I like your observation regarding the structure of the productive enterprise.
There have been many instances of co-operative and and participatory organisations in both the US and UK - where workers are owner participants. These alternate structures have been history 'suppressed' and their utility eroded in terms of being made less tax advantageous in the US and the UK.
In general the evolution of Unions from Medieval Guilds and artisan associations has historically resulted in improved working conditions and rates of pay for workers in the West. This has served as protection against exploitation and many Unions actively participate with management for the betterment of their members and also their company and/or industry.
Repealing the rights to free association and diverse forms of bargaining is retrograde step and I would agree that comparing Unions to criminal organisations is highly prejudiced view of the role, evolution and contribution of labour to the development of Western societies.
It really is astounding and there is no sense of "there for the grace of God go I", that this is really happening all over, really not fault of people.
This is unlike the Great Depression where people pulled together as a society.
Hey, look back over just the past week of comments on this site, please. How many do you see that are "Opinions Only"??? I see many. Do you dispute that ??
Why call me on the carpet, and not anyone else?? Do you have something personal against me ?? IF so, what and why ??
Also, I did NOT start the personal attacks. Please go back and review and see where the personal attacks started.
And, for your information, I do NOT spam this site, or any site for that matter. It would be easy to label some of the posts and comments on this site as spam. And, you've said several times that this is a news site. I see posts on here that are basically copies of news on other sites, with a little extra twist to them. Do you dispute that ??
Where did I misrepresent facts, please point it out, if you don't mind. My opinions are NOT misinformed, no more than other opinions I read on this site are.
No worries, I'll leave your NEWS site, and you and the other biased folks can have at it. What a joke. Pleeeeeasee !!!
P.S. - there was no call to single me out, re-read all of the comments that I responded to.
What's interesting to know is that Social Security has had a surplus for over the last 3 decades. For the last three decades more money was paid into Social Security then it paid out. The Social Security surplus added up over the last 30 years comes out to about 3 Trillion. That savings or surplus money was spent by the government on other things.
The economy today could have been doing much better if it the money printing stimulus money was spent right. If the Trillions that the Fed printed out of thin air went to fund production which China, Japan and Germany does, then more jobs would have been created in the US. But instead of creating money to fund production, the money created out of thin air in the US went to funding the outsourcing of US jobs, factories, technology transfers to China, military bases and infrastructure spending abroad, speculation in financial assets and artifical consumption with debt. Not a policy for growth.
Quote: "Where did you get that I said it was OK for the government to take away your rights?? Please show where I said that, if you don't mind. Yes, you have the right to bargain, complain, scream, protest, and petition. I never ever said otherwise."
It was implied when you compared unions to organized crime. If you here to defend the denial of collective bargaining right to workers then you are denying the basic human right to free association.
Unions are folding because since Taft-Hartley and Right to Slave legislation has the government actively denying members of unions the ability to right to bargain, complain, scream, protest, and petition without jumping through piles of red tape.
The public sector unions are folding because certain governors are using state troopers and police state tactics not because they are unpopular.
Do I think unions are the greatest institution ever? No. I prefer Worker Owner Co-OPs but this issue has me so fired up I recently quit the Republican party over this union busting.
If people want to join together and hire professionals to negotiation through a system of dues then they are effectively a union.
Why do you hate the idea labor should have the right hire a professional when bargaining? A free society doesn't use laws and threats of violence against workers who decide to hire lawyers on their behalf.
Where's the laissez-faire? Why do you libertarians feel the need to stick a gun into people faces ever time ordinary people want to hire a damn lawyer?
If you believe workers should have the right to strike, protest, petition etc...then why are you defending Walker?
or "feeling", it's for facts. You are misrepresenting the facts here, filling up the site with your "opinion". I'm pretty la de da on comments but thinking what Wisconsin just did is good overall for workers in America is not correct and assuredly something we write about often. We're not here as another bitstream of the never ending misinformation campaign.
If you don't like the site rules, go elsewhere, but do not fill up this site with misinformed "opinion" and argument.
