- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
72 Road Runner/GTX (for 72-74 the GTX badge only came on the factory 440 Road Runners). There's a pic of it somewhere on this site.
-
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?
- Thread starter Rocketman
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
No, the laborers union is not a "public sector" union. They do some local work details and things like that but not governmental employee unions.
It's the law for laborers and other construction workers to be OSHA certified in most states in New England. I don't know if it is in other parts of the country. Maybe someone more familiar with their region could answer that. However, you cannot deny that union construction sites are safer overall. Of course, I expect nothing but the usual stubborn replies though.
American Rights at Work - How Unions Make Workplaces Safer
Unions help to enforce health and safety standards in a number of important ways:
Unions can gather information about dangerous conditions more effectively than individual workers can. An important study of the role unions play in OSHA standards enforcement found that unionized workers are more likely to know about the health and safety risks in their workplaces than non-unionized workers, since on-the-job risk assessment is a common component of union health and safety programs. Unions are commonly equipped to do this important fact finding or expose a company’s inadequate training system to enforcement agencies.
Unionized workers can speak out about dangerous conditions collectively, rather than individually, thereby decreasing the risk to an individual employee of being targeted by management as a troublemaker. In addition, the collective voice of the workers in the union carries more strength than that of a lone worker; increasing the likelihood the employer will honor the workers’ request for compliance.
Where workers are union members, the intensity of an OSHA inspection is increased. Why is this? Although the OSHA law gives every worker the right to accompany an OSHA inspector during a workplace tour, pointing out issues that may easily have been overlooked by the inspector, unionized workers are far more likely to participate in the inspections.1 A safer workplace can result when workers’ rights to actively participate in OSHA inspections are promoted and protected.
Cephus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 31,034
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Location
- CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I can only go by what you quote and you stated that there were regulations on state projects. That suggests that the regulations do not apply to non-state projects.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
In LIUNA, ALL members have to be OSHA certified before they are allowed to work on ANY projects.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Safety is a big reason. Better wages. Better benefits. NOT getting screwed over by you employer, which happens QUITE often in the construction biz. Lots of lowlifes.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Employees at Wal-Mart, a well known anti-union company demands that their employee's take safety classes and be OSHA certified to. (I know, I worked for Wal-Mart for a bit) So...what was your point again?
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
That's not the case in the construction industry. Don't get me wrong, I don't think unions are necessary in EVERY line of work, but I also KNOW that not all unions are "bad" like some people try to make them out to be. Are they perfect? Of course not, but a some of them are very good to their employees and do care. :shrug:
For people to say that all unions are bad and unnecessary is rather short-sighted IMO.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Nice. A good grown-up response. :rofl
Attachments
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,619
- Reaction score
- 39,894
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
:lol: I like how you answer with moral outrage, but fail to answer the point. Labor does exist on a Supply/Demand curve and policies that ignore that truth will fail and the result will be harm to workers.
But hey, feel free to come explain your position on the thread devoted to just this exact topic. You will note that so far the vote is 26-1 against your position.
:shrug: you can call it whatever you like, the fact remains that we do shift labor around between multiple uses, and occasionally it isn't employed.
On the contrary, we don't need to do any of these things, nor are they doomed. Labor is wonderful because we as people are not insects - we can learn new trades, do new things. Entire industries can get thrown out of work through advancement in the economy and be reabsorbed so long as we don't muck up the process of that reallocation through misguided efforts built on silly notions like "labor is not effected by supply and demand". The Horse and Buggy industry was pretty much destroyed by the automobile, and yet we didn't see a generation of unemployed leatherworkers, farriers, and carriage-builders; they went to work elsewhere, doing other things.
On the contrary, the majority of the people is what controls the market. Which, after all, is really just a handy term for "the aggregate economic decisions of all people".
How silly. No we aren't. Firstly, there is no such thing as a single entity known as "business". There are individual businesses, who compete among each other over people. Secondly, people are not tied by law to the particular businesses at which they work or from whom they purchase. If McDonalds decides to change the recipe in the Secret Sauce, I am free to start going to Burger King. If my employer does not pay me what my labor is worth, then I am free to go work for a competitor. Businesses spend a lot of time and money trying to figure out what we want because they are subject to our whims (if they want to survive), not the other way 'round.
