Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Victory For Wisconsin: Court Upholds Union Limits  
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7951 posts, RR: 26
Posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s contentious law stripping most public workers of nearly all of their collective bargaining rights in a decision hailed by Republicans but not undoing a state court ruling keeping much of the law from being in effect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...-11e2-a2bd-7e4099229686_story.html

Symbolically, this is pretty huge and hopefully the start of a trend throughout the US.

Public unions have put a stranglehold on budgets across the 50 states with bloated pension schemes, inflated pay and the like. I'm not saying for a second that legislators don't share the blame since they signed off on such agreements - but the impetus came from public unions in most cases if you ask labor experts.

Law enforcement personnel, teachers, ATCs, etc do have difficult jobs that should be well-paid, but these individuals should be on the hook to adequately prepare for their retirement needs the same as anyone in the private sector. This is just plain common sense. Pension obligations that pay these workers 1/2 or even up to 3/4 of their final salaries in public service are flat out unsustainable.

Let's put aside for the moment the idea that individuals in public service jobs don't even need unions when looking at the original purpose of unionization in America. The bottom line is something needs to be done about out of control budgets, and this is a good step in that direction.

[Edited 2013-01-19 17:57:12]


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
95 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Law enforcement personnel, teachers, ATCs, etc do have difficult jobs that should be well-paid, but these individuals should be on the hook to adequately prepare for their retirement needs the same as anyone in the private sector.

It might be just as reasonable to ask why private sector workers don't have these same protections. Sometimes it almost feels spiteful- "these people have secured a decent job and financial future, we'd better put a stop to that."

Also, California is getting ready to turn a surplus and they are crazy with public sector unions, while many other states, including those with these anti-union measures, are deep in the red, so I don't think you've adequately proven your point.


User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5246 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3026 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Symbolically, this is pretty huge and hopefully the start of a trend throughout the US.

Public unions have put a stranglehold on budgets across the 50 states with bloated pension schemes, inflated pay and the like. I'm not saying for a second that legislators don't share the blame since they signed off on such agreements - but the impetus came from public unions in most cases if you ask labor experts.

  
Public employee unions are not a good thing, they essentially get to vote for the people they will be negotiating with. And add to that, unlike a private corporation, in general municipalities will not go bankrupt as they have "the power of the purse" with access to tax revenue. Politicians often (have) sweetened benefits that will come due "down the road" in order to secure votes now. This is what has gotten so many municipalities into trouble. Because of this I am very much against PEU's and what happened in Wisconsin addressed the most egregious elements of them.

In truth I do not ever remember hearing of horrible working conditions for public employees that would have needed a union to correct. Today they really just extract more wages and benefits rather than redress detrimental working conditions.


Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Law enforcement personnel,

The one comment I will make is that I do not mind properly/well compensated law enforcement as it makes it more difficult for a pervasive culture of bribery to become established (I did not say it could happen, just that it is more difficult). We all know that if law enforcement does not pay then crime will, it is a problem in much of the world.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6477 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3016 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Law enforcement personnel, teachers, ATCs, etc do have difficult jobs that should be well-paid

The problem is that many of those positions aren't well-paid. The pension was supposed to help make up for the fact that the pay was sub-par. And in some careers, like fire/law enforcement, the pension makes up for the shorter than average career expectancy due to the nature of the work. So, if you kill the pension, you make these careers less desirable.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Pension obligations that pay these workers 1/2 or even up to 3/4 of their final salaries in public service are flat out unsustainable.

Not necessarily. If the pensions are properly funded and administered, there wouldn't be such a problem. However, many states chose to underfund their pensions even when they had the money to fund them. You forget that during the boom economic times, many of the states contributed almost NOTHING to their pension plans. Unfortunately, this came back to bite them when times got tough.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
individuals should be on the hook to adequately prepare for their retirement needs the same as anyone in the private sector.

Unfortunately, early evidence is showing that few people are doing this successfully. Most people have next to nothing in their 401k's. They get eaten alive by fees. They don't understand the funds they have available to them and/or are offered terrible funds by their employer. And when they get desperate, say after losing a job, they tend to raid their 401k's only making matters worse in the long run. Barring an unlikely change, the 401k will go down in history as one of the biggest failures in economics.


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3016 times:

Also, budgetary requirements and conflicts of interests are reasonable concerns, but I really don't like the argument that collective bargaining ability, in the public or the private sectors, should be defined by whether or not the workers in question "need" it. Who the heck sets that standard?

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21083 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
Public employee unions are not a good thing, they essentially get to vote for the people they will be negotiating with.

So do private businesses.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7951 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 1):
It might be just as reasonable to ask why private sector workers don't have these same protections. Sometimes it almost feels spiteful- "these people have secured a decent job and financial future, we'd better put a stop to that."

Are you suggesting working folks should be guaranteed enough money to live on when they are no longer working, without any responsibility for how they conduct their own spending?

In other words, do you replace all the allowance money your kid wasted when they come asking to have it back?

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 1):
Also, California is getting ready to turn a surplus and they are crazy with public sector unions, while many other states, including those with these anti-union measures, are deep in the red, so I don't think you've adequately proven your point.

Ask yourself how California got out of its $16 billion hole. Mostly by deferring interest payments on some $40 billion in state debt that is still due. Putting state employees on furlough and increasing university fees 30% in 5 years has helped a bit too. The pension problem remains a huge part of this.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
The problem is that many of those positions aren't well-paid. The pension was supposed to help make up for the fact that the pay was sub-par.

The way government jobs usually pay based on locality makes sense to me. Why should a cop in Butte, CA make anywhere near what one in San Diego does?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
However, many states chose to underfund their pensions even when they had the money to fund them.

That legislators squarely deserve blame for.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
Unfortunately, early evidence is showing that few people are doing this successfully. Most people have next to nothing in their 401k's.

It's not only 401Ks. Despite far less job security than in the 1950s and 60s, middle class Americans are still hell bent on spending above their means, evidenced by $200 monthly cable+smartphone bills, foreclosures, and the like. Pensions wouldn't be necessary if people were exercising more household restraint.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2943 times:

I wonder what Mike (the Crying Man) is going through now. He had some very strong opinions after the failed recall election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy8FSyI_Djg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbwnQIxPBcE

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Symbolically, this is pretty huge and hopefully the start of a trend throughout the US.


Already is happening. The Democratic mayor of San Jose, California did the same thing and there were no protest, riots, media attention or recall elections.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2892 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
Are you suggesting working folks should be guaranteed enough money to live on when they are no longer working, without any responsibility for how they conduct their own spending?

To live? For sure. I don't want the elderly starving in the streets. My point was this: part of the reason these anti-union measures have taken off has been the high cost of pensions, but part of it has on occasion been punishing public employee unions for existing, sometimes using rhetoric that begrudges the very idea that they should get the benefits that they do. Before the Wisconsin measures came to pass, the unions that they were opposed to were offering major concessions.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
Ask yourself how California got out of its $16 billion hole. Mostly by deferring interest payments on some $40 billion in state debt that is still due. Putting state employees on furlough and increasing university fees 30% in 5 years has helped a bit too. The pension problem remains a huge part of this.

This is what has happened for several years in the state. Deep cuts to very important public services, and moving around payments to make temporary situations more appealing. Certainly some of the more intransigent unions have something to do with this (the prison guards come to mind) but I feel it owes more to a gradual economic recovery than to most of what our policymakers have been able to accomplish that we're moving towards the black. On a local level, you also have to factor in the cost of providing public services versus the temporary revenue of granting new development and the growing and shrinking of the property tax take, which is very much based on the strength of the local economy. Though on the local level you also find some of the largest excesses of workers finding ways to game the system.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6545 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2890 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
Public employee unions are not a good thing,

Unlike private sector?

Doesnt the NFL and the NHL and have unions too? Its all fun and games when they strike. - Less people care -



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6477 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2883 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
Pensions wouldn't be necessary if people were exercising more household restraint.

Even if you cut down on spending, it wouldn't be enough. Most middle/lower income American's don't make enough. To make a 401k really work, you need to be saving 20% of your income....not really feasible when much of the population makes between 20k-40k.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
Pensions wouldn't be necessary if people were exercising more household restraint.

Even WWII era folks (who grew up in the Depression and were notoriously frugal) would have struggled to retire if not for pensions. My grandmother was very frugal and never wasted a dime, but without a pension her retirement would have been pretty bleak...particularly since she has lived far longer than expected (she's 91).


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8200 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2871 times:

Mostly, it is about the rate of return promised by pensions. This high promised rate of return gives a big promised pension with hardly any contribution by the worker. This is the explosive part of the contracts.

In California or Illinois, there are plenty of cops making $300k per year when you include pensions, amortized at more realistic rates of return. That is more than some cardiologists make. Is is flat out stupid. It is wrong to tax people just because government workers have the power to tax via their cronies in local government. It is a model destined to fail. Wisconsin is showing a healthy survival instinct here.

If I don't have the power to tax and get rich, I don't want joe down the street to have that power over me.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21083 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2834 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
In California or Illinois, there are plenty of cops making $300k per year when you include pensions, amortized at more realistic rates of return. That is more than some cardiologists make. Is is flat out stupid.

It absolutely is. But remember that police and firefighters unions are often untouched by government cuts for some inexplicable reason, so instead the budget is balanced on the backs of those other unions whose members don't make that much. Maybe some school administrators make $300k, but I'm not aware of any teachers that do. So the government would seem to be barking up the wrong tree if they want to cut pension costs.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
It is wrong to tax people just because government workers have the power to tax via their cronies in local government. It is a model destined to fail.

Government workers aren't the only ones with cronies in local government.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8200 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2819 times:

Mir, the guts of what I said is that govt workers should be paid like everybody else. No games. If cops want $300k a year, let them put that on the table just like we (non pension) workers do. Then let's see if we can replace those cops with more qualified individuals for $150k per year. And so on. That is how these problems get solved...


Union teachers are typically around $100k when you include pensions. In Milwaukee during the Scott Walker protests, the cost per teacher was >$100k when you include even the very low pension allocations and health care. The real HR cost is probably a good deal higher than $100k by the time the pensions go out.

Not saying teachers should get paid poorly. But let's offer a $100k cash package to every new applicant. Will there be a shortage of qualified teachers? Nope. Even at $90k and no pension, you could get fabulous applicants in Milwaukee. So, why aren't they doing that?

Because the union would never go for that. Their interest is in protecting the existing club of union members, not society.

[Edited 2013-01-20 11:45:54]

User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3791 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2783 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 1):
It might be just as reasonable to ask why private sector workers don't have these same protections.

Because the employers of private sector workers don't have the power to send someone to jail if they fail to purchase their widgets?

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
Politicians often (have) sweetened benefits that will come due "down the road" in order to secure votes now. This is what has gotten so many municipalities into trouble

I work with many life insurance companies. If any of my clients ran their business as the trustees of municipal, state or federal pension plans run theirs (and for all intents and purposes the two businesses are functionally similar) they would be in jail, as simple as that. But because you work for the government, making unrealistic assumptions for your reserving, not having any sort of capital in the business and running massively risky investment portfolios (often invested in your own securities) is somehow acceptable.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
Barring an unlikely change, the 401k will go down in history as one of the biggest failures in economics.

The 401k will likely go down in history as what saved the economy, by facilitating job mobility, equalizing access to retirement products by employees of small businesses and allowing people to keep what is theirs in the case of a bankruptcy by the sponsor. Industrial corporations and municipalities should not be in the business of running life insurance companies on the side, as simple as that.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 9):
Doesnt the NFL and the NHL and have unions too?

The NFL and NHL are not real good examples, as those are two employers that, for some unknown reason, managed to get anti-trust exemption. Those unions are actually justified because if any other employer ran their business as the owners of professional sports teams do they would be sent to jail for creating a cartel.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently onlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 150 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2719 times:

I work in the private sector and one of my clients is a very powerful union. Having attended their local board meetings the most important issue they discuss is the survival of the union istelf. Not the members. It's all about how much $$ they can bring in to support the union leadership and staff. The local union head makes 3x what he made as an employee of the municipality and he is paid a bonus for increase in dues and membership. I tend to look at a union as a leach. It sucks the blood out of the organism it lives off of without providing a tangible benefit to that organism.


Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
Because the employers of private sector workers don't have the power to send someone to jail if they fail to purchase their widgets?