And believe me, I do not blindly endorse every agenda or policy desire of the unions, especially the SEIU, it's on a case by case, issue by issue detail. But on this one, you're just "decided" you don't "like unions", so therefore somehow you have some right to spam the comment thread. Not so.
Where did you get that I said it was OK for the government to take away your rights?? Please show where I said that, if you don't mind. Yes, you have the right to bargain, complain, scream, protest, and petition. I never ever said otherwise.
And, I wasn't the one that first said to "leave the country", nor the first to say, "go away". I didn't start the personal attacks. You people started the childish personal attacks, not me.
Also, your comments are just as absurd to me, as mine are to you. I see no more merit to your argument, than is contained in mine.
Also, calling me a Monarchist adds nothing to this conversation. Your childish personal attacks are totally uncalled for.
And, I don't have to take your unions from your cold dead hands, they're folding as we speak, and have been for decades now.
What real purpose do unions serve other than the greed factor? Care to explain?
Your disagreement is not valid and therefore unimportant. The practice of collective bargaining is unionization. You are right it is something that is granted but something that is inherent.
If I decide on my own time to talk to my fellow workers and we decide we will prefer to ask as group this that is our right and you have no right to use the government to prevent us from conducting our business as we see fit. The only way prevent unionization is by force which violates first principles.
Quote: "I have never workered for a union. Yet, many times I bargained for a raise in pay, and never once had anyone do my talking for me."
Bully for you. But I and my coworkers prefer to do things differently and you have no right use the government to interfere and force me into negotiating only on your terms. I prefer to unionize and hire a professional negotiation using our dues. Just because you like being a chump working for low compensation doesn't give you the right to keep the rest of us hiring professional.
Quote: "Are you saying that we have the right to FORCE an employer to give-in to our demands? What truck did you fall off of, may I ask?"
Strawman. So long as I don't have the right to sue shareholders then I have the right to make the employer hear demands via a means of negotiation I decide. No you don't get to decide for me and neither does the government. The employer decides whether or not he wants to deal with us or find some other people. However because we are hard to replace in mass the employer is bargain more fairly and thus we worker get getter leverage via unionization. In this situation, the issue is even more clear because the employer is the government.
Quote: "You're wrong when it comes to merit pay. Back in my working days, employers paid, or gave raises, according to merit. As far as I know, it still continues today. My wife works for a huge company, a world-wide corporation, that gives merit pay"
Really, the CEO of your company make 300 times more than you because he put in 300 times more hours and produces 300 times more physical wealth? You are retarded?
Quote: "And, further more, Abe Lincoln is not the authority and last word in economics, business management, worker rights, and labor. Quoting him added ZERO to this conversation."
I added him to conversation as you implied that being pro-unionization is anti-American and therefore since Lincoln for most Americans defines American patriotism therefore his opinion out weights your opinion on what is considered American.
Quote: "I have a question for you Mr. or Mrs. pro-union person. If a person, or group, invest $10,000,000 to get a business off the ground and running profitably. Then invested another $5,000,000 in equipment and up-grades, and pushed the business to the top of their field, all without one red cent from any union, what right does a union have to come in after the fact and demand certain wages and benefits?"
Uh the fact that without workers none of your plants and equipment wouldn't be able to do anything. Are really saying that labor invest nothing into the businesses were they work?
Let me quote Lincoln again.
Quote from Lincoln: "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits."
Quote: "If an employer fires an employee without good cause, we have laws that protect that employee. Employees are protected very well in this country."
Yes, because of damn unions fought for those legal protections. Capital sure as hell didn't wake up one morning and say gee maybe we have safety standards for workers.
Quote: "And you, uninformed uneducated person, should also leave the country. Why are people asking others to leave this country?"
Hello? Pyschological projection anyone? You were the one who said
"Hey, why don't you leave this country?? If anyone should leave this country, it's folks like you that are pro-destruction of the American founding principles of hard work and merit based pay."
And now you are projecting you own authoritarian suggestions on me when I point how absurd your arguments are.
