2
2
0
In "The Good Old Days" when Unions were illegal there were lots of jobs and if "The Boss" decided that they were paying you too much "The Boss" simply cut your wages and you were 100% free to either accept that wage cut or not (read as "you could quit because there was always someone else who didn't have a job that was willing to do what you did but for less money").
Now, thanks to those left-wing, socialist, commie, Unions you have had that freedom taken away from you and if "The Boss" arbitrarily decides to cut your wages then you are forced to take no wages at all until "The Boss" either caves in to "The Union" or simply decides to move their operations elsewhere where there are people who will work for even less than "The Union" forced you to stop working because that was what "The Boss" was willing to pay you.
Obviously, Unions are evil when they try to protect their members from arbitrary decisions of "The Boss", BUT it is all the fault of "The Boss" if your job vanishes forever because "The Union" has taken away your freedom to work for less than a living wage in gratitude for having any job whatsoever.
Now, thanks to those left-wing, socialist, commie, Unions you have had that freedom taken away from you and if "The Boss" arbitrarily decides to cut your wages then you are forced to take no wages at all until "The Boss" either caves in to "The Union" or simply decides to move their operations elsewhere where there are people who will work for even less than "The Union" forced you to stop working because that was what "The Boss" was willing to pay you.
Obviously, Unions are evil when they try to protect their members from arbitrary decisions of "The Boss", BUT it is all the fault of "The Boss" if your job vanishes forever because "The Union" has taken away your freedom to work for less than a living wage in gratitude for having any job whatsoever.
Americans Don’t Miss Manufacturing — They Miss Unions
Posted from fivethirtyeight.com
Employment
Politics
Economics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
3
3
0
Unions went off the tracks for the same reason that American government went off the tracks. Union members are no better at being responsible union members than We the People are being responsible citizens. When you elect leaders (union or government) and give them unbridled power (surrender your individuality for freedom from responsibility) you attract the kinds of people who are drawn to power like moths to candles. And the results are disturbingly similar. Unions milked the business owners like government milks the productive members of society to give to the nonproductive. Thus, it is no surprise to see American industry imploding just as the nation's economy is imploding. The only thing remarkable for me is that so few can see this...
(3)
(0)
SGT Kyle Johnson
CPT Jack Durish To this day large corporations have bigger budgets for Union retires than than day to day operating expenses. Every wonder why cars are so expensive? The big 3 car makers and railroads to name a few, have enormous Union retirement payouts every year, to include all the benefits that go with it.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; I agree.
ANY government, if it's feet are not held REGULARLY close to the fire by people who can recognize BOTH "feet" and "fire" is going to end up operation as an oligarchy (for the benefit of those people who can recognize BOTH "feet" and "fire" and who DO hold it's feet close to the fire on a regular basis.
SGT Kyle Johnson - Sergeant; If someone works for "Company A" for 45 years and has a life expectancy of 10 years after they retire, then it should be obvious that "Company A" is going to be paying out (roughly) 4.5 times as many pensions as it is wages. If the worker's pension is 75% of what they were earning while they were working then Company A" is going to be paying out 3.375 as much in pensions as it is in wages. The only way that "Company A" can avoid paying out more in pensions than it does in wages is to pay pensions of only 22.22% so the OBVIOUS solution is to pass a law making it illegal for any company to pay out more than 22.22% of the workers former wages in pensions.
That, however, might work severe hardships on some classifications of employees, so it would probably be better to make that a limit of 22.22% of total wage/salary payments and allow the company to make its independent decisions based on the overall good of the company as to how that 22.22% gets divided up. That could well mean that workers with 45 years in at the lowest company pay rate got 100% of their former wages while CEOs with only four or five years in at the company's highest pay rate got 0.01% (or less). [Of course, because you don't want to over regulate, it could also mean the reverse.]
ANY government, if it's feet are not held REGULARLY close to the fire by people who can recognize BOTH "feet" and "fire" is going to end up operation as an oligarchy (for the benefit of those people who can recognize BOTH "feet" and "fire" and who DO hold it's feet close to the fire on a regular basis.
SGT Kyle Johnson - Sergeant; If someone works for "Company A" for 45 years and has a life expectancy of 10 years after they retire, then it should be obvious that "Company A" is going to be paying out (roughly) 4.5 times as many pensions as it is wages. If the worker's pension is 75% of what they were earning while they were working then Company A" is going to be paying out 3.375 as much in pensions as it is in wages. The only way that "Company A" can avoid paying out more in pensions than it does in wages is to pay pensions of only 22.22% so the OBVIOUS solution is to pass a law making it illegal for any company to pay out more than 22.22% of the workers former wages in pensions.
That, however, might work severe hardships on some classifications of employees, so it would probably be better to make that a limit of 22.22% of total wage/salary payments and allow the company to make its independent decisions based on the overall good of the company as to how that 22.22% gets divided up. That could well mean that workers with 45 years in at the lowest company pay rate got 100% of their former wages while CEOs with only four or five years in at the company's highest pay rate got 0.01% (or less). [Of course, because you don't want to over regulate, it could also mean the reverse.]
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
COL Ted Mc - The last thing we need is government once again establishing policy for business. Government is almost always an elephant with a sledgehammer tasked with fixing a teacup. Government faces no accountability for those decisions.
Those businesses that cannot or will not act in a responsible manner with sound fiduciary principles should fail. That will ensure that businesses are held accountable by their desire to survive.
For most of this country's history people provided for their own retirement. It was not the responsibility of their employer, or the government. And for the most part they succeeded. Charitable Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) stepped in where they did not.