I know you're one of the biggest fans of hyperbole around here but I have no idea what you're referring to here.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
Those unions are actually justified because if any other employer ran their business as the owners of professional sports teams do they would be sent to jail for creating a cartel.

It's not that they're justified or not, it's that professional sports players are in a position where they are way less transferrable or replaceable than almost any other type of labor, so management can't apply the same clout/political arguments against them that they can against unions in other cases. Though some sports leagues getting literal sanctioned monopolies is pretty dumb.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2687 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
It absolutely is. But remember that police and firefighters unions are often untouched by government cuts for some inexplicable reason, so instead the budget is balanced on the backs of those other unions whose members don't make that much.

So that makes it OK?

Meanwhile, the New Jersey Senate, on a party-line vote, passes a law mandating Hurricane Sandy cleanup work be done only by union workers.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...j_senate_passes_bill_regardin.html

"a Corzine administration study showed project labor agreements increase the costs of projects from 18 to 24 percent"



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

I just asked this question on FB but I will ask it here to the "enlightend" ones: Right-wingers are trying like everything to drive down wages and make all states right-to-work states. Then, they complain all those awful low-wage workers are a drain on the economy by getting food stamps and state sponsored health care because they have no union representation. So: which is it? Union representation so people have a living wage and health benefits or recieve food stams and state health care?


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15450 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 18):
Right-wingers are trying like everything to drive down wages and make all states right-to-work states.

Why do left wingers and unions fear right to work so much? If unions are as beneficial and important as they believe they are, it shouldn't matter. Workers will line up to join unions to get better conditions and employers will demand better trained union workers, right? Or do they fear erosion of power and the loss of their position as a de facto labor cartel? Do they realize that unions have in many cases been rendered redundant, ironically by government regulations and bureaucracy? Is that why they fight right to work, or as some might call it, the free market, tooth and nail at every opportunity?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 18):
Union representation so people have a living wage and health benefits or recieve food stams and state health care?

Many workers not on food stamps do not have union representations. Your correlation of unions with not having welfare is disingenuous.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3791 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 16):
I know you're one of the biggest fans of hyperbole around here but I have no idea what you're referring to here.

Either you don't understand or you pretend you don't... If you work in the private sector making widgets, and a recession drives down the demand for widgets there is not much your employer can do to prevent its revenues from going down. If you work for the government, your employer can always raise taxes on the poor schmucks in the private sector to make sure they will have enough cash to pay your salary, and if those schmucks don't pay their taxes they go to jail.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 16):
It's not that they're justified or not, it's that professional sports players are in a position where they are way less transferrable or replaceable than almost any other type of labor, so management can't apply the same clout/political arguments against them that they can against unions in other cases.

Actually, in a normal environment you would be right, but the question is a good player isn't just free to move around as it should (there are draft rules, free agency rules, salary caps, etc.) so management can in fact apply that pressure (which I agree they should not be allowed to). The similarity with a normal economic environment is that, by agreeing to those rules, just like other unions, sports players unions have the exact same effect as regular ones - benefit the mediocre players at the expense of the outstanding ones.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
Why do left wingers and unions fear right to work so much? If unions are as beneficial and important as they believe they are, it shouldn't matter. Workers will line up to join unions to get better conditions and employers will demand better trained union workers, right? Or do they fear erosion of power and the loss of their position as a de facto labor cartel? Do they realize that unions have in many cases been rendered redundant, ironically by government regulations and bureaucracy? Is that why they fight right to work, or as some might call it, the free market, tooth and nail at every opportunity?

-If you're just saying "well okay join a union or don't the money to pay for them just kind of goes wherever" you're allowing people who haven't bought in to get workplace-wide things that the union provides, and its power is based on mobilizing as much of the workforce as possible.

-Those regulations came into being because unions fought for them, and again, I don't buy dismissing unions based on how much they're needed for the same reason 2nd Amendment advocates don't want to decide what arms civilians can buy on the basis of how much they need them- no one can find an objective standard for what that "need" is, and who sets it.

-So the free market is more important than freedom of association? Should we be happy to settle for anything because we're only allowed to have what the mighty market deigns to give us?


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 20):
Either you don't understand or you pretend you don't... If you work in the private sector making widgets, and a recession drives down the demand for widgets there is not much your employer can do to prevent its revenues from going down. If you work for the government, your employer can always raise taxes on the poor schmucks in the private sector to make sure they will have enough cash to pay your salary, and if those schmucks don't pay their taxes they go to jail.

No, I understand taxation and violating laws perfectly well, I just don't quite see the bright line that puts a direct line between public employee wages and the freedom of some idiot who didn't want to pay his taxes. It's almost as if policymaking is way more complicated than that!


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15450 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 21):
If you're just saying "well okay join a union or don't the money to pay for them just kind of goes wherever" you're allowing people who haven't bought in to get workplace-wide things that the union provides, and its power is based on mobilizing as much of the workforce as possible.

That's exactly what should happen. If union workers are being overpaid, they will be replaced. In nonunion workers are poorly trained, they will be replaced. If nonunion workers see their union counterparts working for better pay, they'll go join the union.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 21):
Those regulations came into being because unions fought for them,

And now they have them. Unions were useful for making sure workers wouldn't be fired for getting the flu or have no recourse should they be injured on the job. Unions forced those issues to be addressed and now they are via government regulation and we're better off for it. Despite this, unions have continued to exist for mostly other reasons so let me as you this: when was the last time you heard from an abolitionist or women's suffrage group?

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 21):
they're needed for the same reason 2nd Amendment advocates don't want to decide what arms civilians can buy on the basis of how much they need them- no one can find an objective standard for what that "need" is, and who sets it.

Nobody should be telling gun owners that they can't have guns, but nobody should be telling those of us who do not own guns that we must own guns.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 21):
So the free market is more important than freedom of association?

Freedom of association carries with it the freedom of non-association. There is a massive difference between saying "You do not have to join the union" and saying "You cannot join the union."

And why should free association apply only to workers? The employers should be able to associate or not themselves with any and all employees they choose. Let them choose whether they want a union, non-union, or combined workforce.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
It's not only 401Ks. Despite far less job security than in the 1950s and 60s, middle class Americans are still hell bent on spending above their means, evidenced by $200 monthly cable+smartphone bills, foreclosures, and the like. Pensions wouldn't be necessary if people were exercising more household restraint.

While I think you're right, I also think there's more to the story than that. I earn right about 5% more than my folks did, age per age, adjusted for inflation (they were feds with the associated pensions). But my disposable income spending, is on average about 20% less than theirs was, at this age. Same number of kids, all that.

And though I do eschew a lot of non-essentials (I don't own a television, so no cable), I do still pay for things like a smartphone, internet, car, etc. I think the difference is that there is a greater proportion of nondisposable income spending within my generation (I have a tremendously higher percentage of student loans than the folks ever did, for example, and also file "single" for taxes), but also the job security quotient seems less stable than it was for them in the 70s & 80s.

As I said, I agree that people spend a lot beyond their means, but I think a lot of that is also things like Student Loans as much as cable.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):

Why do left wingers and unions fear right to work so much? If unions are as beneficial and important as they believe they are, it shouldn't matter. Workers will line up to join unions to get better conditions and employers will demand better trained union workers, right?

The problem is that in a lot of RTW states, it really doesn't matter what your training is. If ACME airlines can pay a line tech $15 an hour less in South Carolina, they're going to, and this reduces the bargaining power of a Union in say, San Francisco or Boston. This is a factor completely without regard to the level of training for that job code.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 20):
If you work for the government, your employer can always raise taxes on the poor schmucks in the private sector to make sure they will have enough cash to pay your salary, and if those schmucks don't pay their taxes they go to jail.

Unless those schmucks find all manner of loopholes and deductions, as they do here in America. And it really isn't the "poor" schmucks that treat it that way either, as most of the poor generally don't pay taxes anyway. I think "Rich" schmucks is what you're looking for here.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 23):
If nonunion workers see their union counterparts working for better pay, they'll go join the union.

Not necessarily, no. I'm non-union, but I do about 2 - 8% better (depending on the competing companies' unions) overall, when salary & defined benefits are counted out. But I have no illusions about this. We don't want our people jumping ship to unionized competition.

Now if I were to be transferred to a RTW state's station (and we have a few), this equation is up for change, and I'd have to redefine my contract just to keep what I already have.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 23):

Freedom of association carries with it the freedom of non-association. There is a massive difference between saying "You do not have to join the union" and saying "You cannot join the union."

Uh-huh. And if the situtaion is rigged (as it is in most RTW states) to where companies have a lot more bargaining power than unions specifically because there are no "closed" shops, then all we are doing is tagging "that has any bargaining ability at all" to your second line there. That is the reality in most RTW places.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 23):
And now they have them. Unions were useful for making sure workers wouldn't be fired for getting the flu or have no recourse should they be injured on the job. Unions forced those issues to be addressed and now they are via government regulation and we're better off for it. Despite this, unions have continued to exist for mostly other reasons so let me as you this: when was the last time you heard from an abolitionist or women's suffrage group?

That's a disingenuous comparison. Abolitionism had a very specific legal goal; women's suffragists got theirs too but there are still plenty of groups out there that focus on ensuring a level of equality between men and women that they do not perceive to exist. The point is, your reasoning could have been used just as well a hundred years ago to say "Well, we're not making you work Sundays and the workday is now 12 hours instead of 16, you have what you want, you don't need to exist anymore." It's not good enough for you to just decide that unions have everything that they need now.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15450 posts, RR: 26
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 24):
The problem is that in a lot of RTW states, it really doesn't matter what your training is.

In a lot of jobs it doesn't really matter what your training is.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 24):
If ACME airlines can pay a line tech $15 an hour less in South Carolina, they're going to

Unless it increases costs further on down the line, which is sometimes the case.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 24):
And if the situtaion is rigged (as it is in most RTW states) to where companies have a lot more bargaining power than unions specifically because there are no "closed" shops, then all we are doing is tagging "that has any bargaining ability at all" to your second line there.

Bargaining power is earned rather than given via an artificially enforced monopoly.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 25):
It's not good enough for you to just decide that unions have everything that they need now.

If unions want to keep fighting to get workers paid more to do less, fine. But competition has to be allowed.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21083 posts, RR: 56
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2593 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
So that makes it OK?

I never said it was ok. If you're going to go after public sector unions, go after all the public sector unions, including the police and fire unions.

But police and fire unions are the unions most likely to vote GOP, so I'm not getting my hopes up for that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2566 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
Why do left wingers and unions fear right to work so much?

Here's the problem: The right has made is so difficult to organize in all states that forming and joining a union is impossible. Plus, with their right-wing mouth pieces throwing out half-truths and people just believing it is all true, unions are hated. I grew up in RTW states. We have very few unions in the West. My parents are nurses but they had no union representation in Oregon. Democrats/left/liberals (whatever the right wants to call them) don't like RTW because it drives down the salaries of workers and drives up the cost of benefits.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
Many workers not on food stamps do not have union representations.

Because they make too much to get food stamps. I am working part time and going to school. I make too much to get any useful food stamp benefits. I would get only $30 a month. How does that help?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5246 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 4):
Who the heck sets that standard?

The standard is set by the public in this case as that is who sets the standards for the government. The courts then validate that the standards are reasonable and follow the prevailing law.

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
So do private businesses.

Which will go bankrupt (as we all to well know) if the demands are excessive. A public institution generally will not and the courts have ordered that the public must meet the legal obligations contained within the legally binding contract. And often the only solution to do that is either cut other services or increase taxes.

And you left out the rest of my post:

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
Public employee unions are not a good thing, they essentially get to vote for the people they will be negotiating with. And add to that, unlike a private corporation, in general municipalities will not go bankrupt as they have "the power of the purse" with access to tax revenue. Politicians often (have) sweetened benefits that will come due "down the road" in order to secure votes now. This is what has gotten so many municipalities into trouble.

This is where the real problem is. That benefits are often "down the road" elements that don't come due immediately so their effects are de-emphasized by both the union involved and the officials involved to get the package passed and make every one look good.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
The problem is that many of those positions aren't well-paid. The pension was supposed to help make up for the fact that the pay was sub-par.

The way government jobs usually pay based on locality makes sense to me. Why should a cop in Butte, CA make anywhere near what one in San Diego does?