You are the one defending the state use of force to prevent workers from organizing and negotiating on the terms that they choose . Where in the hell did you get the idea that Merit part of the American tradition.
Merit is a tradition of an aristocracy not a Republic. A republic means rule according the public interest not according aristocratic notions of "merit."
You are the idiot who doesn't understand this was created for more a more perfect Union not more perfect "meritorious" nobel families.
Get out of here you Monarchist. If your type wants to dragging us back to 1775 my response is that all free western men " molon labe"! You will take our unions from our cold dead hands.
I know exactly how things were back when unions first organized. You sure are assuming alot here. And, why attach your comment to my comment?? I certainly didn't start the personal attacks. As a matter of fact, I just asked that this childish nonsense stop. Please read my latest comment.
A warning on what, may I ask?
Would you like to debate the pros and cons of present day unions? Or, are you going to continue the personal attacks on me?
Yes, Mr. Clark is indeed a real person. Since, as you've stated, you're a profressional, care to contribute to the conversation/debate with your view and/or opinion on the topic of unions? I will not follow suit and stoop to personal attacks. I don't believe that the intent and purpose of this site is to counter points with personal attacks on the posters. Since such remarks as "leave the country" and "go away" have already been conveyed, I will leave such to those that have nothing else to offer this conversation.
If you would like to moderate this forum/site/discussion, please ask someone in the administration of this site. I have only responded to comments directed at the comments that I've made. Others are free to add whatever they wish. Everyone has the same rights as I do here. I'm not keeping anyone from speaking their mind. As a matter of fact, I welcome all counters to the points that I've raised. I encourage you to offer your two cents worth on topic.
Also, for your information, I don't think everyone is wrong that disagrees with me. I believe that we all have opinions, and have the right to express them. I simply state by views and opinions, and welcome all counters. I enjoy civil conversation and debates. In the case of unions, until someone proves me wrong, my opinion is just as strong as anyone elses'.
Now, you have the floor, speak your piece, please. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks. Lets have friendly civil conversation and debate the issue.
I wish it where funny. The financial crisis of 2008. Then they keep these incredibly expensive overseas wars going on. The federal deficit, and most state deficit increases. American is starting to eat American, if anyone remembers the fall of the Soviet Union, and how they stole Russia's resources, Walker will help it happen in America.
Cat's away the mice will play. Sorry, I had to take care of some other things today so I'm behind, to come back and see *this*.
Firstly, people, no personal attacks on EP.
Secondly....Sonny, you clearly do not know the history of labor as well as what happens without unions around.
If you wish to discuss child labor, slavery, indentured servitude, labor arbitrage, 20 hours work days, the "company store", indebtedness, the minimum wage, workman's comp. and a host of other positives unions brought to workers throughout history...
but these blanket claims that somehow unions are the "bad guys" is not only fiction, simply isn't appropriate for EP.
This is incredible, I believe it's 21 states now which have right to work laws, which means they can be fired without cause and meritocracy? Let's discuss executive compensation.
No, no no, this site is not available to blanket attack unions. If one wants to argue their illegal immigration position is nonsensical, well, it isn't because it's all about increasing their membership, a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" as well as reducing illegals for future because they erode wages, workers rights...
Not saying that will work but that is their position reasoning.
Anyway, this thread is loaded with attacks, attacks on comments, attacks on unions and attacks on facts...
I like your observation regarding the structure of the productive enterprise.
There have been many instances of co-operative and and participatory organisations in both the US and UK - where workers are owner participants. These alternate structures have been history 'suppressed' and their utility eroded in terms of being made less tax advantageous in the US and the UK.
In general the evolution of Unions from Medieval Guilds and artisan associations has historically resulted in improved working conditions and rates of pay for workers in the West. This has served as protection against exploitation and many Unions actively participate with management for the betterment of their members and also their company and/or industry.
Repealing the rights to free association and diverse forms of bargaining is retrograde step and I would agree that comparing Unions to criminal organisations is highly prejudiced view of the role, evolution and contribution of labour to the development of Western societies.