Those businesses that cannot or will not act in a responsible manner with sound fiduciary principles should fail. That will ensure that businesses are held accountable by their desire to survive.
For most of this country's history people provided for their own retirement. It was not the responsibility of their employer, or the government. And for the most part they succeeded. Charitable Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) stepped in where they did not.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I've read your post twice. I don't understand what you are trying to say. All I can share is that there is irrefutable economic evidence that the decline in union has contributed to the income disparity in the United States. Big business and both parties decided that the rabble of American population don't need a loud voice in democracy.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Mark A. Morris
Isn't it more than that MAJ? The middle class of American must be weakened to grow government. The EPA is part of that agenda. Closing coal mines puts workers with very little choice on Government assistance. Destruction of the black family is another exampe. The State becomes a god and gererations on welfare. It is not just getting lower costs of production for companies.
I find it strange after the 2014 elections trade with other countries did not become more fair. To add insult, HB1 visas have increased. Thank you Mr. Ryan.
It appears to me, both parties have sold this country out and I haven't written anything on illegal aliens suppressing wages in construction.
Have a great day,
I find it strange after the 2014 elections trade with other countries did not become more fair. To add insult, HB1 visas have increased. Thank you Mr. Ryan.
It appears to me, both parties have sold this country out and I haven't written anything on illegal aliens suppressing wages in construction.
Have a great day,
(2)
(0)
MAJ Keira Brennan
I don't disagree at all with what you said. Lincoln envisioned a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people..." but I imagine that was rhetoric. I'm a scholar of poverty not an economist. It seems to me that America has gone through periods where citizens have enjoyed more of a representative capitalistic Republic versus the oligarchy we live in today. Excellent point on visas. Both parties IMO want surpressed wages and a consumer driven society. Ty!
(1)
(0)
Cpl Mark A. Morris
MAJ Keira Brennan - Oligarchy. Intresting word choice MAJ. I wish I had used it.
Cheers
Cheers
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Perhaps a little over simplification.
The American worker was quite competitive at a considerably higher wage than third world labor forces. But increased regulatory costs and substantially higher corporate taxes combined to overwhelm the quality of the American labor force. Unfortunately, that qualitative advantage is atrophying. We must expect the Chinese and Indian labor forces to learn continuous process improvement. Corporate leaders, particularly multi-national conglomerate corporate leaders, must evaluate and act according to their fiduciary responsibilities, not loyalty to labor or country.
Labor unions are not illegal in the United States now, yet they falter everywhere except government employees. Businesses are not allowed to suppress unionization efforts, even in right to work States. So why aren't the Unions competitive? Why can't they garner support? Unions have a marketing problem.
To a very great degree OSHA, the Dept. of Labor, and the EPA have assumed many of the most important "workplace environment" issues, decreasing that value of Unions. The most egregious business treatment of labor can be handled through those agencies.
Union leadership typically leans left and supports candidates and political agendas that are antithetical to their constituency and outside the scope of the work place. Laborers ask themselves, "Why should I contribute my union dues, when the leadership does not support my beliefs?".
Americans don't miss Unions, they miss competitive advantage.
The American worker was quite competitive at a considerably higher wage than third world labor forces. But increased regulatory costs and substantially higher corporate taxes combined to overwhelm the quality of the American labor force. Unfortunately, that qualitative advantage is atrophying. We must expect the Chinese and Indian labor forces to learn continuous process improvement. Corporate leaders, particularly multi-national conglomerate corporate leaders, must evaluate and act according to their fiduciary responsibilities, not loyalty to labor or country.
Labor unions are not illegal in the United States now, yet they falter everywhere except government employees. Businesses are not allowed to suppress unionization efforts, even in right to work States. So why aren't the Unions competitive? Why can't they garner support? Unions have a marketing problem.
To a very great degree OSHA, the Dept. of Labor, and the EPA have assumed many of the most important "workplace environment" issues, decreasing that value of Unions. The most egregious business treatment of labor can be handled through those agencies.
Union leadership typically leans left and supports candidates and political agendas that are antithetical to their constituency and outside the scope of the work place. Laborers ask themselves, "Why should I contribute my union dues, when the leadership does not support my beliefs?".
Americans don't miss Unions, they miss competitive advantage.
(2)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MAJ Keira Brennan - In slavery; people have their lips cut off for speaking back, their feet cut off for trying to escape, their eyes put out for meeting their masters gaze. Women and children are required to sexually service 20+ mercenaries and soldiers a day. There is no end of the day. There is no weekend. There is no vacation. there is no benefits package. There is not enough food to stave off malnutrition, There is no choice to leave. etc. etc. etc. There is no comparison between hourly labor in America and slavery.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MAJ Keira Brennan - I do not consider wage labor necessarily temporary. I offer skilled tradesman, as the example. Many skilled tradesmen have wages that exceed those of degreed professionals. Certainly some jobs are dead end, or have an extremely narrow pipeline for advancement. That should incentivize people to seek other opportunities and to ready themselves for those opportunities. Their is no shortage of individuals that do improve their economic lot in life.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MAJ Keira Brennan - I do not follow your train of thought in the following: "What brought down wages and created class consciousness (who gives the orders v. follows)? We don't talk about in the USA. Neoliberalism and monetarism. Both theories have failed the America worker. Unions were the bulwark against this." Please expound.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
When Krugman, Summers and Reich, centrists are leaning left it tells me things are not going well for the American worker...uh centrists?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google