On the contrary, as discussed, people are not cogs that can only fit at certain points in certain machines.
Well, I, for example, will probably be doubling my pay in the next year and a half, because I will be leaving one employer to work for another. From there I expect to leave that employer for a later increase in compensation, and so on and so forth. How many workers? Most of them. In fact, the vast majority of them. We tend to only spend about 3-4 years at a job, and the older you get, the more money you tend to make. Ergo, when we change jobs, we are usually changing it for higher pay.
Heck fully 33% of US Workers plan to change jobs THIS YEAR, with increasing compensation driving three fourths of that change.
Really? Which is better for them - $3 an hour, or $0 an hour? Because when you put an artificial price floor on labor, you are creating unemployment. Which, after all, was the point of minimum wage laws in the first place.
I would agree that our society starts subsidizing people when their income falls below certain levels. But we already do this for the low income - there is no reason why we would not do so for the lower income. Indeed, since we will be moving those people from zero income to low income, this would reduce the cost to the state, as they would require less subsidy.
We certainly have alot of misallocation of human capital. That's not a little bit thanks to our "everyone needs to go to college!" mantra that we shove down the throats of high school students. The world does not need that many professional interpreters of Chaucer.
Well, no. We bottomed out. We simply haven't recovered terribly well thanks to government interference. Just like the last time we tried that.
On the contrary, since labor is effected by supply and demand, at lower prices, there is greater demand. Nor, (as you point out above) would those people who made lower wages be homeless and starving - they would either be subsidized or (more likely) be part of a household.
And furthermore, they need more money to help increase their standard of living. That is why economic growth and policies designed to have the most efficient labor market possible are so vital. Labor laws which artificially jack up the price of labor don't hurt the rich that much - the rich can adjust. It hurts labor, which is priced out of the market.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,619
- Reaction score
- 39,894
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I don't think anyone has made that argument. What most of us are saying is that the model lends itself to abuse, is generally built around coercion, and has destructive economic effects.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Actually the union model is based around the old Aesop's Fable of the man teaching his son about the strength of a bundle of sticks.
I see nothing in your post to support any claim about destructive economic effects.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I'm sorry you thinks it's "moral outrage". It was nothing more than a statement of the facts without the pleasant labels. If you believe it's moral outrage then maybe you should rethink your position on the subject.
Did you bother to put your question into these terms, which is a quote from the post you just quoted here?
"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."
If not then your search for popular approval is as empty and dishonest as a politician's.
And when it's not employed it falls on society to support the "machinery" - not the business community.
You haven't shown any other option besides those given. If you're suggesting there will ever be 100% employment you're living in Dream Land.
Which is not the same thing as conscious control (assuming you believe in free will). I know you can't seem to grasp this concept, though, since you hate collective bargaining - which is another example of conscious control instead of aggregate decision.
Burger King is going to pay you the same poor wages for flipping burgers as McD's does. "Going to a competitor" doesn't change the reality of the situation for the workers when businesses pay the same wages for the same job.
Burger Flipper 1 - $7.25/hr
fry cook 1 - $8/hr
fry cook 2 - $8.25/hr
Never said they were. Again we butt up against your intentional misinterpretation.
However, to use your analogy, machines require certain cogs in certain places for the machine function. The cost of those cogs doesn't change just because the machine has a different owner.
Congratulations! You actually found someone to pay you twice as much for doing the same job you're doing now!
Too bad they used income instead of pay. This does nothing to advance your case. A 50-yr-old janitor makes the same money mopping floors at McD's as the 16-yr-old teen.
Let's see - 3/4 of 33% is 25%. You can attempt to persuade me that the job market will have 25% more jobs from job creation and retirements - but I don't think you'll manage it even with the skewed numbers you sometimes use. Your story just proves that people's expectations seldom become reality.
I don't remember any significant problems from minimum wage in the late-50's/60's and even into the 70's.
30 million people, ~20% of the labor force, make below $10/hr. Change the wage structure and instead of 30m making an average of $8/hr you'll have 35m making $6/hr OR LESS. Assuming society pays up to minimum wage in the form of public assistance what you'd have would be payroll going from ~$500bn/yr to ~$435bn/yr and public assistance going from $75bn/yr (for the unemployed 5 mil) to ~$90bn/yr to cover the income gap.
Further, you'd have $50bn/yr less going to the bottom 20% - and I'd bet good money the price of goods and services won't decrease. Instead, the extra $50bn will end up in the hands of people in the top 10%. I doubt they'll use that for consumer spending like the bottom 20% would.
I couldn't agree more about that. As a society we certainly do need to address the way we train our young people for life in the Jungle. But, sadly, the only reasonable way to make a higher wage is through a college education. People will continue to chase the carrot as long as it's the only thing within sight to eat. Even "professional interpreters of Chaucer" can be teachers, which still pay a more than janitors even figuring in the cost of college. Even if it's break even people will take it because teacher as a "respectable job" - janitor isn't.
OMG! We agreed twice in the same day. There must be snowballs flying around in hell.
No, society supported workers past the standard 6 month unemployment insurance window. Had society not done that many people would be dead - just like the 1930's.
On a side note:
Still preaching the same old crap, I see. :roll:
Should I go back and whine about Bush needlessly spending, spending, and spending while lowering taxes??? Clinton and the Republican Congress managed to balance the budget (or damn near - depending on which numbers you use) and Bush ****ed it all up within a year and continued ****ing it up until The Crash.
And here I thought you didn't believe in interfering with the market. LOL! If business isn't paying people enough to live on then who is???
As shown above, 35m people making $6/hr is worse for society than 30m making $8/hr and 5m being subsidized.
You continue to look at only the effects on business without regard for the effects on society. An ideal business model would be $0/hr for labor - and let society foot the entire bill. What more could an employer want?!? Not so good for society, though.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So does the standard business model.
Ditto
Ditto
Time to throw out the standard business model!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Like Mo said, the same can be said of any company that isn't union-related. The employer/employee relationship can be very volatile if there are no checks in order. Just look at history. That is the reason why unions were invented.
Cephus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 31,034
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Location
- CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Unions were created because people worked in dangerous conditions for virtually no money. The majority of things unions were originally created for have now been corrected under the law and apply across the board. Now, unions are for the greedy.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Good Lord, are you suggesting that all employers follow the law, and that employees are equal to their employers? That is beyond ridiculous.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
What if an employee is fired wrongly from a job. That employee (who no longer has a job) has to come up with money for an attorney, money to survive while he finds a new job, etc., meanwhile his OUT of a job. Meanwhile, the employee has to also prove that he was wrongfully terminated from his job. The employer, OTH, cannot claim those same kinds of hardships. The unions help employees in these types of situations by providing legal representation, and in the case of LIUNA they also provide their "brothers" with food and other help that they need.
Cephus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 31,034
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Location
- CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The overwhelming majority do and for those that don't, there are legal means for reporting them for fine or imprisonment. A union cannot achieve anything in that regard that the individual employees cannot do on their own.
As for the second part, where did you ever get that stupid idea? Of course the employees are not equal to their employers. The employer, and I'm speaking specifically of small business owners who start companies from scratch, have all the risk in ensuring that the business is successful, they have put in their time, money and effort to something that, for the majority of small businesses, fail in the first year. To have that be successful, to be able to employ other people, to produce things that are valuable to the public, they certainly deserve a bigger portion of the reward based on the bigger portion of the risk they took.
What is beyond ridiculous is that you believe otherwise.
Cephus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 31,034
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Location
- CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Define "wrongly". If they were discriminated against, say for their race or gender, there are certainly avenues that they can pursue that cost nothing, plus there are plenty of groups out there that will take the case pro bono if it's sufficiently grievous. Yes though, he's out of a job. Welcome to life.
But you turn around and take a union shop, especially when it's a big national union that has no stake in the health of the individual shop, which pushes for absurd wages and benefits, to the point that the company can not expand or improve or stay competitive, and in fact, goes out of business altogether. Then, you're absolutely wrong, the employer can claim all the same things because not only do they no longer have a job, they've probably lost their homes and all the things they mortgaged to the hilt to start the company in the first place.