This article states"homeless kids are 25% of all kids in America" This statement means one in four of all kids in the US are homeless?
It really is astounding and there is no sense of "there for the grace of God go I", that this is really happening all over, really not fault of people.
This is unlike the Great Depression where people pulled together as a society.
Hey, look back over just the past week of comments on this site, please. How many do you see that are "Opinions Only"??? I see many. Do you dispute that ??
Why call me on the carpet, and not anyone else?? Do you have something personal against me ?? IF so, what and why ??
Also, I did NOT start the personal attacks. Please go back and review and see where the personal attacks started.
And, for your information, I do NOT spam this site, or any site for that matter. It would be easy to label some of the posts and comments on this site as spam. And, you've said several times that this is a news site. I see posts on here that are basically copies of news on other sites, with a little extra twist to them. Do you dispute that ??
Where did I misrepresent facts, please point it out, if you don't mind. My opinions are NOT misinformed, no more than other opinions I read on this site are.
No worries, I'll leave your NEWS site, and you and the other biased folks can have at it. What a joke. Pleeeeeasee !!!
P.S. - there was no call to single me out, re-read all of the comments that I responded to.
Have a great day.
Right out of college. Kept making those student loan payments even when I lived on the street.
People don't care. I saw it, lived it. And those were just the folks who volunteer with Amnesty International.
it requires $1.38 dollars to buy one euro, a new currency that was issued at parity with the US dollar.
This statement is false. The euro was introduced at about $1.18, and been almost down to that level again within the last 12 months.
What's interesting to know is that Social Security has had a surplus for over the last 3 decades. For the last three decades more money was paid into Social Security then it paid out. The Social Security surplus added up over the last 30 years comes out to about 3 Trillion. That savings or surplus money was spent by the government on other things.
The economy today could have been doing much better if it the money printing stimulus money was spent right. If the Trillions that the Fed printed out of thin air went to fund production which China, Japan and Germany does, then more jobs would have been created in the US. But instead of creating money to fund production, the money created out of thin air in the US went to funding the outsourcing of US jobs, factories, technology transfers to China, military bases and infrastructure spending abroad, speculation in financial assets and artifical consumption with debt. Not a policy for growth.
Quote: "Where did you get that I said it was OK for the government to take away your rights?? Please show where I said that, if you don't mind. Yes, you have the right to bargain, complain, scream, protest, and petition. I never ever said otherwise."
It was implied when you compared unions to organized crime. If you here to defend the denial of collective bargaining right to workers then you are denying the basic human right to free association.
Unions are folding because since Taft-Hartley and Right to Slave legislation has the government actively denying members of unions the ability to right to bargain, complain, scream, protest, and petition without jumping through piles of red tape.
The public sector unions are folding because certain governors are using state troopers and police state tactics not because they are unpopular.
Do I think unions are the greatest institution ever? No. I prefer Worker Owner Co-OPs but this issue has me so fired up I recently quit the Republican party over this union busting.
If people want to join together and hire professionals to negotiation through a system of dues then they are effectively a union.
Why do you hate the idea labor should have the right hire a professional when bargaining? A free society doesn't use laws and threats of violence against workers who decide to hire lawyers on their behalf.
Where's the laissez-faire? Why do you libertarians feel the need to stick a gun into people faces ever time ordinary people want to hire a damn lawyer?
If you believe workers should have the right to strike, protest, petition etc...then why are you defending Walker?
If the IMF states that the nation's economy is sound and doing well, you can assume that the people of that nation are not.
or "feeling", it's for facts. You are misrepresenting the facts here, filling up the site with your "opinion". I'm pretty la de da on comments but thinking what Wisconsin just did is good overall for workers in America is not correct and assuredly something we write about often. We're not here as another bitstream of the never ending misinformation campaign.
If you don't like the site rules, go elsewhere, but do not fill up this site with misinformed "opinion" and argument.
And believe me, I do not blindly endorse every agenda or policy desire of the unions, especially the SEIU, it's on a case by case, issue by issue detail. But on this one, you're just "decided" you don't "like unions", so therefore somehow you have some right to spam the comment thread. Not so.
In my personal opinion, no, we do not need unions. And, I'm not a troll.
Now, if this site is pro-union, and I'm wrong for not agreeing, then exercise whatever follows your warning.
If you want to ban me from this site because I'm not pro-union, then so be it.
Your first comment proclaimed we do not need unions. Warning means troll.
He gave you permission? That's cool, he's so right up this site's alley!
Where did you get that I said it was OK for the government to take away your rights?? Please show where I said that, if you don't mind. Yes, you have the right to bargain, complain, scream, protest, and petition. I never ever said otherwise.
And, I wasn't the one that first said to "leave the country", nor the first to say, "go away". I didn't start the personal attacks. You people started the childish personal attacks, not me.
Also, your comments are just as absurd to me, as mine are to you. I see no more merit to your argument, than is contained in mine.
Also, calling me a Monarchist adds nothing to this conversation. Your childish personal attacks are totally uncalled for.
And, I don't have to take your unions from your cold dead hands, they're folding as we speak, and have been for decades now.
What real purpose do unions serve other than the greed factor? Care to explain?
Your disagreement is not valid and therefore unimportant. The practice of collective bargaining is unionization. You are right it is something that is granted but something that is inherent.
If I decide on my own time to talk to my fellow workers and we decide we will prefer to ask as group this that is our right and you have no right to use the government to prevent us from conducting our business as we see fit. The only way prevent unionization is by force which violates first principles.
Quote: "I have never workered for a union. Yet, many times I bargained for a raise in pay, and never once had anyone do my talking for me."
Bully for you. But I and my coworkers prefer to do things differently and you have no right use the government to interfere and force me into negotiating only on your terms. I prefer to unionize and hire a professional negotiation using our dues. Just because you like being a chump working for low compensation doesn't give you the right to keep the rest of us hiring professional.
Quote: "Are you saying that we have the right to FORCE an employer to give-in to our demands? What truck did you fall off of, may I ask?"
Strawman. So long as I don't have the right to sue shareholders then I have the right to make the employer hear demands via a means of negotiation I decide. No you don't get to decide for me and neither does the government. The employer decides whether or not he wants to deal with us or find some other people. However because we are hard to replace in mass the employer is bargain more fairly and thus we worker get getter leverage via unionization. In this situation, the issue is even more clear because the employer is the government.
Quote: "You're wrong when it comes to merit pay. Back in my working days, employers paid, or gave raises, according to merit. As far as I know, it still continues today. My wife works for a huge company, a world-wide corporation, that gives merit pay"
Really, the CEO of your company make 300 times more than you because he put in 300 times more hours and produces 300 times more physical wealth? You are retarded?
Quote: "And, further more, Abe Lincoln is not the authority and last word in economics, business management, worker rights, and labor. Quoting him added ZERO to this conversation."
I added him to conversation as you implied that being pro-unionization is anti-American and therefore since Lincoln for most Americans defines American patriotism therefore his opinion out weights your opinion on what is considered American.
Quote: "I have a question for you Mr. or Mrs. pro-union person. If a person, or group, invest $10,000,000 to get a business off the ground and running profitably. Then invested another $5,000,000 in equipment and up-grades, and pushed the business to the top of their field, all without one red cent from any union, what right does a union have to come in after the fact and demand certain wages and benefits?"
Uh the fact that without workers none of your plants and equipment wouldn't be able to do anything. Are really saying that labor invest nothing into the businesses were they work?
Let me quote Lincoln again.
Quote from Lincoln: "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits."
Quote: "If an employer fires an employee without good cause, we have laws that protect that employee. Employees are protected very well in this country."
Yes, because of damn unions fought for those legal protections. Capital sure as hell didn't wake up one morning and say gee maybe we have safety standards for workers.
Quote: "And you, uninformed uneducated person, should also leave the country. Why are people asking others to leave this country?"
Hello? Pyschological projection anyone? You were the one who said
"Hey, why don't you leave this country?? If anyone should leave this country, it's folks like you that are pro-destruction of the American founding principles of hard work and merit based pay."
And now you are projecting you own authoritarian suggestions on me when I point how absurd your arguments are.
You are the one defending the state use of force to prevent workers from organizing and negotiating on the terms that they choose . Where in the hell did you get the idea that Merit part of the American tradition.
Merit is a tradition of an aristocracy not a Republic. A republic means rule according the public interest not according aristocratic notions of "merit."
You are the idiot who doesn't understand this was created for more a more perfect Union not more perfect "meritorious" nobel families.
Get out of here you Monarchist. If your type wants to dragging us back to 1775 my response is that all free western men " molon labe"! You will take our unions from our cold dead hands.
Employees only have an investment if the company or business is owned by the employees. Unions do not own businesses.
Employees are mere workers, not owners. Employees do not get a dividend check each quarter, or yearly.
Employees come and go, with no ownership stake.
If unions do not influence pay and benefits, then what exactly do unions do?
Also, some nerve saying that I troll. You're joking, right?
I know exactly how things were back when unions first organized. You sure are assuming alot here. And, why attach your comment to my comment?? I certainly didn't start the personal attacks. As a matter of fact, I just asked that this childish nonsense stop. Please read my latest comment.
A warning on what, may I ask?
Would you like to debate the pros and cons of present day unions? Or, are you going to continue the personal attacks on me?
Yes, Mr. Clark is indeed a real person. Since, as you've stated, you're a profressional, care to contribute to the conversation/debate with your view and/or opinion on the topic of unions? I will not follow suit and stoop to personal attacks. I don't believe that the intent and purpose of this site is to counter points with personal attacks on the posters. Since such remarks as "leave the country" and "go away" have already been conveyed, I will leave such to those that have nothing else to offer this conversation.
If you would like to moderate this forum/site/discussion, please ask someone in the administration of this site. I have only responded to comments directed at the comments that I've made. Others are free to add whatever they wish. Everyone has the same rights as I do here. I'm not keeping anyone from speaking their mind. As a matter of fact, I welcome all counters to the points that I've raised. I encourage you to offer your two cents worth on topic.
Also, for your information, I don't think everyone is wrong that disagrees with me. I believe that we all have opinions, and have the right to express them. I simply state by views and opinions, and welcome all counters. I enjoy civil conversation and debates. In the case of unions, until someone proves me wrong, my opinion is just as strong as anyone elses'.
Now, you have the floor, speak your piece, please. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks. Lets have friendly civil conversation and debate the issue.
I wish it where funny. The financial crisis of 2008. Then they keep these incredibly expensive overseas wars going on. The federal deficit, and most state deficit increases. American is starting to eat American, if anyone remembers the fall of the Soviet Union, and how they stole Russia's resources, Walker will help it happen in America.
From a very good article in the Guardian UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/10/wisconsin...
Cat's away the mice will play. Sorry, I had to take care of some other things today so I'm behind, to come back and see *this*.
Firstly, people, no personal attacks on EP.
Secondly....Sonny, you clearly do not know the history of labor as well as what happens without unions around.
If you wish to discuss child labor, slavery, indentured servitude, labor arbitrage, 20 hours work days, the "company store", indebtedness, the minimum wage, workman's comp. and a host of other positives unions brought to workers throughout history...
but these blanket claims that somehow unions are the "bad guys" is not only fiction, simply isn't appropriate for EP.
This is incredible, I believe it's 21 states now which have right to work laws, which means they can be fired without cause and meritocracy? Let's discuss executive compensation.
No, no no, this site is not available to blanket attack unions. If one wants to argue their illegal immigration position is nonsensical, well, it isn't because it's all about increasing their membership, a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" as well as reducing illegals for future because they erode wages, workers rights...
Not saying that will work but that is their position reasoning.
Anyway, this thread is loaded with attacks, attacks on comments, attacks on unions and attacks on facts...
Consider this comment a warning.
Pages