The dangerous thing is that everyone likes to compare and have their wages be equal and similar to those of their peers around them. And they expect or demand that they be paid at that level (or better), this leads to a constant spiral upward in wages. And the elected official that the PEU's negotiate with acquiesce to such demands. If they don't then unions play on public sympathy's or fund a competing "friendly" candidate or attack the incumbent that is not acquiescing, because all they need is a majority vote. Again there is politics involved more than just business decisions.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 7):
Already is happening. The Democratic mayor of San Jose, California did the same thing and there were no protest, riots, media attention or recall elections.

Boy I hope so, I am not going to hold my breath but it would be nice

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Union teachers are typically around $100k when you include pensions. In Milwaukee during the Scott Walker protests, the cost per teacher was >$100k when you include even the very low pension allocations and health care. The real HR cost is probably a good deal higher than $100k by the time the pensions go out.

Not saying teachers should get paid poorly. But let's offer a $100k cash package to every new applicant. Will there be a shortage of qualified teachers? Nope. Even at $90k and no pension, you could get fabulous applicants in Milwaukee. So, why aren't they doing that?

Because the union would never go for that. Their interest is in protecting the existing club of union members, not society.

The most important aspect of this is the fact the the entity paying the money gets to immediately write that cost off its books. So even if you "overpay" now, the big thing is that there is no unknown and likely ballooning "future cost" out there to impact you down the road (how do think WN can "overpay" its employees and yet still remain competitive even after other airlines went through bankruptcy and trimmed their debts and obligations?). And we have all seen how everyone likes to kick the can down the road and use current money for things now while saying "we'll make this up next year..." but next year never comes. And yes, this may be a flaw of the people/management involved but I say that it is also a flaw in the process/idea since it is always happening.

One of the biggest problems I have with PEU's is the fact that the contracts negotiated are often lopsided and nonviable in the long term. As I noted above, the PEU's will actively fund and promote electing officials that in turn support them. They also aggressively attack those officials that do not agree with them.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
Mostly, it is about the rate of return promised by pensions. This high promised rate of return gives a big promised pension with hardly any contribution by the worker. This is the explosive part of the contracts.

  
This is a huge part of the problem, and I do not see how to prevent it with what I have noted above. It is simply too easy to do. One recent glaring example that we had where I live is the "extra" earning on investments for pensions. The union successfully negotiated that any "extra" funds above the needed rate of return (set at 8%!) was to be dispersed to the employees on a yearly basis, however no calculus was included for what to do during the years that the rate was not met (the contract was negotiated during the stock-boom years). So during the past few years we have had to kick in money from the general fund or raise taxes (which the public rejected thankfully) and shortchange other functions of the city. I mean it is absolutely ridiculous and somewhat immoral to expect someone to give you any money earned above the required rate of return as it prevents you from being able to balance things out for when returns are below what is required, and then have the taxpayers or other services budgets make up for any shortfall in the earnings when the required rate of return is not met by the markets.

Those kinds of things should be absolutely disallowed with any pension contract.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15450 posts, RR: 26
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
The right has made is so difficult to organize in all states that forming and joining a union is impossible.

Impossible or just pointless?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
Democrats/left/liberals (whatever the right wants to call them) don't like RTW because it drives down the salaries of workers and drives up the cost of benefits.

Allowing the free market in will erode the power and artificially high prices that monopolies and cartels can get away with.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
Because they make too much to get food stamps.

So it's now well established that unions are not a prerequisite to avoid poverty.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6477 posts, RR: 24
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30):
So it's now well established that unions are not a prerequisite to avoid poverty.

Correct, but it's interesting how many of the right to work states have the highest rates of poverty and are most reliant on federal government assistance. Of course they don't need unions, they have Uncle Sam to make up the difference.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21083 posts, RR: 56
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2447 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 29):
Which will go bankrupt (as we all to well know) if the demands are excessive.

Which businesses have gone bankrupt because they requested too many favors from the government?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):The right has made is so difficult to organize in all states that forming and joining a union is impossible.
Impossible or just pointless?

Impossible. I guess it would be pointless if you want child labor, no minimum wage, and no maximum hours per week.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30):
Allowing the free market in will erode the power and artificially high prices that monopolies and cartels can get away with.

ummmm.... the "free market" ends up being monopolies and cartels, anyway.

Looking at the "free market" we can look at Costco vs Wal-Mart. Costco pays their employees a living wage. Wal-Mart does not. The excess goes to the very top, not to the employees who actually have to do the most work in stocking shelves, dealing with rude people, working long hours for low wages. As opposed to the very top who sit in offices and push paper all day and get stock options.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30):
So it's now well established that unions are not a prerequisite to avoid poverty

I would rather have union help getting health benefits and being able to pay for housing than be called a drain on society by the right.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

A couple of things here;

First, how many people discussing this issue belong to labor unions ?
Second, are you employed by a corporation, a private business, or are you employed by A. the Federal Government
B. a State C. a City D. a big college ?

It make a lot of difference who you work for;

If you work for A, B, C, or possibly even D, all of these entities are "supported" by..........everyone who works and pays taxes.

Lets say you have 25 years in at good old Generous...'er....General Motors; (or Ford, or Chrysler) in this case you must be represented by .......the UAW.

There are a LOT of unions around; I'm not "against" unions; I belonged to one for 40 years. The last 20 or so of which all I ever heard on my CB radio every day, was guys driving non-union trucks (and making 15 cents a mile) screaming and yelling about what a bunch of crooks the Teamsters were, and why "they" (meaning the non-union guys) drove BIG trucks, while I was driving a "dinky" truck, (and making 75 cents a mile).

Meanwhile, the people where the cars I was hauling were made at were making $18 an hour, with HUGE pensions, while other factory workers were making $ 9 an hour, and probably didn't even HAVE a pension ! I used to think about this a lot; why do so many people doing more or less "similar" jobs, get paid wages that are so "dis-similar" ? what I'm pointing out is, no one understands the "other guy's" situation; (nor does he even CARE about the "other guy's situation") 99.9% of "guys" only care about THEIR situation. Which becomes just one of the many things that always keep "guys" arguing with each other.

Here's a test for you; I don't know where anyone works at; don't even care. but take a close look at where you work, what the pay was, say 40 years ago, and watch how it's increased from then, until now; some have gone up faster than others; some haven't "gone up" very fast at all; many haven't gone "up" at all; they've "gone" to China ! Or "where-ever"; lotta guys get pretty pi***d off about that. Let me ask you this......did you vote ? for "anybody" ? if you did, I'll bet it was either a Democrat or a Republican, right ? Take a look at what THEY were "making" 40 years ago, and while you're at it, what they "made" every year until now. You'll notice that "they're doing pretty damned well now" ! (while yo'all are still down here arguing with each other! )

And while we're on the subject of pensions, take a close look at the "pension plan" of your faithful U.S. Representative and your faithful U.S. Senator.........the "servants of the people", right ? so "proud" of their "faithful public service", right?

Some reporter once asked Willie Sutton why he always robbed banks; Willie answered, "Are you kidding me ? because that's where all the money's at"! ( I have always had a sneaking suspicion that's the main reason why so many people always want to get in Congress; Cause that's where even MORE money's at !)

Remember what happened on 9-11-01 ? A great big building in Washington, D.C. got "torn up" really bad, and it made me mad as hell, because I just KNEW that my taxes were gonna help pay to get it rebuilt; then I had this FABULOUS idea! I was "retired"........but I'm not "crippled".....I can still work; I figured, there's a lot of retired guys like me that can still work; so I did a lot of thinking, and came up with this "plan"; I sent my "plan" to a couple of places; first, to the IBT, (whose general office is in D.C.) I also sent it to.......( you ready for this ?) The U.S. Labor Dept. My "plan" was: if they furnished "housing" (I'm not talking Watergate, or even Hiatt here); just plain, ordinary, basic "housing" like service guys get, plus three squares a day, and me, and about 20,000 other retired guys from the Teamsters and some of the Building Trades would rebuild it for 20 cents on the dollar of what they'd have to spend otherwise! Guess what they told me...."Fugettaboutit!" We got PLENTY of money ! (If we "run out", we'll just "print more"......which is basically exactly what they were already doing, and what they've been doing ever since ! Oh....The IBT didn't think much of my "plan" either; they basically said, "there's plenty of bucks up here and we aim to get "our share" of 'em. (or something like that)

But let's get back to Wisconsin for a minute; Scott Walker is as you know, a Republican; he's also the Governor; but even though he was "elected", that wasn't "good enough" for the Teacher's Union, so THEY decided to just "kick him out" (only they called it something else; didn't work; so now they're still not satisfied ! Now they're gonna demonstrate !
Hey.......breaking news to all teacher's unions..........States go broke too ! Let me ask you something.........do youall like school teachers ? Well I sure do ! I still remember every one of mine; From Miss Brooks (1st grade) Mis Bevis (2nd grade) Miss Coulter (3rd grade) Miss Birely (4th grade) Miss Cadwalader (5th grade), and Miss Orr (6th grade) (I think "Miss" Orr might have been a guy in a skirt, but I'm not sure.)

(Mr. D.W. Jacot was the Principle) Every single one of those teachers were GREAT ! And they "taught" everyone who had brains enough to come to class. They were always happy, and not one of them ever tried to "tinker" with little boys. And one more thing..........NONE of them belonged to a "teacher's union"........probably because there WASN"T any damned "Teacher's Union" !

Anyway, Governor Walker has come to the conclusion that the State of Wisconsin is about to go broke because of all of this pension nonsense, and all of the "over the top" demands of the teacher's union. But the "teachers" don't want to hear that ! "They" just want to get "theirs", right ? (Maybe some brilliant botanist will come up with a "money tree" one of these days; then we can ALL be rich ! (Right )?

Here's something everyone needs to realize about almost ALL unions; the whole idea of a union is to "represent" the "workers", and to "secure'' more favorable benefits and conditions for them, than they would be able to do on their own, right ? Guess who's "benefits" MOST unions are really "working hard for"............the schmucks that RUN the damned union, that's who's !

I first joined the Teamsters way back in the late 50s; Yeah, they always got us a pretty good contract; the problem was, (and still is), the schmucks at the top all got mega-rich, then got in bed with "the mob", then gave "the mob" the keys to OUR pension fund, and said, "where ya are "wise guys".......help your selves ! And Boy, did they EVER ! Anybody here ever go to Vegas in the 60s and 70s ? All those big fancy hotels and casinos were built with $$$$$$$ from the Teamster's Pension, Health and Welfare Fund. ( There are about a dozen real good books written about it; you should read a couple.)

That same kind of thing happens in a lot of unions. ( Read a book sometime about the late, great , Walter Reuther if you care to know what really happened to the automotive industry in the U.S.) So that's essentially what's wrong with unions; most of them are run by crooks.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 31):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30):
So it's now well established that unions are not a prerequisite to avoid poverty.

Correct, but it's interesting how many of the right to work states have the highest rates of poverty and are most reliant on federal government assistance. Of course they don't need unions, they have Uncle Sam to make up the difference.

True, but correlation is not causation. Do you have data indicating that the ones receiving food stamps and government benefits in these states are employees working these right-to-work jobs which have been "outsourced" to the state?

I grew up in Kentucky and remember when Toyota decided to open up a manufacturing plant in Georgetown, there was all kinds of ruckus about it at the time with it being non-union and all. As it turned out though, the $11-$15/hour wage plus benefits like child care and such is a perfectly livable wage considering the cost of living in Kentucky is very low and thus do not receive/need government benefits.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15450 posts, RR: 26
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 33):
Impossible. I guess it would be pointless if you want child labor, no minimum wage, and no maximum hours per week.

Unions still popped up in the late 1800s and 1900s, despite the cards being stacked in favor of corporate interests. I don't see how organizing is more difficult today.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 33):
ummmm.... the "free market" ends up being monopolies and cartels, anyway.

Unless they are abused. Rip people off long enough and they will go elsewhere.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 33):
The excess goes to the very top, not to the employees who actually have to do the most work in stocking shelves, dealing with rude people, working long hours for low wages. As opposed to the very top who sit in offices and push paper all day and get stock options.

So? If it's that much of a hangup for you, don't work there. And don't shop there if it makes you feel better.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 33):
I would rather have union help getting health benefits and being able to pay for housing than be called a drain on society by the right.

Ok, then don't complain when the company seeks out other people to do the job who do not demand those things.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2415 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 29):
Boy I hope so, I am not going to hold my breath but it would be nice



Already happened.
No media circus, no protest, no Michael Moore appearances, no crying man throwing temper tantrums or anything.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2414 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 34):
most of them are run by crooks.

So is Congress. Every time we have a chance to throw the bums out, it does not happen. The bums use their corporate money to convince us they are humble servants of the people.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
I don't see how organizing is more difficult today.

Because they legislate unions out. Unions do not force workers to join. No, they don't. Read up on it. No one is *FORCED* to join a union. Educate yourself. However, thanks to RTW, people are *forced* to bargan for their own rights and have no representation collectively and:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
don't complain when the company seeks out other people to do the job who do not demand those things.

who are illegals. But, the same group who legislate unions out of existance are also legislating illegals out and then wonder why legal American citizens are demanding a living wage and benefits.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
Unless they are abused. Rip people off long enough and they will go elsewhere.

but, in most small towns, there is no choice. I actually do go to Target instead of Wal-Mart for two reasons: 1) they are closer and B) it is the lesser of two evils. Either way, we have fewer unions and more people on state assistance. And the right-wing complains about it even though they are the ones doing it!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15450 posts, RR: 26
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
Unions do not force workers to join. No, they don't. Read up on it. No one is *FORCED* to join a union.

Right to work means that joining the union cannot be a condition of employment. In non-right to work states, union membership can be made compulsory.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
However, thanks to RTW, people are *forced* to bargan for their own rights and have no representation collectively and:

Right to work does not mean you cannot have unions.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
who are illegals.

Not necessarily. Or the whole factory just moves to China. And let's not forget that consumers ultimately pay the difference when it comes to giving union workers better wages.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
but, in most small towns, there is no choice.

Because it doesn't bother people enough to find an alternative.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
I don't see how organizing is more difficult today.

Because they legislate unions out. Unions do not force workers to join. No, they don't. Read up on it. No one is *FORCED* to join a union. Educate yourself.

Please, you're pretty much forced to join a union in every other sense of the word. No, technically you do not have to become a member of the organization, but unless you live in a right-to-work state, you'll be required to pay union dues. I worked retail at an airport in high school, a few months after being hired on the employees voted to unionize with the the SEIU, my options were either to quit, join the union or not join and still pay union dues...if that's not a coercive proposition I don't know what is.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
However, thanks to RTW, people are *forced* to bargan for their own rights and have no representation collectively and:

That's a meritocracy, since when did it become ridiculous to justify your compensation based on your own skills/qualifications?


User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2388 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 35):
I grew up in Kentucky and remember when Toyota decided to open up a manufacturing plant in Georgetown, there was all kinds of ruckus about it at the time with it being non-union and all. As it turned out though, the $11-$15/hour wage plus benefits like child care and such is a perfectly livable wage considering the cost of living in Kentucky is very low and thus do not receive/need government benefits.

I didn't grow up in Kentucky but I sure hauled a hell of a lot of loads of Toyotas out of that Georgetown plant and I can guarantee you one thing; every single hill-billy working in that plant is just happy as hell to have that job ! The reason I know that is simple; the quality numbers for Toyota Georgetown are about half again as good as any assembly plant G.M. has ever had, and plants with p***ed off workers NEVER have high quality numbers. (Incidentally, the Toyota plant over at Princeton, Indiana is even better.)

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21083 posts, RR: 56
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 40):
No, technically you do not have to become a member of the organization, but unless you live in a right-to-work state, you'll be required to pay union dues.

If you didn't pay dues, but were still able to take advantage of the stuff that the union was able to provide for the workers (not necessarily pay, but work rules and the like), that would create a free-rider situation, and it should be evident why that's problematic.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSFBdude From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 40):
No, technically you do not have to become a member of the organization, but unless you live in a right-to-work state, you'll be required to pay union dues.

My neighbor works as a pipefitter down here in Orlando and he says that everyone has to pay dues even the guys that are retired. I was just curious as to why that is.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2348 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 18):
Right-wingers are trying like everything to drive down wages and make all states right-to-work states.

But the left and illegal alien's are not?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 18):
Then, they complain all those awful low-wage workers are a drain on the economy by getting food stamps and state sponsored health care

If we rid ourselves of the illegal alien problem there would be more job's for the legal citizens.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 18):
So: which is it? Union representation so people have a living wage and health benefits or receive food stamps and state health care?

There are millions of well paying non union job's out there.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
Because they legislate unions out. Unions do not force workers to join. No, they don't. Read up on it. No one is *FORCED* to join a union.

Yes we are forced to join the union. You have no idea what you are talking about. When you get hired with a unionized company you are *FORCED* to join the union as a condition of your employment. Even if you are in a 'right to work" state working for a company based in another state like what happen's in the Airlines.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 42):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 40):
No, technically you do not have to become a member of the organization, but unless you live in a right-to-work state, you'll be required to pay union dues.

If you didn't pay dues, but were still able to take advantage of the stuff that the union was able to provide for the workers (not necessarily pay, but work rules and the like), that would create a free-rider situation, and it should be evident why that's problematic.

So tyranny of the majority in other words? Why is it that the people who don't want to be a part of the union have to bow down to those that do and pay instead of those who voted for the union respecting their fellow individuals?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21083 posts, RR: 56
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 45):
Why is it that the people who don't want to be a part of the union have to bow down to those that do and pay instead of those who voted for the union respecting their fellow individuals?

Why is it that people should be able to get things without paying for them?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 46):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 45):
Why is it that the people who don't want to be a part of the union have to bow down to those that do and pay instead of those who voted for the union respecting their fellow individuals?

Why is it that people should be able to get things without paying for them?

Because they didn't want those things in the first place. You can't yell at someone for not wanting to pay for a product you shoved into their hands and told them they have to buy.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7270 posts, RR: 52
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2271 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 46):
Why is it that people should be able to get things without paying for them?

Should soldiers be the only ones that enjoy full freedom? They were the ones that paid for it.

If there are too many "free loaders" I think you'll see the union's power decrease, conditions start sucking, more people joining the unions, and then conditions improving.

I also don't see it right making people join unions if they don't want to. Free loader or not, I'm not keen of forcing people to do things when you don't have to.

Edit: I'll add that I'm not anti-union... they definitely have a time and place, and they are very applicable in many situations today. I just think they can and do have too much power a lot of times. Forcing someone to join a union crosses the line in my book, even if there are good arguments for it (and there are)

[Edited 2013-01-22 15:39:04]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5246 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2266 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):
I also don't see it right making people join unions if they don't want to. Free loader or not, I'm not keen of forcing people to do things when you don't have to.

Wouldn't the simplest thing be to just have those that are in the Union, those that make the commitment and join and pay dues, be covered by the Union contract and have access to the Union health plan and benefits and those that are not, well... don't?

I mean if I don't pay for my health insurance plan I don't get to have it just because I am in the company.

Of course the company could extend it's own plans and coverage to its employees and they could take advantage of that but the union could either have their own and limit it to members. That is actually the great strength for the Union with the new automakers contracts where the Union owns the health insurance (and costs) and pension (and costs).

Tugg

[Edited 2013-01-22 16:10:09]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15450 posts, RR: 26
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2253 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 42):
If you didn't pay dues, but were still able to take advantage of the stuff that the union was able to provide for the workers (not necessarily pay, but work rules and the like), that would create a free-rider situation, and it should be evident why that's problematic.

You can have different rules for different workers. For instance, union workers can be allowed to smoke weed and drink beer on their lunch breaks while non-union workers would not be allowed to do so.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 47):
Because they didn't want those things in the first place. You can't yell at someone for not wanting to pay for a product you shoved into their hands and told them they have to buy.

You have to wonder why unions have to force themselves on people if they are as wonderful as they believe they are. If they're so damn awesome, why do they need rules to force workers to join up?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):
Should soldiers be the only ones that enjoy full freedom? They were the ones that paid for it.

Most people's tax bills say otherwise.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5246 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2238 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):
Should soldiers be the only ones that enjoy full freedom? They were the ones that paid for it.

Most people's tax bills say otherwise.

Blood or treasure, whichever is more important to you. Its an age old question.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2236 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 49):
Wouldn't the simplest thing be to just have those that are in the Union, those that make the commitment and join and pay dues, be covered by the Union contract and have access to the Union health plan and benefits and those that are not, well... don't?

I was thinking about that as well, but I guess the simplest answer would be that it would be too expensive or unsustainable to have two sets of work rules for employees. If you have 20 unionized employees who get Columbus Day off, for example, and 10 who are un-unionized and thus do not have that day off, it may not be possible to keep the factory/shop open with just 10 employees...just depends on the business maybe.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):
If they're so damn awesome, why do they need rules to force workers to join up?

Obviously because some people don't know what's good for them (sarcasm).


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2234 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):
But the left and illegal alien's are not?

The left are indeed after higher wages for workers, yes. And I'm willing to bet most illegals would take a raise if you offered them one.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):
If we rid ourselves of the illegal alien problem there would be more job's for the legal citizens.

But most americans wouldn't do those jobs even at twice the rate.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):
There are millions of well paying non union job's out there.

Yup. Mine's one of them. But that doesn't mean Unions are worthless either. We can't forget how we got here.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):

Yes we are forced to join the union. You have no idea what you are talking about. When you get hired with a unionized company you are *FORCED* to join the union as a condition of your employment. Even if you are in a 'right to work" state working for a company based in another state like what happen's in the Airlines.

You can always opt out.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 47):

Because they didn't want those things in the first place. You can't yell at someone for not wanting to pay for a product you shoved into their hands and told them they have to buy.

Sigh... Just do what you guys are always telling other people to do when they're not happy about their jobs. Go work somewhere else.


Quoting tugger (Reply 49):

Wouldn't the simplest thing be to just have those that are in the Union, those that make the commitment and join and pay dues, be covered by the Union contract and have access to the Union health plan and benefits and those that are not, well... don't?


I don't see anything wrong with that.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):

You can have different rules for different workers. For instance, union workers can be allowed to smoke weed and drink beer on their lunch breaks while non-union workers would not be allowed to do so


It would be fair, yes.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):
Should soldiers be the only ones that enjoy full freedom? They were the ones that paid for it.

Most people's tax bills say otherwise.

Wo-how! Look at me agreeing with Bmi727 here. But seriously, that's true. I get what you're saying MD90, but any action defending freedom on that scale will be paid for with citizen tax dollars. So yes, we would be owed that freedom.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):

Should soldiers be the only ones that enjoy full freedom? They were the ones that paid for it.

I'll go one further though. Soldiers and freedom is really more of a cheap slogan than anything else. Unless you're in your 80's, there's been no war involving our freedom in your lifetime.

Soldiers can defend freedom, but as of now, they do not. In fact, who do you think it is that is abetting our gov't suspensions of Habeus Corpus down in Cuba? Those aren't civilian prison guards...

If want to thank someone for your freedom, a criminal defense atty and the electability of district court judges is where you want to be looking. Every dictatorship approaching our size has also had brave soldiers, but, not the aforementioned class of civilian professions. We'd be no different if that were true for us. Just something to think about...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2227 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
And add to that, unlike a private corporation, in general municipalities will not go bankrupt

Um, entire nations that print their own money have gone "bankrupt". There's nothing stopping a municipal corporation from going under.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 53):
You can always opt out.

Even in a right-to-work state, if your industry falls under the RLA, you are required to pay the portion of the dues schedule that directly relates to collective bargaining and maintenance of your contract. In my case, if I were to "opt out" of being a union member, do you know how much I would save? 15%. They would take ~$10/month off my ~$70/month union bill.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):

You have to wonder why unions have to force themselves on people if they are as wonderful as they believe they are. If they're so damn awesome, why do they need rules to force workers to join up?

The typical union line is that the employees were "intimidated" by management.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7270 posts, RR: 52
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2225 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 53):
I'll go one further though. Soldiers and freedom is really more of a cheap slogan than anything else. Unless you're in your 80's, there's been no war involving our freedom in your lifetime.

I agree but that's not my point, just trying to make an analogy



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2224 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 53):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 47):

Because they didn't want those things in the first place. You can't yell at someone for not wanting to pay for a product you shoved into their hands and told them they have to buy.

Sigh... Just do what you guys are always telling other people to do when they're not happy about their jobs. Go work somewhere else.

If we were simply talking about a specific policy companies themselves were enforcing then I would agree, but with the exception of right-to-work states, unions are artificial, government encouraged monopolies, not something you can really avoid by finding a new job.


User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5246 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 54):
Um, entire nations that print their own money have gone "bankrupt". There's nothing stopping a municipal corporation from going under.

I know that, which is why I said "in general". Don't know why you are splitting hairs when I am fairly certain that you understand what I am saying: A municipality is far less likely to go under than a private corporation, especially when you factor in the ability to tax, to raise money by decree essentially. States and cities have a very high bar to meet to claim bankruptcy.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):
Yes we are forced to join the union.

No. On the only thing we have that is close to a "liberal" talk radio station, they run ads letting everyone know that, if you work in a union shop, you are under no obligation to join the union. Unions are voluntary. They sure do help when a worker needs health insurance at a reasonable cost or wants a good wage.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):
But the left and illegal alien's are not?

The "left" want people to be off food stamps and welfare. I know that does not fit the right-wing meme, but if you actually listen to what the "left" says, you will see it is true.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):
If we rid ourselves of the illegal alien problem there would be more job's for the legal citizens.

Picking tomatos for $7.75 an hour? That creates a whole other set of problems.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):
There are millions of well paying non union job's out there

At Wal-Mart, 7-11, McDonalds, FoodMaxx, Target....

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 40):
since when did it become ridiculous to justify your compensation based on your own skills/qualifications?

People should be paid based on their skills and qualifications. However, getting a *fair* wage and getting *fair* benefits does not happen easily or at a reasonable cost without unions. Without a large group of people going in together. That is what COLLECTIVE barganing is all about: getting the best price for the most people. If it costs one person $1000 a month for insurance with a $5000 deductable at a non-union shop but it costs $50 a month with a $500 deductable at a union shop, which is better for workers? Since workers will afford to go to the doctor, it is better for the company too. But, the right does not want to hear any of that. I listen to FOX and Limbaugh and Beck. I know what the right wants.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
Because it doesn't bother people enough to find an alternative

Or, the alternative is too far away. I grew up in Pendleton. The Wal-Mart was opened 15 years ago. Before that, all we had was K-Mart and a Pennys catalog store. That was it for dry goods (clothing, shoes, etc.) For food, we had Albertson's and Safeway. The nearest town with anything else was 30 minutes drive. They had the same stores. For people living paycheck to paycheck, it makes no sense at all to spend all that gas money to drive 30 minutes for the exact same stores. That is why I left and never looked back. I was lucky because I could afford to leave. Some people don't leave because they can't afford it and get stuck. Not only in Oregon, but in Iowa and North Dakota and so forth. Then, they are told it is the "liberal" low-wage workers who are the problem. Not the right-wing low-wage workers.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15450 posts, RR: 26
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
No. On the only thing we have that is close to a "liberal" talk radio station, they run ads letting everyone know that, if you work in a union shop, you are under no obligation to join the union. Unions are voluntary.

Paying the union dues, however, is compulsory. You pay the union dues whether you actually join the union or not.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
Or, the alternative is too far away.

That's just part of living in a small place. If there is the market for it, an alternative will show up.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
I grew up in Pendleton. The Wal-Mart was opened 15 years ago. Before that, all we had was K-Mart and a Pennys catalog store. That was it for dry goods (clothing, shoes, etc.) For food, we had Albertson's and Safeway. The nearest town with anything else was 30 minutes drive.

I grew up in a town smaller than that, where the only shopping was a couple convenience stores and a small grocery store. The grocery store closed precisely because people drove the half hour or so to bigger stores that had more choices and lower prices.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
Some people don't leave because they can't afford it and get stuck. Not only in Oregon, but in Iowa and North Dakota and so forth.

Actually, they aren't doing that in Iowa and North Dakota. Both states have seen increasing population (not necessarily by people moving in) and rank fourth and first in having the lowest unemployment.

But since you brought it up, of the ten states with the lowest unemployment rates, seven voted for Romney in the presidential election, and Republicans outnumber Democrats 20 to 6 in the House and 13 to 6 (1 independent) in the Senate.

And the ten states with the highest unemployment rates? Seven voted for Obama, Democrats outnumber Republicans 79 to 59 among their representatives and 13 to 7 among their senators.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

Quoting NWAdeicer (Reply 60):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):

Hi BMI727!

Hey just curious. You got a job yet or still sponging off your parents?

Thanks!

Wow, ad hominem attacks are just so classy  


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21083 posts, RR: 56
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 47):
You can't yell at someone for not wanting to pay for a product you shoved into their hands and told them they have to buy.

I have no problem with them not wanting it. But the fact remains that they've got it, and it's not right that they should get it for free while others have to chip in.

There's no easy answer here - on the one hand, you don't want to create free riders, but on the other hand it's not really right to force someone into paying for something they don't want. But ultimately, since allowing people to get the benefits of a union without paying for a union would lead to the demise of that union and the subsequent loss of the benefits that everyone wanted in the first place, I have to side with those claiming that dues should be required from those who enjoy the benefits of the union's presence, whether they wanted to be part of the union or not.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):
Should soldiers be the only ones that enjoy full freedom? They were the ones that paid for it.

Not even a close analogy. The whole "soldiers pay for our freedom" thing is way overdone.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):
You can have different rules for different workers.

That gets impractical very quickly.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2105 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 63):
but on the other hand it's not really right to force someone into paying for something they don't want.

One word: taxes. We make people pay up to half their salary in taxes to pay for things for other people.

That reminds me of a story from a while back, in a small town where residents can opt out of their fire district. In other words, they don't have to pay the taxes that fund their fire department, but then they give up any protection from that fire department unless someone's life is in immediate danger (and then they get slapped with the full bill).

Well, one family decided that they didn't need to pay those taxes, and opted out of it. Lo and behold, their house caught fire one day. The fire department showed up, and refused to put out the fire. Their house burned to the ground and set another house on fire (which was promptly extinguished, being that those residents payed the tax). Of course, the "man" of the house gets all bent out of shape, claiming that he was willing to pay them on the spot for the protection he previously didn't want to pay for.

It's not a perfect comparison (nor am I even remotely suggesting that everyone should be forced into a union), but you should always be careful about trusting people when they say they don't "want" anything because they have to pay for it. Often times, they have never been in a position to make a proper, informed decision on the subject.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5246 posts, RR: 8
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2099 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 63):
That gets impractical very quickly.

Why? Most (all?) unionized companies already exist with two systems, one for the union employees and another for management. I am also pretty sure that there are plenty of non-management, non-union employees that work at unionized companies in the fields that were not unionized.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 61):
But ultimately, since allowing people to get the benefits of a union without paying for a union would lead to the demise of that union and the subsequent loss of the benefits that everyone wanted in the first place

And how do you know that? Unions are businesses/organizations just like everyone else, and they need to learn how to streamline, become efficient and chase dollars like any other industry...the artificial propping up from the government that they get is by no means fair. Unions aren't dead in right-to-work states, they still exist in those places, they just have to work harder to attract membership and be more efficient with their costs.

Quoting Mir (Reply 61):
I have to side with those claiming that dues should be required from those who enjoy the benefits of the union's presence, whether they wanted to be part of the union or not.

Well this is where we disagree then. I like to err on the side of liberty.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 62):
but you should always be careful about trusting people when they say they don't "want" anything because they have to pay for it. Often times, they have never been in a position to make a proper, informed decision on the subject.

Perfectly fits that union, Leftist mantra that people don't know what's good for them.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2087 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):Yes we are forced to join the union.
No. On the only thing we have that is close to a "liberal" talk radio station, they run ads letting everyone know that, if you work in a union shop, you are under no obligation to join the union. Unions are voluntary

How many union's have you been in? In closed shop you are 100% required to join the union when taking a job with the company that they are representing.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 53):
You can always opt out

Not if you want to keep your job.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7270 posts, RR: 52
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 61):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):
Should soldiers be the only ones that enjoy full freedom? They were the ones that paid for it.

Not even a close analogy. The whole "soldiers pay for our freedom" thing is way overdone.

Perhaps it's a poor analogy, and you should know by reading my posts I'm very much against troop worship. I guess the crux of my argument is I'm very much against forcing people into doing things. I know it is required all the time, but I try and limit it as much as I can. Yeah, free loading sucks, but in my mind, forcing people to join unions is unacceptable.

I might have it a bit off though, you aren't forced to join the union but you're forced to pay the union's dues? Still bad in my book. JMO



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2035 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):

Perfectly fits that union, Leftist mantra that people don't know what's good for them.

I said you should be careful about trusting people when they say they don't want to pay for a certain benefit or service, and then provided an example of why.

Nowhere have I said that people who vote against a union "don't know what's good for them", and you will never hear me say that.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
.the artificial propping up from the government that they get is by no means fair.

How exactly do you think are they "artificially propped up"?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21083 posts, RR: 56
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2029 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
And how do you know that?

It's a tragedy of the commons situation. If people don't need to pay to get the benefits of the union, they probably won't. But then the union will run out of money pretty quickly, and will be unable to do the work that the employees want it to do.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
I like to err on the side of liberty.

I like liberty too, but liberty without responsibility is just anarchy.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2022 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 65):
Not if you want to keep your job.

I did it once, a little over a decade back, at another job. I got fired zero times as a result.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 55):
I agree but that's not my point, just trying to make an analogy

Yeah, I split the hell outta that hair, didn't I? I stand by what I said, but looking more closely at it, it probably wasn't necessary to say.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 54):
In my case, if I were to "opt out" of being a union member, do you know how much I would save? 15%. They would take ~$10/month off my ~$70/month union bill.

So what's the downside? You save a little, and still have the benefits associated therewith. If it's still really that onerous a

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 56):

If we were simply talking about a specific policy companies themselves were enforcing then I would agree, but with the exception of right-to-work states, unions are artificial, government encouraged monopolies, not something you can really avoid by finding a new job.

Good, then you see what everyone is saying then. Simply reverse the sides, and we see that the problem is that in RTW backwaters, you have a situation where companies have no incentive to pay the correct wage or maintain certain minima regarding work rules. There will always be folks looking for work (thanks mostly to corporate off-shoring policies). It only takes hiring a tiny minority of these at sub-par rates to create a situation where wages have been driven artificially low.

You see the opposite extreme (when and where it still actually exists; and I'm willing to wager that's a far smaller number of occurrences than you believe) as the problem. But I'm certain that if you had any experience working for wages less than market (which most of us in aviation have taken a turn or two at), I'm certain your outlook would be different.

I will agree that Unions have put a company or two out of business. What Charlie Bryan did to Eastern and what Lara Glading is still trying to do to AA can politely be described as Jackhammer Rape. But these are the extreme minority, and a few of those every few decades are of far greater preference to turning a wrench at some regional for $15/hr and being told that's a "good gig."



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2008 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 69):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 65):Not if you want to keep your job.

I did it once, a little over a decade back, at another job. I got fired zero times as a result.

Was it a closed shop? Did you still have to pay dues?



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 67):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
.the artificial propping up from the government that they get is by no means fair.

How exactly do you think are they "artificially propped up"?

Because the real market cost to employees of having a union is artificially suppressed by legislation in states where non-union employees are forced to pay union dues.

Quoting Mir (Reply 68):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
And how do you know that?

It's a tragedy of the commons situation. If people don't need to pay to get the benefits of the union, they probably won't. But then the union will run out of money pretty quickly, and will be unable to do the work that the employees want it to do.

And that's just a situation the unions have to figure out a way to deal with like any other company in a market place. I don't see the government stepping in to force people to buy the products of other companies just to keep them solvent.

Quoting Mir (Reply 68):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
I like to err on the side of liberty.

I like liberty too, but liberty without responsibility is just anarchy.

And I just don't define forcing non-union members to pay union dues as responsible.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 69):
you have a situation where companies have no incentive to pay the correct wage or maintain certain minima regarding work rules.

Not at all, modern business practices have evolved significantly since the days of Carnegie Steel or Pullman. It's now well-established that having a contented, well-compensated work force is a very valuable asset to companies and significantly contributes to the bottom line, so companies nowadays have every incentive to ensure their workers are compensated accordingly. Just because Toyota and Honda pay their right-to-work located factory workers less than their Detroit counterparts doesn't mean they're not being payed a "correct" wage.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
Because the real market cost to employees of having a union is artificially suppressed by legislation in states where non-union employees are forced to pay union dues.

