton of "workers being part of the problem".

This is just another ill-thought post that peaches instead of discusses.
 
MoSurveyor said:
That doesn't address the quesiton of "workers being part of the problem".

This is just another ill-thought post that peaches instead of discusses.
Click to expand...

Workers aren't part of the problem. Unions are part of the problem. They reduce growth, kill off businesses, and decrease employment. That's why that graph is one long slide downwards - inefficient means of organization being outcompeted by superior models.
 
cpwill said:
No, I am applying economics to labor. You seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp this basic concept - labor obeys the laws of supply and demand.
Click to expand...
People are NOT commodities that can be parked in a warehouse nor idled like a piece of machinery when the market lags in demand. People are a constant and changes in the "production" of people take decades, not months.


cpwill said:
Really? Here I thought we had a thing called "Unemployment".
Click to expand...
It's called Public Assistance (aka Welfare) when it continues past 6 months - or when the Republicans can be pushed into accepting a longer time-frame.

cpwill said:
You seem to be confusing "what we want to have happen" with "what really happens". Just because labor is the thing that most of us sell doesn't mean that there will magically be infinite demand for it at the prices we would prefer.
Click to expand...
Then we as a people are destined to paying welfare for the long-term unemployed OR shipping people out of the country OR letting them die in the streets. Of course, "the People", at least the majority of them, have absolutely no control over the labor market so - as usual - we as a People are subject to the whims of business. In other words, if business doesn't pay. the People end up paying in the form of taxes.

cpwill said:
That is correct - we have a social welfare system. In no way whatsoever does that invalidate the basic point that A) labor obeys the laws of supply and demand and B) workers have the ability to seek better compensation.
Click to expand...
A) Only from a business perspective does labor obey supply/demand. From a societal standpoint it can't - unless you're willing to let people die from poverty.
B) Workers almost always have the option to seek better compensation, the question is How many workers will actually get better compensation? There are only a given number of "high-paying" jobs available, so not all the people making minimum wage today will be making $50/hr tomorrow regardless of how qualified they are, how many sacrifices they're willing to make, or how hard they work to get them.

cpwill said:
Wrong. What happens is that the supply of available labor is increased which means that it's price drops, which means that demand (at the lower price) is higher.

At least, this is what happens until someone (and by someone I mean "government") decides to jack with that process by putting price controls on labor.
Click to expand...
People can't live on $3/hr. regardless of how much you or the business community would like them to. When the $$$/hr of labor falls below a certain point society, not business, starts paying to keep those people idled or underpaid - again, unless you're willing to let people die from poverty.


cpwill said:
Saw this today and thought it rather apropos for this discussion:

Huh. Looks like American workers think that your theory of labor immobility and an inevitable race to the bottom is crap.
Click to expand...
The race to the bottom has already happened with the Crash of 2008. PhD's now working as hotel clerks, hotel clerks now working as janitors, and janitors now living off the tax-payers. And they never hit bottom because of "government interference", as you call it. Since there is simply no consumer demand to drive the economy (except it's slow acceleration after slamming on the brakes of a freight train!) it wouldn't matter if people were getting paid $3/hr - there still wouldn't be any jobs. Not only that, the people that had those $3/hr jobs wouldn't be buying anything but bad food and more cardboard for their "house".



Here you are just preaching, again, instead of discussing. It's fine for the business community to treat people like commodities but as a society we cannot do that - unless you're willing to let people die from poverty. If you're not willing to do that, then either the business community or the tax payers are going to pay for idled and underpaid workers. You may as well call public assistance and unemployment insurance by their real name - corporate welfare: society paying for idled workers so businesses can continue making a short-term profit at the expense of the future, both of business and society.