Considering the other thread that says union membership is at the lowest point since the 1930s, your argument falls on its face.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
It's now well-established that having a contented, well-compensated work force is a very valuable asset to companies and significantly contributes to the bottom line, so companies nowadays have every incentive to ensure their workers are compensated accordingly.

That's what the Corporate Man want you to believe. I can assure you that they want nothing more than to pay the bare minimum it takes to get the job done. And in this market climate of surplus workers, well, just be glad there's a minimum wage.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1960 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 72):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
Because the real market cost to employees of having a union is artificially suppressed by legislation in states where non-union employees are forced to pay union dues.

Considering the other thread that says union membership is at the lowest point since the 1930s, your argument falls on its face.

It makes no difference how many unions there are, but as long as you have legislation forcing people to pay into an organization they don't want to be a part of, you are artificially propping them up. The relatively low and declining popularity of unions bears no relevance to this point.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 72):

That's what the Corporate Man want you to believe.

The Corporate Man? Give me a break, this isn't Berkley in the 60's.


Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 72):
I can assure you that they want nothing more than to pay the bare minimum it takes to get the job done.

Sure they want the job done for the best value, but it does them no good if their employees have no internal or external equity and produce low-quality work or customer service, something that greatly affects their bottom line.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 73):
but as long as you have legislation forcing people to pay into an organization they don't want to be a part of

Don't want to be a part of it? Don't work there. Isn't that the conservative mantra, to vote with your feet? (See, I can do the meaningless partisan name calling too!)

Like it or not, majority rules. It's how things have always been done in this country. The only "propping up" those laws do is to make sure that there are no freeloaders. If the workers don't feel that their union is valuable, they'll vote them out.

Or is it you that has so little faith in people knowing what they want?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 73):
Sure they want the job done for the best value, but it does them no good if their employees have no internal or external equity and produce low-quality work or customer service, something that greatly affects their bottom line.

Unless you have unique, marketable skill, that's simply not the case right now. Again, there is a surplus of eligible workers in almost every field. It's easier for an employer to motivate someone with discipline than pay, because there's always someone out there that will take your job from you.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5246 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1947 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 74):
Don't want to be a part of it? Don't work there. Isn't that the conservative mantra, to vote with your feet? (See, I can do the meaningless partisan name calling too!)

But why? If I don't want the health insurance my company offers (and I don't) then why should I have to pay for it? And I get my health insurance through my wife and I am not required to pay for it where I work.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 74):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 73):
but as long as you have legislation forcing people to pay into an organization they don't want to be a part of

Don't want to be a part of it? Don't work there.

That's coercion via the force of the state, it's not right.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 74):
Isn't that the conservative mantra, to vote with your feet? (See, I can do the meaningless partisan name calling too!)

And they are by moving to right-to-work states and voting for representatives supportive of such legislation.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 74):
Like it or not, majority rules. It's how things have always been done in this country.

Tyranny of the majority has never been how things "have always been done in this country".

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 74):
If the workers don't feel that their union is valuable, they'll vote them out.

Easier said than done, but we're moving in that direction.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 74):
It's easier for an employer to motivate someone with discipline than pay, because there's always someone out there that will take your job from you.

At the cost of productivity and quality. Your view of modern business is archaic.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):

That's coercion via the force of the state, it's not right.

Huh? Being free to move between jobs is coercion?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):

And they are by moving to right-to-work states and voting for representatives supportive of such legislation.

Source?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):

Tyranny of the majority has never been how things "have always been done in this country".

Actually, it has. Not that is was ever right, but that's for another thread.

Sorry to say that just because a vote doesn't go your way, doesn't mean your rights are being trampled on. You don't get to claim "tyranny of the majority" anytime you're on the losing side of a fair vote, otherwise it turns into true tyranny.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
Easier said than done

How so?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):

At the cost of productivity and quality. Your view of modern business is archaic.

Trust me, it's not my view or what I want. It's reality. I submit that your view of modern business is through rose-colored glasses. Large businesses are getting larger (with bigger profits), while unemployment remains high and wages are stagnant at best.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1934 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 77):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):

That's coercion via the force of the state, it's not right.

Huh? Being free to move between jobs is coercion?

Forcing someone to move between jobs because they don't want to pay for a private organization is coercion.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 77):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):

And they are by moving to right-to-work states and voting for representatives supportive of such legislation.

Source?

Texas, Georgia, Florida, Nevada, Utah and South Carolina all gained Congressional seats because of migration to those states.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 77):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):

Tyranny of the majority has never been how things "have always been done in this country".

Actually, it has.

It has historically occurred before but it's not the rule that you imply and is more the exception. The will of the majority regularly gets overturned for overstepping its boundaries with regard to the individual, human rights and rule-by-law.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 77):
Sorry to say that just because a vote doesn't go your way, doesn't mean your rights are being trampled on. You don't get to claim "tyranny of the majority" anytime you're on the losing side of a fair vote, otherwise it turns into true tyranny.


Rationalize it any way that fancies you, but the majority forcing other individuals to pay for an organization they did not want or vote for is tyranny of the majority.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 77):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
Easier said than done

How so?

De-certifying a union is a hellish process but not completely impossible.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 77):
Large businesses are getting larger (with bigger profits), while unemployment remains high and wages are stagnant at best.

And there are MANY more factors influencing these issues than simply implying that because of those circumstances, all companies care about is cutting workers' wages to the bone, human resources is becoming a major asset to companies and they're investing heavily in it.


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
I don't see the government stepping in to force people to buy the products of other companies just to keep them solvent.

Oh, re-he-he-heally? Care to explain the Affordable Healthcare Act?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
It's now well-established that having a contented, well-compensated work force is a very valuable asset to companies and significantly contributes to the bottom line, so companies nowadays have every incentive to ensure their workers are compensated accordingly.

And which of these companies are not on a hiring freeze or reducing hours now?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 70):
Was it a closed shop? Did you still have to pay dues?

You bet it was. My dues were knocked back about 55% IIRC (this was back in 1999). In the end, I had to take the same furlough everyone else in my class did, and staying with AFA wouldn't have changed that...

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 72):
I can assure you that they want nothing more than to pay the bare minimum it takes to get the job done. And in this market climate of surplus workers, well, just be glad there's a minimum wage.

Correct. There are too many available workers for anything else to be true here. If they could get away with it, we'd be seeing a lot of $5 - 6/hr jobs. I base that on the prevailing rates for the illegals I know...

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 73):
Sure they want the job done for the best value, but it does them no good if their employees have no internal or external equity and produce low-quality work or customer service, something that greatly affects their bottom line.

Yeah, I read that text book too. But where the rubber meets the road, there's a reason why airports (again, just as a microcosmic example) in RTW states see a good deal of work outsourced to lowest bidder operations. I know guys that throw bags and push planes for $8/hr. That's $8/hr for semi-skilled labor. Very often these folks will have two full time jobs, to make ends meet. In fact, this is the dirty little secret a lot of RTW states don't like to admit; that their employment numbers are artificially pumped up by a greater number of people having more than one job. This is how they can advertise "lower unemployment" and still have significantly higher levels of poverty, than say California or Maryland.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
At the cost of productivity and quality. Your view of modern business is archaic.

Potato potahto... You say archaic, we say accurate. Have you been to america? Ok, well how about Wal-Mart? Where do they fit into your model? You know anyone in an RTW WalMart making $20 hour in a non-mgmt position? Well I know a few folks there who are in mgmt, and still not making that. Their wage scale are pretty attrocious, and their work conditions are what most will agree ripe for unionization. In fact, the fact the company routinely has to fight that off all over the place is a real bad sign.

Nevertheless, they are immensely successful. They bring you lots of products, and cheaply so, & that's why you'll shop there before this week is out. That success has nothing to do with how they treat folks.

This is the rule, not the exception.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):

Forcing someone to move between jobs because they don't want to pay for a private organization is coercion.

Soooooooooo... What is it when you do the same thing by colluding to keep wages low? I think we need to drop the hyperbole here...

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):

And there are MANY more factors influencing these issues than simply implying that because of those circumstances, all companies care about is cutting workers' wages to the bone, human resources is becoming a major asset to companies and they're investing heavily in it.

Yeah, like what other companies are doing with their labor. There really isn't much beyond that.

If your're selling a service, and ACME service sellers open up down the street, selling the same, for 30% less, and you don't get a handle on your labor PDQ, you will be out of business. When I was a Station Mgr, a full hour of every weekly three hour teleconference with the company was labor and productivity cost issues. We didn't cut wages (at the company I worked for then, NOT where I am now, just to keep that clear) from $11/hr to $7, but we might as well have, usually by way of reducing hours. And believe me, that bothered me, as I was now required to take care of a lot of jobs once handled by non-salaried labor.

But our company wasn't some evil monstrosity for doing that. In fact, we were rated as one of that region's "best" places to work. We were just responding to market pressure. Gordon Bethune really did say it best when he said "you're only as good as your dumbest competitor." And if you really, honestly believe that labor isn't the first "go-to" on cost cutting, then all I can say is you need a lot more real world experience.

This idea you have that somehow companies are voluntarily "investing" in their workforce is deeply flawed. You can point to FX or WN (Both based in RTW 'holes), but even there, they have effectively halted new-hires in order to maintain what they have. So guess what? Even if wages can stagnate, productivity will have to increase. I don't know what WN is going to do there, since they already have high productivity (and are VERY unionized, by the way), but I see a lot of outsourcing for them sooner or later...

What you need to know is that companies won't do a thing more than they're required to by law. My personal situation is different, because I am lucky enough to have skill set that lends itself to negotiation WRT salary/benefits, etc... But I can't do what I do by myself, and even here in "worker's paradise" CA, it's an uphill battle to get the funding I need toward that end. And we're one of the better places to work.

Just sayin...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):
Texas, Georgia, Florida, Nevada, Utah and South Carolina all gained Congressional seats because of migration to those states.

Now if you can show where people moved to those places because of "right-to-work" laws and vote for politicians that support them, that'd be great.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):
It has historically occurred before but it's not the rule that you imply and is more the exception.

It caused a civil war that killed 300,000 people. And that was just arguing over whether it was occurring or not.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):

Rationalize it any way that fancies you, but the majority forcing other individuals to pay for an organization they did not want or vote for is tyranny of the majority.

I'd wager that the IRS is something that most people don't want, yet we still pay taxes.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):

De-certifying a union is a hellish process

It's actually fairly simple, even under the RLA. You get enough workers to sign cards, and a vote is called by the NLRB. The vote is held, and if a majority vote "no union", the union is de-certified.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):
And there are MANY more factors influencing these issues than simply implying that because of those circumstances, all companies care about is cutting workers' wages to the bone,

So, according to you, companies succeed because they treat and pay their employees well, yet when they don't it's because of other factors?

You can't have it both ways.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):
, human resources is becoming a major asset to companies and they're investing heavily in it.

Source?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1919 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
I don't see the government stepping in to force people to buy the products of other companies just to keep them solvent.

Oh, re-he-he-heally? Care to explain the Affordable Healthcare Act?

Wait, so the Affordable Care Act was about helping private insurance stay solvent and not about providing more coverage?  Wow!

Oh I have my own qualms with Obamacare as you may well guess, but last I checked, union dues aren't covered under the taxing authority of Congress.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
It's now well-established that having a contented, well-compensated work force is a very valuable asset to companies and significantly contributes to the bottom line, so companies nowadays have every incentive to ensure their workers are compensated accordingly.

And which of these companies are not on a hiring freeze or reducing hours now?

What do hiring freezes have to do with having a well-compensated work force? As long as most employees feel they're being compensated fairly with a strong feeling of equity in the company, that's what matters to the bottom line. Hiring freezes and reducing hours? Those were happening even during the unions' heyday, the world will never be perfect.


Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
If they could get away with it, we'd be seeing a lot of $5 - 6/hr jobs.

Well sure, and airlines wish they could pay nothing for fuel if they could get away with it. But depending on the position, companies will not because they know people will either simply file for unemployment/welfare or work elsewhere, otherwise they'll have an unproductive surly labor force with high turn-over that drives up costs.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
That's $8/hr for semi-skilled labor. Very often these folks will have two full time jobs, to make ends meet. In fact, this is the dirty little secret a lot of RTW states don't like to admit;

It's no "secret", but most people would rather work two jobs than work no job at all, 10% unemployment in CA, THAT is ridiculous.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
This is how they can advertise "lower unemployment" and still have significantly higher levels of poverty, than say California or Maryland.

Really? Because according to the latest census, CA has the highest poverty rate in the nation, followed by Washington DC. Even using the old measure of poverty rates, CA's poverty rates were not "significantly" lower than their right-to-work counterparts. Additionally, it's really disingenuous to say that poverty in many of these states is any consequence of right-to-work legislation, many of these states passed these laws fairly recently and have had high poverty rates for many many years....it's not like Mississippi used to be some rich, productive state when the unions had more power.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
You know anyone in an RTW WalMart making $20 hour in a non-mgmt position?

Why does a low-skill bottom level position like a cashier at Walmart require a $20/hour wage? The lower the level of skills required, the lower the compensation you're going to get. It's not like people should be shocked you can't live high on the hog working your entire life as a cashier.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
Their wage scale are pretty attrocious, and their work conditions are what most will agree ripe for unionization. In fact, the fact the company routinely has to fight that off all over the place is a real bad sign.

I don't agree with many of the criticisms leveled toward Walmart, but yes their labor relations are pretty atrocious and they're suffering because of it as Target and Costco eat into their market share.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
That success has nothing to do with how they treat folks.

1) Walmart's employee relations/compensation didn't always used to be so terrible.
2) Consumers previously had no low-price choices, this is changing however and Walmart is being challenged domestically and is struggling internationally.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):

Forcing someone to move between jobs because they don't want to pay for a private organization is coercion.

Soooooooooo... What is it when you do the same thing by colluding to keep wages low? I think we need to drop the hyperbole here...

That's not even a remotely apt comparison. You are free to come and go between jobs if you deem yourself not being fairly compensated, but that's not the same as liking your current job and compensation and being forced to pay union dues on top of it.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
If your're selling a service, and ACME service sellers open up down the street, selling the same, for 30% less, and you don't get a handle on your labor PDQ, you will be out of business.

Obviously, but at the same time, if you're undercutting your labor too much, you're going to be unable to adequately provide the service you're competing for in a satisfactory way to the customer, that will also put you out of business.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
But our company wasn't some evil monstrosity for doing that. In fact, we were rated as one of that region's "best" places to work. We were just responding to market pressure. Gordon Bethune really did say it best when he said "you're only as good as your dumbest competitor." And if you really, honestly believe that labor isn't the first "go-to" on cost cutting, then all I can say is you need a lot more real world experience.

This idea you have that somehow companies are voluntarily "investing" in their workforce is deeply flawed.

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying compensation/labor is an absolute golden egg that will never be touched or adjusted to the times, I know companies are forced to make changes in response to various conditions. My overall point though is that business today has evolved beyond the "Robber Baron" days some often like to cite, they had no concept of employee morale, equity, ownership, satisfaction and their influence on productivity and their bottom line. I contest the scare tactics, however, that companies will suddenly slash wages to levels equivalent to those in India and China without organized labor, it's absolutely untrue in my opinion.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 80):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):
Texas, Georgia, Florida, Nevada, Utah and South Carolina all gained Congressional seats because of migration to those states.

Now if you can show where people moved to those places because of "right-to-work" laws and vote for politicians that support them, that'd be great.

Look at the 2008 US Census data, the top state people are moving to Texas from is California. If right-to-work legislation is awful and detrimental to wages, poverty levels and the economy, why aren't people leaving those states and why are the same politicians who enacted those pieces of legislation still in power?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 80):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):
It has historically occurred before but it's not the rule that you imply and is more the exception.

It caused a civil war that killed 300,000 people. And that was just arguing over whether it was occurring or not.

And how often do we have civil wars?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 80):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):

Rationalize it any way that fancies you, but the majority forcing other individuals to pay for an organization they did not want or vote for is tyranny of the majority.

I'd wager that the IRS is something that most people don't want, yet we still pay taxes.

The IRS is a government agency charged with carrying out Congress' constitutionally enumerated power of taxation, not the same thing as a private organized labor association.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 80):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):

De-certifying a union is a hellish process

It's actually fairly simple, even under the RLA. You get enough workers to sign cards, and a vote is called by the NLRB. The vote is held, and if a majority vote "no union", the union is de-certified.

It sounds simple enough, but the unions draw it out, litigate it and make it as complex and expensive for the company as they possibly can.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 80):

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):
And there are MANY more factors influencing these issues than simply implying that because of those circumstances, all companies care about is cutting workers' wages to the bone,

So, according to you, companies succeed because they treat and pay their employees well, yet when they don't it's because of other factors?

You can't have it both ways.

I never claimed it was all one way. I simply stated that having a satisfied labor force who's content with their compensation is an equally valuable component to making a business successful.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
You are free to come and go between jobs if you deem yourself not being fairly compensated, but that's not the same as liking your current job and compensation and being forced to pay union dues on top of it.

Bull. It is exactly the same.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Look at the 2008 US Census data, the top state people are moving to Texas from is California. If right-to-work legislation is awful and detrimental to wages, poverty levels and the economy, why aren't people leaving those states and why are the same politicians who enacted those pieces of legislation still in power?

  

In other words, you have no sources to back you up except stereotypes about certain states.

BTW, the fastest growing cities in the US include such Conservative bastions as DC, New Orleans, Austin, El Paso, and Atlanta.

Whoops.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
I simply stated that having a satisfied labor force who's content with their compensation is an equally valuable component to making a business successful.

Nope. Not even close.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 73):
something that greatly affects their bottom line.

"Greatly" does not appear next to "Equal" in my Thesaurus. Then again, it could just be a liberal mouthpiece, but who knows?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 82):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
You are free to come and go between jobs if you deem yourself not being fairly compensated, but that's not the same as liking your current job and compensation and being forced to pay union dues on top of it.

Bull. It is exactly the same.

Nope, you're given the option to stay or go if you don't like the wages, you are not given the option to pay or not pay regarding union dues.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 82):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Look at the 2008 US Census data, the top state people are moving to Texas from is California. If right-to-work legislation is awful and detrimental to wages, poverty levels and the economy, why aren't people leaving those states and why are the same politicians who enacted those pieces of legislation still in power?



In other words, you have no sources to back you up except stereotypes about certain states.

I just directed you to US Census data. We were talking about people voting with their feet.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 82):
New Orleans, Austin, El Paso, and Atlanta.

All of whom are represented by conservative governors and conservative legislatures.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 82):
DC

We all know why DC is growing, and it isn't free market-driven.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 82):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
I simply stated that having a satisfied labor force who's content with their compensation is an equally valuable component to making a business successful.

Nope. Not even close.

I'm well aware of what I wrote, my position has not changed.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 82):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 73):
something that greatly affects their bottom line.

"Greatly" does not appear next to "Equal" in my Thesaurus. Then again, it could just be a liberal mouthpiece, but who knows?

An "equally valuable component to making a business successful" and "something that greatly affects their bottom line" are two different descriptions thus the two different adjectives.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 83):

Nope, you're given the option to stay or go if you don't like the wages, you are not given the option to pay or not pay regarding union dues.

Except you are given the option: if you don't like it, you're free to go elsewhere. I don't know why it's so hard to comprehend that or why you feel it's different. At the end of the day, you may feel that you are taking home less money than you feel you're worth.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 83):
I just directed you to US Census data.

Which conveniently says NOTHING about why people have moved.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 83):
All of whom are represented by conservative governors and conservative legislatures.

  

Yes, because only the largest cities in a state get to vote.

  

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 83):
We all know why DC is growing, and it isn't free market-driven.

Ah, so when a conservative, right-to-work state grows, it's because they're conservative and right-to-work and people like that. Yet when a liberal, union-friendly area grows, it's because of something else. Gotcha.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84):
Ah, so when a conservative, right-to-work state grows, it's because they're conservative and right-to-work and people like that. Yet when a liberal, union-friendly area grows, it's because of something else. Gotcha.

You have to consider government employees and their cost as G&A - aka overhead. DC growing like it is is an indication that our G&A is growing a hell of a lot faster than our overall business - the economy - and the company is borrowing money to do it. For any company, this situation should be sounding major alarm bells.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1819 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 83):

Nope, you're given the option to stay or go if you don't like the wages, you are not given the option to pay or not pay regarding union dues.

Except you are given the option: if you don't like it, you're free to go elsewhere.

Except that you're not free to keep your job, which isn't right.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 83):
I just directed you to US Census data.

Which conveniently says NOTHING about why people have moved.

As we were talking about people voting with their feet, it says a tremendous lot about why people are moving there.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84):
Yes, because only the largest cities in a state get to vote.

They're often the largest concentration of votes in the states.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 83):
We all know why DC is growing, and it isn't free market-driven.

Ah, so when a conservative, right-to-work state grows, it's because they're conservative and right-to-work and people like that. Yet when a liberal, union-friendly area grows, it's because of something else. Gotcha.

Oh right because DC, which is the seat of the federal government, is comparable to any other city in the US, regardless of their political orientation  


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1798 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Wait, so the Affordable Care Act was about helping private insurance stay solvent and not about providing more coverage?
[quote=flyguy89,reply=86]

You bet. Why do you think the Health Ins Industry lobbied so hard to remove the single payer option, and install mandates instead?


Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 83):
I just directed you to US Census data.

Which conveniently says NOTHING about why people have moved.

As we were talking about people voting with their feet, it says a tremendous lot about why people are moving there.

I doubt it. Given that wages and standards of living in RTW regions tend to be closer to 3rd world than what you find in NY or SF, you would would need to substantiate that claim.

You will also need to find relevant data. 2008 was five years ago, and this "trend" you imagine about people moving from CA to TX no longer exists. Keep in mind that TX has no meaningful living wage standards, while CA on the other hand, has them all over the place. You can't work at LAX, for example, for less than $14.xx/hr. Again, there's nothing like that in TX. While there were other factors involved, my feet most certainly voted for CA last year. From TX.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1791 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 87):
You will also need to find relevant data. 2008 was five years ago, and this "trend" you imagine about people moving from CA to TX no longer exists.

Study dated September of last year. Read it and weep.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.UQSINB3LTY8



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8505 posts, RR: 10
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 87):
You will also need to find relevant data. 2008 was five years ago, and this "trend" you imagine about people moving from CA to TX no longer exists. Keep in mind that TX has no meaningful living wage standards, while CA on the other hand, has them all over the place. You can't work at LAX, for example, for less than $14.xx/hr. Again, there's nothing like that in TX. While there were other factors involved, my feet most certainly voted for CA last year. From TX.

I would imagine people headed to Texas when there were no jobs, desperation can do things like that. Now that jobs are reappearing that trend should reverse itself. Of course desperation is what certain groups like to use to pay slave wages. I applaud you for going the other way. It takes a backbone to stand erect so you can see yourself in the mirror. Many now lack that.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1774 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 88):

You first. Your article there shows an unmistakable decline in migrations away from CA, which would be why I said something more recent than 2008 was in order. As well...

Quote:
The best explanation for these patterns is that relatively affluent retirees (or owners of vacation homes) move from California to Oregon and Nevada

So in your universe, retirees moving to Vegas = People fleeing unions... Good job there.

I guess just be careful what you quote...




Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 89):
Of course desperation is what certain groups like to use to pay slave wages. I applaud you for going the other way. It takes a backbone to stand erect so you can see yourself in the mirror. Many now lack that.

Thank you, but believe me, it was a very easy choice. For skilled labor & mgmt, I'm worth a hell of a lot more here than in TX, and that's even offsetting TX lack of income tax!

TX does indeed have jobs. You just need to be willing to string two or three of them together to make ends meet. I clearly do not have that problem here. But hey, what do I know, I've just been there and done that, lol...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 90):
So in your universe, retirees moving to Vegas = People fleeing unions... Good job there.

I never said anything about Unions and California. The most commonly quoted reason is taxes. Kinda like Phil Micholson's recent statement that he is looking at leaving California because his effective tax rate, all-in, is 63%.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 87):
I doubt it. Given that wages and standards of living in RTW regions tend to be closer to 3rd world than what you find in NY or SF, you would would need to substantiate that claim.

And you say I need to stop with the hyperbole? Have you been to Oakland and Compton? If you have ever visited a 3rd world country you'd know this isn't even remotely true. Additionally, your notion isn't consistent with the data I had discussed earlier with CA having the highest poverty rate in the US, despite your assertion that right-to-work states had poverty rates significantly higher than CA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1.../california-poverty_n_2132920.html

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 87):
While there were other factors involved, my feet most certainly voted for CA last year. From TX.

A lone wolf in a sea of people moving the opposite direction of you apparently. I was actually just about to post the study Dreadnought just linked to.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 90):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 88):

You first. Your article there shows an unmistakable decline in migrations away from CA, which would be why I said something more recent than 2008 was in order. As well...

There is no discernible trend in that regard except for the fact that people are continuing to leave CA. In July 2005 there was net migration of -83,183, years before the housing and economic crisis, and the net migration deficit has only continued. Looking at only domestic migration, more people have been moving out of CA to other states than moving in since 1992. -351,872 in 1994, -55,541 in 1998, -316,888 in 2009 and -174,445 in 2011....the numbers of people leaving have been all over the place, but people have been consistently leaving for other states for over 20 years.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 90):
Quote:
The best explanation for these patterns is that relatively affluent retirees (or owners of vacation homes) move from California to Oregon and Nevada

So in your universe, retirees moving to Vegas = People fleeing unions... Good job there.

I guess just be careful what you quote...

Indeed, and how convenient of you to leave out the rest of the paragraph you quoted there:

Quote:
...while Texas gets more young families looking for economic opportunity. Arizona has a mix of both types of ex-California migrant. Another type of IRS data, exemptions per return, supports this explanation. Returns of Californians bound for Texas average 2.21 exemptions, compared with 1.89 for those who went to Oregon, 1.98 for Nevada, and 2.07 for Arizona.

And just as a reminder, Texas and Arizona were in the top three destination states for people leaving CA, TX being the top one.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 89):
Now that jobs are reappearing that trend should reverse itself.

The data clearly shows more people have been moving out of CA to other states than moving in for over two decades, that includes the prosperous 90's and post-911/pre-recession economies, so obviously lack of jobs isn't the only thing driving people out of CA.


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1752 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
If you have ever visited a 3rd world country you'd know this isn't even remotely true.

Bullshit. I've spent a good deal of time in quite a few 3rd world places. And I mean it very sincerely when I say that I would live in Namibia or Albania before Kentucky or Arkansas. That's not a slam on those states; there's just a good deal less difference than you imagine. If you ever get to leave the US sometime, you'll see this.

As for Oakland & Compton, if you're going to slam something, update yourself first. There's good odds that there are a lot of places in Oakland you probably can't afford. You may wish to ask DocLightning about that one...

CA certainly has its backwaters, but you need to look outside of the cities for that. High desert, or Imperial Valley (oddly enough, places that would likely support RTW) fare much worse than Los Angeles or San Diego. In fact, it's good odds that those are the places folks are moving away from. LA hasn't gotten smaller in the years I've been away. I'm sure the same is true for SF & Diego.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
I was actually just about to post the study Dreadnought just linked to.

Good thing he saved you the embarrassment then. That did absolutely nothing to make your point, nowhere is the case made that RTW has anything to do with that.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
other states than moving in since 1992. -351,872 in 1994, -55,541 in 1998, -316,888 in 2009 and -174,445 in 2011....

Ok, so let's look at how trends actually work, shall we? What's happening between 2009 & now. Is 174 less or more than 316? How about the fact that this is a steady decline in numbers over the years? Since you're interested in looking at trends, what do you think a 60% drop, every year, in the figures you're hanging your hat on means for five years from now?

And while we're on the subject, why are you cherry picking your numbers? Is there a reason you don't want to factor foreign migrations to CA? Could that be because it completely offsets your claims here? Since according to the US Census we're 2.1% larger now than we were in 2010. With the only a .9% bump in birthrate. Hmmmm...

I'm have to be honest and say that I don't really think you know much about this stuff as it actually relates to CA. I've lived and worked all over the place. It really doesn't bother me that you probably dislike unions and California in general. But your arguments to "support" these feelings are akin to saying you hate Ford because... Pinto. Well, ok, but it's not 1978 anymore. Or in this case, 2008.

And I mean that seriously. It's totally ok if you don't like CA or those of us that live here. There's just no need to completely conjure up this idea (likely without ever having been here) that we all want to move to TX and pave roads for $11/hr because we hate unions or something. I know it sounds silly to put it that way, but that is exactly what you've been trying to say...

Make no mistake, I enjoyed my time in DFW. The social scene is as good there as one can find here. But there's no such thing as my job paying me there what it does here. Even factoring in cost of living, that I pay income taxes here, and commute times, I'm still way ahead. As is everybody else, in every job code I've seen out here, with the possible exception of pilots... who are unionized, by the way. The kicker to all that (& I think I mentioned this already), is that I'm not even a union member myself now. Nor was any attempt made to secure the same upon employment. I think we need to revise our notions of what living in a RTW - free state actually mean.

If you want to stay in some RTW alley, knock yourself out. But you have to be prepared to accept sub par wages and poverty as part of this. All the links in the world can't save you from the fact that you can be had for cheap, and we can't.

If you feel otherwise, then I would invite you to spend time actually out here seeing things first hand...

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
A lone wolf

Lol, I'm hardly a lone wolf, but thanks for the flattery just the same. If I were, I wouldn't have sat through some pretty thick traffic this afternoon on WB 91. Which runs through Compton, a place I've been to, rather than just talked about on the internet...  

So as others have asked, do you have anything at all, anywhere that says people are leaving CA, because they want lower paying, less secure jobs, just because they're in a RTW zone? Given that a few of us have asked a bunch of times now, I'm not going to answer one more post of yours until you have something for that...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1737 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
If you have ever visited a 3rd world country you'd know this isn't even remotely true.

Bullshit. I've spent a good deal of time in quite a few 3rd world places. And I mean it very sincerely when I say that I would live in Namibia or Albania before Kentucky or Arkansas. That's not a slam on those states; there's just a good deal less difference than you imagine. If you ever get to leave the US sometime, you'll see this.

And I'm going to have to call bullshit on your bullshit. I've lived in Kentucky, Ohio and France, and I've visited such places as Serbia, Congo and the Philippines, I've traveled quite a bit and if you're honestly saying that you'd rather live in Kinshasa, DRC instead of, say, Nicholasville, KY, then I'd say you're the one who needs to visit outside the US more sometime.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):

As for Oakland & Compton, if you're going to slam something, update yourself first. There's good odds that there are a lot of places in Oakland you probably can't afford.

And what about the other places?

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):

CA certainly has its backwaters, but you need to look outside of the cities for that.

No I've spent an extensive amount of time in SoCal, particularly LA, you don't need to leave LA at all to find 3rd world living conditions.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
I was actually just about to post the study Dreadnought just linked to.

Good thing he saved you the embarrassment then. That did absolutely nothing to make your point, nowhere is the case made that RTW has anything to do with that.

Really? Can you point to where I made that claim?

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
other states than moving in since 1992. -351,872 in 1994, -55,541 in 1998, -316,888 in 2009 and -174,445 in 2011....

Ok, so let's look at how trends actually work, shall we? What's happening between 2009 & now. Is 174 less or more than 316?

You're choosing 3 consecutive data points while ignoring the 17 others, that is not statistically sound nor is it a trend.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):
Since you're interested in looking at trends, what do you think a 60% drop, every year, in the figures you're hanging your hat on means for five years from now?

Given that multiple times previously it's made similar decreases and increases, statistically it implies nothing for the next five years other than a high probability that net migration from CA will continue as it has for the previous 20 years.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):
And while we're on the subject, why are you cherry picking your numbers? Is there a reason you don't want to factor foreign migrations to CA? Could that be because it completely offsets your claims here?

Because foreign migration to CA is irrelevant when we're talking about people moving between US states.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):
I'm have to be honest and say that I don't really think you know much about this stuff as it actually relates to CA.

Well what I coincidence, I didn't think you did either, you have a tendency to completely gloss over data that contradicts your point.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):
It really doesn't bother me that you probably dislike unions and California in general.

No I actually love California, have family that lives out there and, as I said, have spent a lot of time there, it's beautiful, especially SFO. I just think their state government is, for lack of a better term, insane and is dragging the state down.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):
There's just no need to completely conjure up this idea (likely without ever having been here) that we all want to move to TX and pave roads for $11/hr because we hate unions or something. I know it sounds silly to put it that way, but that is exactly what you've been trying to say...

Again, where are you getting this idea? In any case, data is clearly indicating that more people obviously are seeing better opportunities in states other than California than vice versa.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):
If you want to stay in some RTW alley, knock yourself out. But you have to be prepared to accept sub par wages and poverty as part of this. All the links in the world can't save you from the fact that you can be had for cheap, and we can't.

Again, you have repeatedly evaded the fact that even though we can apparently be had for cheap while you can't, you all have the highest poverty rate in the nation, higher even than that 3rd world state full of cheap labor Mississippi.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
So as others have asked, do you have anything at all, anywhere that says people are leaving CA, because they want lower paying, less secure jobs, just because they're in a RTW zone? Given that a few of us have asked a bunch of times now, I'm not going to answer one more post of yours until you have something for that...

For the umpteenth time, I have never made such a claim, go back and reread the previous posts...or actually I'll even save you the trouble, below are the previous posts about what I had claimed:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 74):
Isn't that the conservative mantra, to vote with your feet? (See, I can do the meaningless partisan name calling too!)

And they are by moving to right-to-work states and voting for representatives supportive of such legislation.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 77):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):

And they are by moving to right-to-work states and voting for representatives supportive of such legislation.

Source?
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 77):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):

And they are by moving to right-to-work states and voting for representatives supportive of such legislation.

Source?

Texas, Georgia, Florida, Nevada, Utah and South Carolina all gained Congressional seats because of migration to those states.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 80):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 78):
Texas, Georgia, Florida, Nevada, Utah and South Carolina all gained Congressional seats because of migration to those states.

Now if you can show where people moved to those places because of "right-to-work" laws and vote for politicians that support them, that'd be great.

Nowhere did I ever state or imply that people were moving out of California solely or even mainly because of right-to-work legislation. At some point in the above discussion, the two of you decided to impress into the debate a claim I never made. My implied point was that people obviously don't find the laws as terrible or economically deleterious as you're saying it is as they're voting with their feet in favor of these states over states such as CA or NY.

[Edited 2013-01-27 08:55:19]

[Edited 2013-01-27 09:04:09]

[Edited 2013-01-27 09:06:44]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1730 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):
Bullshit. I've spent a good deal of time in quite a few 3rd world places. And I mean it very sincerely when I say that I would live in Namibia or Albania before Kentucky or Arkansas.

And you, my friend, are nuckin' futs. If you can truthfully say that, you've never been to Namibia or Albania.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 93):

Good thing he saved you the embarrassment then. That did absolutely nothing to make your point, nowhere is the case made that RTW has anything to do with that.

RTW is only a part of it. The fact of the matter is that if it wasn't for tons of immigration (legal and Illegal), California's population would be dropping like a stone - and the national pattern is that Domestic Migration is trending strongly away from Democrat-run states (high taxes, public sector unions, no RTW, skyrocketing state unfunded liabilities) towards more conservative states that try to keep those things in check.

[Edited 2013-01-27 08:53:20]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Victory For Murkowski posted Wed Nov 17 2010 13:13:44 by Ken777
Obama To Nominate Sotomayor For Supreme Court posted Tue May 26 2009 07:21:22 by Homer71
Who Would You Nominate For The Court? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 20:45:19 by Pope
Democrat Candidates For Supreme Court Justice posted Tue Jul 12 2005 22:22:50 by SFOMEX
Bush Gives Another Victory For The Banks posted Fri Apr 15 2005 19:28:36 by Superfly
Another Victory For The Conservatives posted Mon Jan 10 2005 21:23:46 by Superfly
Victory For Outsourcing Firms posted Fri Nov 12 2004 03:00:10 by Superfly
Federal Court Upholds Texas Redistricting Map posted Tue Jan 6 2004 22:39:42 by B757300
Great Victory For Ariel Sharon posted Tue Jan 28 2003 23:52:29 by TodaReisinger
Ireland Goes For Bailout From The European Union posted Sun Nov 21 2010 13:06:37 by OA260