The Bottom Line of this discussion is simple - idle workers still need money to live. If the tax-payers foot the bill then less money is spent on goods and services. If business foots the bill then goods and services cost more. However, with the present system, businesses have no incentive to keep people on the payroll - in fact, they're often celebrated on Wall St when they lay people off, making those idled people a burden on the tax-payer instead of on business. Corporate welfare at it's finest.
 
cpwill said:
Workers aren't part of the problem. Unions are part of the problem. They reduce growth, kill off businesses, and decrease employment. That's why that graph is one long slide downwards - inefficient means of organization being outcompeted by superior models.
Click to expand...
Yeah - we'll just forget $0.50/hr jobs in China and decreases in the cost of shipping. :roll:

We can rule out EPA guidelines to assure the health of the populace - I'm sure THAT has nothing to do with it. I'm know you would have lived downwind of a steel plant had you been alive in 1960. :roll:


You're so fixated on your hatred for unions that you can't see the other things that have happened in the last 50+ years that also affected the American economy. Since you didn't live it I suggest you do some reading.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Yeah - we'll just forget $0.50/hr jobs in China and decreases in the cost of shipping. :roll:

We can rule out EPA guidelines to assure the health of the populace - I'm sure THAT has nothing to do with it. I'm know you would have lived downwind of a steel plant had you been alive in 1960. :roll:


You're so fixated on your hatred for unions that you can't see the other things that have happened in the last 50+ years that also affected the American economy. Since you didn't live it I suggest you do some reading.
Click to expand...

Unions also ensure the safety of the worker. That is NOT the case with nonunion construction companies. Union job sites have OSHA visiting on a routine basis.
 
cpwill said:
Was it during this fifty years?

union-membership-mark-perry-blog.jpg



....cause.... this rough half-century (well, 62 years) seems to rather credit his thesis. If unions were succesfull models of organization, we would see them expanding as they beat out the competition.
Click to expand...
You mean like this?

worldmfg.jpg
 
ChrisL said:
Unions also ensure the safety of the worker. That is NOT the case with nonunion construction companies. Union job sites have OSHA visiting on a routine basis.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I did forget to mention OSHA started up during that time as well. *thumbsup*
 
ChrisL said:
Unions also ensure the safety of the worker. That is NOT the case with nonunion construction companies. Union job sites have OSHA visiting on a routine basis.
Click to expand...

*ALL* jobsites have OSHA visiting on a routine basis. Unions have nothing to do with it.
 
Cephus said:
*ALL* jobsites have OSHA visiting on a routine basis. Unions have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

That is NOT true. OSHA has TONS of job sites. Union job sites are priority. Union members have to take safety classes and be OSHA certified.
 
ChrisL said:
That is NOT true. OSHA has TONS of job sites. Union job sites are priority. Union members have to take safety classes and be OSHA certified.
Click to expand...

That's a sweeping statement that simply is not true, I know people in unions who do not take any classes whatsoever, etc. I checked the OSHA site and it says nothing about union sites being a priority, in fact, the only thing I could find that it said about unions is that the union rep ought to be notified when an OSHA inspector is on site.

Where do you get this information?
 
Cephus said:
That's a sweeping statement that simply is not true, I know people in unions who do not take any classes whatsoever, etc. I checked the OSHA site and it says nothing about union sites being a priority, in fact, the only thing I could find that it said about unions is that the union rep ought to be notified when an OSHA inspector is on site.

Where do you get this information?
Click to expand...

And this is from several years ago.

LHSFNA: OSHA 10-Hour


In an effort to ensure that proper training is provided in a timely fashion – at least on construction projects financed by the public – LIUNA’s New England Regional Office launched a series of efforts to encourage states in the region to require OSHA 10-hour training on all state projects. After Rhode Island in 2002, Massachusetts (effective July 1, 2006), Connecticut (July 1, 2007) and, this summer, New Hampshire (effective September 14) have enacted the necessary legislation. Also, in its most recent session, New York adopted the OSHA 10-hour requirement, to take effect around the first of next year after the regulatory details are worked out.
 
cpwill said:
Workers aren't part of the problem. Unions are part of the problem. They reduce growth, kill off businesses, and decrease employment. That's why that graph is one long slide downwards - inefficient means of organization being outcompeted by superior models.
Click to expand...
Get a now line - that one is old and inaccurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom