I am starting this thread, because it is being talked about in several unrelated posts, and it probably deserves it's own thread.

OK, here is "Mushroom's Economic Theory" when it comes to such jobs.  Remember, this is simply my belief and feelings.  But I think it is valid.

I do not care of low-paying unskilled jobs are sent overseas.  I do not call it exploitation, and I am not sorry to see them leave.  The US is a nation of highly-skilled and highly-educated workers.  We put men on the moon, the most powerful computers, and the Internet.  We turned the Automobile from a luxury toy of the rich into a product everybody could afford.

High tech and the like is what we do best.  We are a nation of innovators and inventers.  Our high skilled labor force is excellent at what it does.  And our GNP allows us to send the more basic work overseas, so that others can take advantage of our economy.

I do not care that wiring harneses are made in Mexico.  THat is largely un-skilled work.  I do not care that our clothes are made in Indonesia or Malaysia.  That is unskilled for the most part.  We can use these people to do much more important work.  Why have somebody with 12+ years of education wase it by sewing clothes, one after the other, all the same?  At least let them sew more advanced items, like Bullet Proof vests.

Now this is not looking down on these people.  A lot of them are less educated and less industrialized.  But just like we did not go from basic textile plants to Intel and Ford, these nations also need to step up progressively to the modern industrial age.  As their GNP goes up due to increased trade, they can start investing more in Education and Modernization.  It will take time, but eventually they will hopefully be more equal on the international market.

So let the nations like India, Pakistan, Philippines, and Mexico get business from us.  Send them jobs so their economic problems can be eased.  I much prefer this form of "International Aid" over the though of just sending them money.  If you look, after WWII, the exchange rate in Japan was roughly 400 yen to the dollar.  By 1990, it had moved to 100 yen to the dollar.  This is because they largely left the actual MAKING of a lot of their goods to other nations, concentrating on design work.

As a similar rule, I also do not have much care for minimum wage jobs.  To me, those are jobs for kids right out of high-school, not intended to be careers.

As a good example, 20 years ago in LA, most grocery clerks were high school kids, or kids right out od high school.  These were entry-level jobs intended to give the kids a start.  After a year or so, they would either move up to more senior positions, or to another career.  The same goes for jobs like fast food.

But now, Unions have made being a grocery store stocker a career, with high pay and benefits.  But they are still basically doing unskilled labor.  But because of the benefits and high pay, there are no openings for the people that really need these kinda of jobs, the kids.

LA has a huge problem with teen unemployment.  Grocery clerks have a Union, so the adults hold those jobs.  Because of age restrictions, they can not even have paper routes anymore.  Even fast-food is being unionized.  This means there are no jobs for them to start at.  And in the long run, they will find it harder to advance to higher paying jobs.

If the job pays minimum wage, it should not be considered a "Career".  That is entry level.  Let the kids have those jobs.  There are a lot of other jobs that pay more, as long as you have some kind of experience.

When I left the Military after 10 years, I had little real-world working skills.  But I got a job as a Security Guard at $8 an hour.  I then moved on to 4 different retail sales positions, each one above minimum wage and each one paying more then the previous job.

SO as for minimum wage jobs, to me those are for kids still living at home.  THey are to give them experience so they can move up the "corporate ladder".  Nobody should be resigned to spending 20-40 years doing things like stocking shelves, or flipping burgers, or selling SLurpees at 7-11.

A lot of the people who complain about "Living Wage" that I see, are working at jobs where there are 20 kids wanting to get their jobs so they can work their way up.  But because they can't get their foot in the door, they end up spending longer unemployed then was the case 20 years ago.

Work is work :)  I'm edumacated up the wazoo but at the moment unemployed...gonna take what they give me until something better comes up.

Of course I won't be prostituting myself or selling drugs ::) ;D

Unfortunately not everyone is equipped to climb the corporate ladder.  I have a brother who was special needs in
school.  He was not able to graduate, but was able to get a job with decent pay that allowed him to be independent.
After working for the same company for 15 years the factory moved to Asia.  He found another job, less pay, but still
enough to get by.  By then he was older, in an unusual circumstance he found out he had high blood pressure and
began using his drug benefit, three months later he was laid off.  We were able to get him in a program for people with disabilities that made novelty items. In 2001 the funding was cut and he was laid off.  We have not been able to find a position for him since and he is being taken care of by the family.  For some people unskilled labor is a career because it is what they are able to do.  Not everyone can climb the corporate ladder, not everyone can be a manager, and in
this economic climate they are being penalized because of that..

Of course, there are arguments that middle management IS unskilled labor :D

Of course, there are arguments that middle management IS unskilled labor :D



;D You got that right  ;D ;D ;D

There are alot of people out there who don't have college educations. What happens to them? Try telling a single mother trying to feed and clothe her kids that her job is being sent over seas. And I've seen retired men in my local grocery store bagging groceries because they can't make it on their S.S. benefits and try to pay for prescriptions and medical care. It's a damn shame that they have to work through their retirement doing that kind of work. It just seems to me that you've made it sound too simple, but haven't looked at the big picture at all. Just my opinion.  

Of course, there are arguments that middle management IS unskilled labor :D


You look at the managers in charge of us and those arguments are valid.  ;D

You all read Mushroom's intro, so I'm not quoting it, and I'm noit going to counter it point by point - that would be just too tedious, for me and for readers.  

What I will say is that it sounds like "social Darwinism" to me.  I will also say that since many "high tech" and manufacturing jobs (our productive genious) are being exported, and we are becoming a service economy (fries with that sir?)  it is natural that those workers try to organize - can't wait till they get Wall-Mart.  They have to to defend themselves.

Now a personal anctedote re how things have changed.  I worked my way through college because my father - a foreman in a gasoline hose factory - couldn't afford to put me through.  No gripe, glad I did it, learned a lot.  My last job was in a small factoiry that did sub-contract work for the big mililtary contractors.  After a few weeks that summer, the owner can to me as I was working, put his hand on my shoulder, and said "your doing so good work, and you are careful.  I'm going to give you a raise".  Even then, you could have knocked me off my work bench.  What are the odds of that happening today?

A long time ago I worked for what was then the First National Bank of Boston.  Now the people who owned and ran the bank were not known for good works , but they retained some vestige of duty to its employees.  When I worked there anyone could take up to two college courses per semester paid for(not reimbursed, paid upfront) by the bank.  You had to agree to maintain a 3.0 average to recieve the benefit for the next semester. I was able to take advantage of that perc until the Bank transfered hands.  The benefit became reimbursement for the course, for a short while, when it was scrapped.  I got one year out of them, and knew a few who had gotten their Bachelors degrees. How many companies do you see doing that these days?

A long time ago I worked for what was then the First National Bank of Boston.  Now the people who owned and ran the bank were not known for good works , but they retained some vestige of duty to its employees.  When I worked there anyone could take up to two college courses per semester paid for(not reimbursed, paid upfront) by the bank.  You had to agree to maintain a 3.0 average to recieve the benefit for the next semester. I was able to take advantage of that perc until the Bank transfered hands.  The benefit became reimbursement for the course, for a short while, when it was scrapped.  I got one year out of them, and knew a few who had gotten their Bachelors degrees. How many companies do you see doing that these days?


ANY?  Actually, employers want a work force just educated enough to do the job assigned to them, and no smarter, no better educated.  I know you are well read, and well informed, but might I suggest that you check out Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital?  If you haven't read it, I think you will find it enlightening.

I will look up the book, but yes, at that time you could take any course.  UMass Boston was right next door
and I was able to take required courses that would lead to any degree offered.  The courses in the first two years of UMass are liberal arts.  Never did get my degree, something to think about though.

I will look up the book, but yes, at that time you could take any course.  UMass Boston was right next door
and I was able to take required courses that would lead to any degree offered.  The courses in the first two years of UMass are liberal arts.  Never did get my degree, something to think about though.


You are obviously very smart and well informed, Ideally, that would be enough.  Please get your degree.  It May be unfortunate, but it is the passport.  Best wishes.

DC

ANY?  Actually, employers want a work force just educated enough to do the job assigned to them, and no smarter, no better educated.  I know you are well read, and well informed, but might I suggest that you check out Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital?  If you haven't read it, I think you will find it enlightening.

I have heard of this book, haven't read it.  Is it easy to find?

Anway, 

The US is a nation of highly-skilled and highly-educated workers.  We put men on the moon, the most powerful computers, and the Internet.  We turned the Automobile from a luxury toy of the rich into a product everybody could afford.
I don't know whether guys like Mushroom make these statements out of ignrorance, denial, or just to irritate irritable liberals like me!  All three, I suspect...
;)

Anway, this is more rose-colored Republican glasses-viewing from Cupcakeland. 

Anyone can see we are a nation of 300 million souls with every level of skill and education.  Yeah, we're good at developing technology, but high-tech was only ONE facet of what made America's economy so strong.  The right-wing has long pointed to the seductive shine of technology to distract from the class warfare the corporations prosecute upon the population at large.  And, no, not everybody can "afford" an automobile.  There are millions and millions of adults everywhere who don't have cars because they can't afford them.  And there are tens of millions more for whom the necessary automobile is an onorous expense.  Between payments and repairs, the car is a constant financial strain. These days life is nearly impossible to live without an automobile, unless you live in one of a few cities with comprehensive mass transit infrastructures.
The same people who buy into the neo-con bafflegab about how America is a Jetsonian utopia are the same guys who p*ss and moan about the their taxes going to welfare and medicaid.  They are the same guys who blame anyone and anything for the plight of the inner cities, except the beneficent and beautiful free market.
THESE GUYS JUST DON'T GET IT!!!!

There are alot of people out there who don't have college educations. What happens to them?

I am a working professional, and I don't have a college education either.

I have taken a few classes here and there in a Community College, but that was mostly for my own curiosity, not for the "education" itself.  I only have a High School Diploma.

Especially in my field (Computers), I find college to be almost worthless.  The only thing a IT degree teaches you to do is be a Programmer.  Since I work the hardware/networking aspect of the industry, that is of no use at all.  Amost all of my training is self-taught and On-The-Job.

Unfortunately not everyone is equipped to climb the corporate ladder.


Of this I am aware of.  I was refering to most people, not everybody.

My roommate is also mentally disabled.  I am basically his unofficial caretaker.  He is 24, with the mental level of a 14 year old.  He has a job (manual labor), and a car, but is not able to function as a "responsible adult".  He would not pay bills unless I prompted him to, spends all of his money in only a few days, and can't read.  But I try to help him however I can.  I am aware that people like him will never be more then what he is now.  My comments were more for the people that are complacent at "getting by", and have no drive to improve themselves.


What I will say is that it sounds like "social Darwinism" to me.


There is some of that, I admit.  But as I have said before, I believe in aid (like welfare) for people that truely need it.  I do not support a "swim or die" attitude.

However, people do have to both take responsibility for their own situations, and to have the drive/incentive/motivation to advance in their life.  Myself, I could *NEVER* just take a job like stocking shelves, and do that for the next 20 years.  At least every 2 years, I have taken a gamble and moved to another job/career.  Sometimes it did not work, sometimes it worked better then I ever could have hoped.  But overall, I have done better.  I know that I am much better off now then I was in 1993.

I think a lot of my frustration is both at people who refuse to advance themselves, and to people who want things to stay the same forever, and cry when the market does things that affects them (like moving jobs overseas).  Truely motivated people would work to get to a point where either they are above the level of "Minimum Wage" and are secure from their jobs moving off-shore, or work at learing new skills (either formally or self-taught) so they have a fall-back career to go to.


When I worked there anyone could take up to two college courses per semester paid for(not reimbursed, paid upfront) by the bank.  You had to agree to maintain a 3.0 average to recieve the benefit for the next semester.


Unfortunately, only large corporations can afford this kind of benefit.  When I was with Hughes, that was a benefit for their employees.  After Boeing bought the company, I know they continued with that for as long as I was with them.

I have heard of a lot of companies in Computers that offer similar programs.  One of them would train the employee and pay for their Microsoft certification.  The requirement was that they sign a contract to work for the company for at least 2 years after the certification.  If they left before the 2 years, they would have to repay (prorated for the time spent) the cost of the training.

One reason a lot of companies stopped paying for these kinds of benefits is that employees would take the training, and leave for a better paying job with another employeer.  This left them minus an employee, and out of the education costs.  That happened a lot in my industry.  I know one guy who after finishing A+ certification paid for by Hughes (A rare benefit for a contractor!), he then left and got a job that paid more someplace else.



And, no, not everybody can "afford" an automobile.  There are millions and millions of adults everywhere who don't have cars because they can't afford them.


I am not going to go line-by-line.  Let's just say that I am an optimist, and always look at the good side of things.  I refuse to let things depress me.  I think the best of almost everybody, and am sure that tomorrow will be better then today.

As far as cars go, where do you live?

Before I left LA, I bought a van for $600.  That van took me across the country, and is still serving me well almost 2 years later.  And I can't tell you how many cars I see in the $200-500 price range.

In some areas, cars are not nessicary due to public transit, like in LA, San Francisco, and New York.  But in no way are they not affordable.  Over the years, I have owned a great many vehicles which I have paid less then $1,000 for.


The same people who buy into the neo-con bafflegab about how America is a Jetsonian utopia are the same guys who p*ss and moan about the their taxes going to welfare and medicaid. 


Have you ever heard me complain about these programs?  In fact, *MANY* times I have said how needed they are.  My only problem is the way they are administered and the waste some of them have.  I have *NEVER* said they are un-needed, and never have I complained as to their existance nor their need.

You keep lumping all of us together, over and over again.  Maybe someday you will realize that just like "Liberals", not all Christians, Republicans, or Conservative are the same.

I have a lot of compassion for others.  I think one difference between me and others is that I do not care for "words", "feelings", or "compassion".  To me, actions speak louder then words.  It is easy to feel sorry for somebody, but even harder to actually do something for them.  It is easy to complain and gripe, it is harder to come up with an alternative.

To me, that is the biggest problem with the "far Left" political view.  It is easy to say how things suck, it is harder to try and fix them.  I can complain about low wages overseas, but how can I fix it?  Even more important, do I have any right to fix it?

I have no more right to tell Malaysia or Pakistan how to run it's internal affairs then France does to tell us how to run ours.  I have no right to tell Mexico how much it's employees should make.  I have no right to tell Nike how much to pay it's employees in Korea.  I can make my disagreement known by not buying their products (and I have done things like that in the past).  But these things are the business of those countries.

And as I said, I do not really care about the minimum wage type of jobs that leave to go overseas.  In fact, I think it can be a good thing.  It is doing wonders for India, a nation that is a cesspool of poverty.  If sending 10,000 jobs over there helps them, then let them have the jobs.

Of course, I think that eventually a lot of those jobs will come back here in the long run.  I hear complaints every day from people who get bad service from those overseas call centers.  With enough complaints, I think a lot of them will return.  And don't forget, any employees who loose thier jobs due to "outsourcing" is eligable to such programs as JTPA.  Hopefully enough will take advantage of the chance to get training so that will not happen to them again.

Before I left LA, I bought a van for $600.  That van took me across the country, and is still serving me well almost 2 years later.  And I can't tell you how many cars I see in the $200-500 price range.

In some areas, cars are not nessicary due to public transit, like in LA, San Francisco, and New York.  But in no way are they not affordable.  Over the years, I have owned a great many vehicles which I have paid less then $1,000 for.


I live in Amherst, Mass.  Since there are five colleges in my area, we have a much more comprehenisve bus schedule than they do most places.  However, because Massachusetts is in such financial trouble, the routes are facing cuts.  Lord forbid they raise taxes on the upper income brackets and corporations!  Furthermore, the bus system works on a greatly reduced schedule in the months were the colleges aren't in regular session.
People who rely on the buses end up doing a lot of walking.
I have always maintained older second hand cars.  That's all I've been able to afford.  Even when I'm earning more money, I still intend to be thrifty with automobiles because I just don't value luxury and flashiness.
I now drive a beat up Acura Integra.  It's old, a 1991 model, but it's got relatively low mileage, it's reliable...and it's all mine! 

I have heard of this book, haven't read it.  Is it easy to find?



Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital Monthly Review Press, 1979.  Still in print last I checked.  By the way, a former student of mine ordered a copy from a book store that didn't carry it, paid with a credit card.  Later he got his FBI file through the Freedom of Information Act.  All it contained was the credit card receipt for that book.  While I have never been a terrorist, much less a criminal (2 traffic tickets in almost 40 years of driving), my FBI file is about an inch thick.  And this is BEFORE the so-called "Patriot Act".

Clearly, Mushroom is relatively reasonable, for a conservative, and has not issed blanket denouncments of social programs.  He is also thoughtful in his posts within the context of his basic ideological perspective, unlike some other conservatives who post here.

On the other hand, he has bought into the myth of "rugged individualism" and "personal responsibility".  What he, and others fail to understand is that regardless of how much ambition, drive, and determination a person has, there are always limits to the possible, and no one "does it" on their own.  Earlie I said that I put myself through college.  I did work every summer to pay for books and transport, and had a scholarship that paid tuition.  I also lived at home, got three squares a day, and had not only a bed room but also a well equiped, comfortable study in which to do my work.  My ex worked to help me through grad school, although I had a teaching assitantship the whole time, and my parants also contributed.  I was lucky.  Not everyone is.  My point is that no one "does it" alone, and some have more opportunities than others.

I now drive a beat up Acura Integra.  It's old, a 1991 model, but it's got relatively low mileage, it's reliable...and it's all mine! 


Me, 1975 Plymouth slant 6. Beautiful shape, hope to take it to 250,000 and
beyond

Me, 1975 Plymouth slant 6. Beautiful shape, hope to take it to 250,000 and
beyond

Wow! That's an oldie!

Hmmmm,  think I'll put a thread out on this one

 After a few weeks that summer, the owner can to me as I was working, put his hand on my shoulder, and said "your doing so good work, and you are careful.  I'm going to give you a raise".  Even then, you could have knocked me off my work bench.  What are the odds of that happening today?


Well, if it is a Union job, the chances are close to ZERO.

Vast majority of Union contracts prohibit merit raises.  Raises only established by job classification, and , in many cases, years service.  So the GREAT worker gets paid as much as the SLACK-OFF who holds the same job.

Solidarity forever.

Well, if it is a Union job, the chances are close to ZERO.

Vast majority of Union contracts prohibit merit raises.  Raises only established by job classification, and , in many cases, years service.  So the GREAT worker gets paid as much as the SLACK-OFF who holds the same job.

Solidarity forever.

And without Unions, it's employment at will, and the boss can walk up to your bench like The Donald, and say "You're fired!"  You kow what? There's not a d*mn thing you can do about it.  They can even badmouth you to the state unemployment officials so you can't collect unemployment insurance.  Doesn't matter if you did anything wrong or not.  Without organized labor, you're powerless against the bosses.

The government doesn't even enforce the labor laws that are on the books.  A lot of firings are completely illegal.  For example, if you and your fellow workers are trying to organize the company cannot fire you.  This is illegal under the 1935 Wagner act.  They fire uppity workers all the same, and the government does nothing about it.  Heck, a lot of workers don't even know their legal rights, but even if they did, they probably wouldn't be able to find enough pro bono representation to fight their cases.
About 15 years ago, "Business Week" magazine openly acknowledged the main way corporations were disintegrating organized labor was by way of illegal firings.
Thanks a lot Ronald Reagan and you're vile, union-busting ways!
>:(

On the flip side, as someone else has pointed out, there are a few unions that are unnecessary as well as some that abuse their "union" status.  Growing up, my parents lost our house thanks to a union strike.


That is sad, and I am sorry that happened.

I myself have had experiences with Unions in the past, most of them negative.

In the early 1980's, I worked for a local Grocery Store as a bag boy.  For those of you who remember that far back, then it was normally a High School age kid, and they actually took your cart out to your car for you and loaded your groceries.

The store I worked for was one of the first "Discount Supermarkets".  This was in Boise Idaho.  Thhis also was NOT a chain store.  It was a single store, set up as a privately held corporation.  We were competeing with Albertson's (which was headquartered in Boise) and Smith's Food King.

One day about 3 years after the store opened, pickets appeared in front of the store.  They were carrying signs saying "Unfair To Workers" and the like.  The funny thing is, NONE of the people carrying signs ever worked there!

It seems that they wanted to unionize our store, but they never bothered to ask us employees if we WANTED a union.  When I moved a year later, they were STILL picketing.  I was there for 2 union votes, and almost unanimously the vote was NO to unionize.

One of the big reasons for the NO vote was us "bag boys".  You see, most of us were 16 and 17.  Being under 18, we would not be allowed to work in a "union shop".  THat means a YES vote would have fired all of us.  Plus we were all getting good wages, and the owner was a very enjoyable boss who was active in the operation of his store.

When I returned in 1985 during my first leave in the Military, I learned the store was closed and gone.  It seems that the strike went on for a total of 2 years.  During that time, customers left and nothing the owners OR employees did would make the union stop trying to unionize.  Finally towards the end, the owner begged the employees to unionize.

By that time, it was to late.  The higher costs due to unionization meant he could not compete with the prices, so the "discount" aspect was gone.  6 months later, the store closed.

I saw the same thing 12 years later when I worked for a summer at a 6 Flags in Los Angeles.  There was a strong underground movement to Unionize the jobs there, largely.  These were mostly seasonal jobs.  6 Flags paid ABOVE minimum wage, and most of the employees were high school and post high school ages (16 to 19).

I would tell the kids about the fact if they unionized, they would loose their jobs since they were under 18.  It seemed that the organizer neglected to tell them this fact.

In 1991, I became friends with a guy who owned a company which did earthquake retrofits in the San Francisco Bay area.  For the 3 years I knew him, he was constantly picketed by "scabs" who NEVER worked for him.

These type of antics soured me greatly against unions.  I still feel they have their place, but not every job needs to be unionized.  I worked for US Borax, and can see the need for unions in dangerous fields like Mining.

Even more recently, I attended a meeting in LA before I left.  It was "covertly" sponsored by a union, which wanted to Unionize the computer field.  It seemed they thought that by doing this, they could expand into a new area.  I guess they did not realize that by the dynamics of the industry in LA, a great many computer people are only contracted.  Unionizing would ensure that almost ALL computer jobs would move to contractors and subcontractors.

Mushroom

Just to clarify a couple of points I'm not sure about.

Are you saying that if you work in a place that has a union you have to be a member?  And also that under 18's are not allowed to be union members?  Therefore under 18's can't work if a company has a workplace union?

If these points are true then the union laws in America are very different from the laws here in the U.K.

Are you saying that if you work in a place that has a union you have to be a member?  And also that under 18's are not allowed to be union members?  Therefore under 18's can't work if a company has a workplace union?

If these points are true then the union laws in America are very different from the laws here in the U.K.


It depends on several things.

In most cases, unions work in "closed shops".  This means that if you work there, you must be a member of the union.  And in order to be a member of most unions, you must be 18 or older.

Now some unions have exceptions.  For example, the entertainment unions (SAG, AFTRA, and the like) allow members under 18.  I am not sure of how they get away with it, maybe because they classify themselves as "Guilds" and not "Unions".

And some states are "Open Shop", while others are "Closed Shop".  Here is a definition I found in the "Columbia Encyclopedia", which explains it nicely:

The term “closed shop� is used to signify an establishment employing only members of a labor union. The union shop, a closely allied term, indicates a company where employees do not have to belong to a labor union when hired but are required to join within a specified period of time in order to keep their jobs. An open shop, strictly speaking, is one that does not restrict its employees to union members.

Actually, the "closed shop" was outlawed in 1947. (Taft-Hartley Act) But, IMO, it doesn't matter as the union shop is allowed.  So, you don't have to be a union member to be hired, but you must join after being hired ::)


Exactly.

This is what happened to my ex-wife.  She became a school bus driver in 1985, and had to become a member of the Teamsters.  The only good thing out of it was that after she joined, we got married.

We moved 60 miles away, and she was able to get a transfer to another yard.  But this yard was non-union.  Because of the transfer, she was able to maintain her union standing, and her union pay.  This made her the highest paid member at the yard, and she also had the least seniority.  This ensured that when they laid people off 9 months later, she was the first to go.  Because to a union, performance does not matter as much as seniority.

On the flip side, as someone else has pointed out, there are a few unions that are unnecessary as well as some that abuse their "union" status.  Growing up, my parents lost our house thanks to a union strike.  The company my dad worked for was facing a HUGE loss and were "negotiating" a new contract with the union.  The company wanted the union workers to forego pay increases for 2 years (none of the non-union employees were getting one either), which the union refused, and a strike ensued.  Well, with no factory workers, the company had to shut down and my father was "laid off".  Unemployment didn't cover the bills so we (as well as many other families) lost our house due to foreclosure.  The union finally agreed after a year or so, but the damage was already done.

Exactly.  Unions are not always a force for good, just as management is not always a force for bad.  I know some idealists on the left think in these simplistic terms, but I do not.  I do say in the long run, the American worker was better off when the unions were stronger and much more of the workforce was unionized.

Mushroom

Just to clarify a couple of points I'm not sure about.

Are you saying that if you work in a place that has a union you have to be a member?  And also that under 18's are not allowed to be union members?  Therefore under 18's can't work if a company has a workplace union?

If these points are true then the union laws in America are very different from the laws here in the U.K.


Retail such as grocery stores are tough to unionize.  Most of those working in grocery stores who make a living wage are some level of lower management with the company.  It seems unreasonable to me to be so rigid as to say all under 18s must be fired because they are not old enough to join the union.  The fact that the union couldn't or wouldn't make an exception is unfortunate.  Perhaps they were afraid union members would be more likely to be fired and replaced with kids.  However, this would be counterproductive for the company, as it would mean firing older, experienced workers and hiring inexperienced kids.
I'll have to re-read Taft-Hatley to comment on it.

There is a supermarket chain up here in the Northeast called Stop & Shop.  They're 100% unionized, but the union is mostly a shill for management.  Employees and lower level management is still "employment at will."  If the company says you're fired, there's not a dang thing the union will do for you.

Other things have happened to make grocery work less skilled.  For instance, butchers used to be highly skilled workers making a good living.  However, meat packers have made butchering a low-skilled high-risk assembly line job dominated by badly paid immigrants.  They now sell "boxed meat" to retail chains, leaving very little for a skilled butcher to do.  Thus, the markets don't have to pay $20+ an hour to a butcher.  Meanwhile the Mexicans on the Nebraska meat lines are pushed along at dangerous rates and frequently suffer terrible injuries.  They're not unionized either!

Simply put, if unions apply factory-floor unionization methods to the service industries, there will be many injustices as service work is very different from manufacturing work.

Retail such as grocery stores are tough to unionize.  Most of those working in grocery stores who make a living wage are some level of lower management with the company.  It seems unreasonable to me to be so rigid as to say all under 18s must be fired because they are not old enough to join the union.  The fact that the union couldn't or wouldn't make an exception is unfortunate.


But what about the fact that we did not WANT to unionize?

We all felt horrible at what they claimed to be doing in OUR name.  We were all happy working there.  Mr. D (the owner) paid above average wages, and gave us benefits.  In fact, for every opening there were far more applicants then they could ever hope to handle.

Now if a company is NOT meeting the needs of employees, then there might be the need for them to unionize.  But we were under just as much pressure as the owners were.  Add to that the people picketing were scabs, who were not union members either.

But what about the fact that we did not WANT to unionize?

We all felt horrible at what they claimed to be doing in OUR name.  We were all happy working there.  Mr. D (the owner) paid above average wages, and gave us benefits.  In fact, for every opening there were far more applicants then they could ever hope to handle.

Now if a company is NOT meeting the needs of employees, then there might be the need for them to unionize.  But we were under just as much pressure as the owners were.  Add to that the people picketing were scabs, who were not union members either.



I have to quote from my earlier post Exactly.  Unions are not always a force for good, just as management is not always a force for bad.

We've now had 25-years of bilious anti-union propaganda in this country.  It's not enough for me to acknowledge that unions sometimes hurt workers.  You keep pushing the idea that "unions" are the source of strong-arming, mediocrity, and injustice to workers.  No matter what management does, the unions are always to blame.  I refuse to dismiss the necessity of organized labor in today's economy, and that's what really bugs you.

Wow.  Unions are quite a lot different here I would say.

I'm fairly certain that the closed shop and union shop are illegal in this country.  That said I'm sure there are some places where you are very strongly encouraged to join the union.

I'm sure that in certain work areas the unions are still in the dark ages of fighting everything the management try and introduce and having a real "us and them" attitude.  However I do feel that this is changing and people are realising that management and unions can work together as a partnership to get the best possible conditions and benefits for everyone.

I am a branch secretary for one of the three unions at my workplace.  We are starting to put in place formal arrangements for partnership meetings between management and the unions.  It will help to speed up many of the decision making processes  Currently the management present something a three separate meetings that we then go away and discuss with the members and the other unions.  Then it goes to the next meeting and might get altered which then needs to be presented to all three unions again.  Given that these meeting only take place four times a year it can be very tedious.  (That said we have also used it to our advantage occasionally  ;) )

I think it is fairly common to have more than one union in a workplace because unions are fairly specific about which group they represent.

Therefore here at work there is a union for the lecturers, one for the technical staff and one for clerical, secretarial and manual staff.  They each negotiate terms and conditions for their own work group.  There is a move nationally to some joint negotiations between management and these unions.

My problem working as a union rep is that I frequently find myself at odds with the rest of the committee because I tend to assume (wrongly, possibly) that the management have no ulterior motive when offering something to our advantage.  I'm not saying I blindly accept something but I do not spend forever debating what could be behind something.  At a recent meeting we spent nearly an hour discussing whether to accept a management proposition to move everyone to new payscales a few months earlier than they needed to.  No one would loose any money, most people would gain, some more than others.  But, in everyone else's eyes, 'they' must be after something (not specified what though).  To me it was hardly worth a discussion.  I saw it as "do you want more money now or wait till February?"  What a waste of my lunch hour that discussion was!

If anyone has ever seen the classic Not the Nine O'Clock News sketch where Griff Rhys-Jones and Mel Smith (plus others) are negotiating for more pay plus the use of the executives swivelly chair etc. it feels just like that at times! lol!

Depending upon your outlook there was some  good or bad news in Canada this week.
A Wal Mart store in Quebec was given the right to organise and bring in a union.
Wal Mart is fighting tooth and nail but from what I did hear on the news (from the Union office so it will have some bias) the full time employees at this store are only given 28 hours a week at minimum wage or very slightly above.  Which means they get about $200 a week before taxes etc.  Not alot considering Wal Mart is the biggest retail corp in the world and fast approaching the
biggest corp in the world.  Wal Mart won't say anything except through their lawyers....we're looking over this decision and feel there are problems with it.

While unions may have out lived their effectiveness or taken a wrong turn in there tactics I feel that for the lowest paid workers out there a union may be the only voice the worker has.

I'm curious to see what will be the final out come.  McDonald's was once hit by a union in Quebec and they just up and closed the outlet even though the issue wasn't $$ it was scheduling and hours of work.

Depending upon your outlook there was some  good or bad news in Canada this week.
A Wal Mart store in Quebec was given the right to organise and bring in a union.
Wal Mart is fighting tooth and nail but from what I did hear on the news (from the Union office so it will have some bias) the full time employees at this store are only given 28 hours a week at minimum wage or very slightly above.  Which means they get about $200 a week before taxes etc.  Not alot considering Wal Mart is the biggest retail corp in the world and fast approaching the
biggest corp in the world.  Wal Mart won't say anything except through their lawyers....we're looking over this decision and feel there are problems with it.

While unions may have out lived their effectiveness or taken a wrong turn in there tactics I feel that for the lowest paid workers out there a union may be the only voice the worker has.

I'm curious to see what will be the final out come.  McDonald's was once hit by a union in Quebec and they just up and closed the outlet even though the issue wasn't $$ it was scheduling and hours of work.

Unionization of retail is often needed but it can be done to the detriment of everybody, as Mushroom illustrated with his examples.  The very last thing management in places like Wal-Mart and McD's want to see is any sort of worker empowerment.  Retail service employment is quite different in many respects from fields such as manufacturing, mining, and professional services--mainstays of traditional unionization.
Unionizing retail, IMO, requires different strategies than unionizing in the industrial sectors.  I wish I knew what do!

Back when Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton was alive, he ruled with an iron fist.  Perhaps that's how he made his company the number one retailer in the U.S.  However, old Sam used to personally warn employees at all levels they'd be fired if they even talked about unionizing.  Again, such firings were totally illegal in the U.S., but the government doesn't enforce that law because it's a government by and for business executives.

Exactly.

This is what happened to my ex-wife.  She became a school bus driver in 1985, and had to become a member of the Teamsters.  The only good thing out of it was that after she joined, we got married.

We moved 60 miles away, and she was able to get a transfer to another yard.  But this yard was non-union.  Because of the transfer, she was able to maintain her union standing, and her union pay.  This made her the highest paid member at the yard, and she also had the least seniority.  This ensured that when they laid people off 9 months later, she was the first to go.  Because to a union, performance does not matter as much as seniority.


Wait now, your wife changed jobs to a non union shop, but kept her higher union rate of pay and benefits. You
seem to infer the reason she was laid off was because she didn't have seniority, and that her performance
was better than the performance of the some of the drivers who were retained. I would say she was laid off
because her pay scale and benefits were so much better than the other drivers, the bosses I'm sure were not happy about that.  If she was against the union in the first place she could have turned in her book when she
changed jobs, but it seems she wanted it all.

He tried to fight it, even documenting that one of the "senior" employees (about 11 years) took 16 smoke breaks per day and was actually "working" < 4 hours per day, but still was laid off.  He even proved that this guy was dl'ing porn to his company laptop (a direct violation of company policy) ::)


Sounds like he must have been someones brother, brother-in-law, son, uncle, or whatever. ???

It depends on several things.

In most cases, unions work in "closed shops".  This means that if you work there, you must be a member of the union.  And in order to be a member of most unions, you must be 18 or older.

And some states are "Open Shop", while others are "Closed Shop".  Here is a definition I found in the "Columbia Encyclopedia", which explains it nicely:

The term “closed shop� is used to signify an establishment employing only members of a labor union. The union shop, a closely allied term, indicates a company where employees do not have to belong to a labor union when hired but are required to join within a specified period of time in order to keep their jobs. An open shop, strictly speaking, is one that does not restrict its employees to union members.


While reputable, your source is inaccurate with reference to union shop states (and this is all based on state law).  In union shop states you are not required to belong to the union to work, but you must pay THAT PORTION of union dues used to negotiate and inforce the contract (a responsibility of BOTH the union and the firm).  That, at least, is what it means in Vermont, New York, and in New Jersey.

Well, if it is a Union job, the chances are close to ZERO.

Vast majority of Union contracts prohibit merit raises.  Raises only established by job classification, and , in many cases, years service.  So the GREAT worker gets paid as much as the SLACK-OFF who holds the same job.

Solidarity forever.


I should clarify the situation.  There were five employees in that little shop.  The owner bought us donuts for coffee break.  He was fair to us and worked along side us.  We were family.  In any larger and more impersonal firm there are all kinds of possibilities for arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of bosses.  I know, since I have been on the receiving end.  So yeah,  SOLIDARITY FOREVER.

Seems to me that some of you need to get some perspective.  Before my campus was unionized, the pres could issue rules, hire, fire, promote, etc people at his whim, which was often arbitrary and capricious.  The union put an end to that.  The function of the union is NOT to protect mediocrity, but to defend the rights of the worker.  Contracts are NEGOTIATED between unions and management, not dictated by unions.  They typically contain provisions regarding the evaluation of employees, criteria for promotion, grievance procedures, and, at least in my union contract, conditions for revoking tenure.  They typically provide no blanket coverage for employees, but provide for due process in the relationship between mgm't & labor. 

Taft-Hartley DID NOT outlaw the closed shop.  That is a state responsibility.  New Jersey was a closed shop state when I worded my way through college.  After 30 days, I had to join the union to keep my job (that was fine with me, the foreman lightened up on me).  New York was a union shop state.  I didn't have to join (of course I did) but I would have had to pay dues supporting the negotiation and inforcement of the contract (but not the social or political activities of the union).  When I came to Vermont it was an open shop state.  A few of my colleagues refused to join the union, but got all the benefits, like the raises the union negotiated, and union support in pursuing grievances (as local grievance councelor I represented a few of these, and the union footed the bill for their extended defence).  A few years ago Vermont became a union shop state, so now those non-members are assessed for these costs, which can run into the thousands if we have to go to the labor board.

Can unions screw it up?  Of course they can.  The Teamsters, and their notorious corruption are the prime example.  Can unions be on the wrong side?  Sure!  Example: A colleage of mine was charged with sexual harrasment by another colleague (no students involved).  I knew he was guilty because he pulled the same crap she described on my wife IN FRONT OF ME - she gave him a quick shot in the solar plexes, he doubled over, case closed.  But it was up to management to prove the case against him.  Both my wife and I testified against him, but initially, management IGNORED our testimony.  He was about to get off when the harassee confronted me about not testifying when I said we would.  In front of her I called the system's lawyer and related our testimony and offered to repeat it.  The slim bucket is gone.  I should mention that I told the union governing board that I would testify against the guy, but recognized that the union had to defend him.  The point:  It is not the job of the union to evaluate the performance of its members, but to assure that they get a fair hearing.  If management has a case against an employee it is their job to make that case.

Should the relatrionship be adversarial?  I would say yes, it has to be.  If you buy into the "labor theory of value" which I do, that the ultimate source of all value is, and has been, human labor, than the source of profit can only be the difference between the value of what the worker produces and the wage the worker is paid for his/her labor.  Any economist, on either the left or right, will tell you that labor costs are the most important and easiest manipulate business cost.  Fixed plant, taxes (theoretically), energy costs, raw materials are what they are, only labor costs are variable.  Clearly, unions want them to be as  high as possible. 

Seems strange to me that human well being should be the most negotiable part of the equasion. 

If she was against the union in the first place she could have turned in her book when she changed jobs, but it seems she wanted it all.


Actually no, she could not do that.

THings like that are regulated by the union, even AFTER the transfer.  It is to keep union members from being punished BECAUSE they make more money.  If she had been working at the other yard for 3-4 years before the transfer, this would have kept her from being fired solely because of the wage.

And she can not turn it down, because it is part of the agreement between Management and Labor, the employee has no say in the matter.  THe only way she could have gotten out of it would be to leave the job, and re-apply as a new applicant.

There is an article in my local paper about Caterpillar & the UAW.  I know quite a few people that work/worked at Cat over the years (both union & non-union).  Basically, it's yet another contract dispute...

This quote, to me, exemplifies what the "unions" are about...
"Union members then balked at provisions that would require them to contribute to their health care premiums for the first time and a proposed two-tiered wage scale that would start new hires at about half the pay of veteran workers"(bold emplasis mine).  Non-union employees have always contributed to their health care premiums, why shouldn't the union?  And, at almost EVERY company (union or not) new hires are started at a much lower pay rate than veterans...why shouldn't the union be the same? (the union counter-offer proposed a $1 increase in the starting salary ::))


Taft Heartley did outlaw the idea of union membership as a prerequisit for employment, and the definition of a "closed shop" changed a bit as a result.  When I worked at the hose factory, I HAD TO join the union after 1 month of employment in order to keep my job, so it was a "closed shop".  When I started at CSC I didn't have to join the union, and had no obligation to pay even a portion of union dues, it was an open shop.  Vermont, a few years ago, changed to an "agency shop" state, so I don't have to be a member to keep my job, but the union can assess me a portion of the regular dues (used to negociate and support the contract).

Unions hate "two tier" systems because they establish two classes of workers.  Certainly new hires make less than veterans, but as they gain seniority and experiance, they move up the SAME wage scale as older employees.  That isn't a two tier system.  Several years ago the VSC asked to create a new rank, "lecturers" who would be full time teachers, hired from year to year, but never put on the tenure track, and subject to a different pay scale than tenure track teachers.  That was a two tier system.  We rejected that proposal for obvious reasons.

As to health insurance you ask "why shouldn't the union" members contribute to the primiums?  Why should they?  Terms and conditions of employment are matters for negociations, with each side striving for the best deal they can get in an adversarial environment.  Why should CEOs make hundreds of times more than the folks who actually produce the product?  CEOs try to cut the best deal they can for themselves, and firms try to squeeze out every dime of profit, mostly from the sweat of workers.  Why should workers not try to get the best deal they can?

As to health insurance you ask "why shouldn't the union" members contribute to the primiums?  Why should they?  Terms and conditions of employment are matters for negociations, with each side striving for the best deal they can get in an adversarial environment.  Why should CEOs make hundreds of times more than the folks who actually produce the product?  CEOs try to cut the best deal they can for themselves, and firms try to squeeze out every dime of profit, mostly from the sweat of workers.  Why should workers not try to get the best deal they can?

Well put, DC!  Cheer provided the answsers in her questions. 
We must remember, the U.S. is the most bitterly anti-union nation in the democratic world.  Management will stop at nothing short of government force to undermine organized labor.  The attitude is that workers should be entitled to NOTHING!
No amount of propaganda is too great to use against organized labor.  For instance, Conservatives whine incessantly about public school curriculums speaking favorably of the union movement in American history.  They just can't bear the way Rockefeller, Gould, and Morgan are portrayed as "robber barons," while the AFL, the CIO, and the strikers are portrayed as "heroes."  They cannot brook a single favorable word about Castro, nor a single criticism of Reagan. 

I thought the schools did a great job of covering the labor movement, if only to make it seem like the battle had been fought and won, and today's workforce has no such problems.  We got to read excerpts from Upton Sinclaire's The Jungle, but the book itself never appeared on any reading lists because it is explicitly socialist.

I'm not saying it's right, but it happens across ALL industries.  In most cases, the "producers" make more than the clerical workers.  Having a family member in "upper management", I can attest that he works longer hours than most of his "subordinates".  For this, he gets paid more.  Most CEO's fall into this same "category"...regardless of what people think, they do not spend all of their time playing golf and going out to "business" lunches.  A CEO doesn't have the typical 9-5 hours, for most of them it's 12-16 hours a day, not to mention the travel involved.

Boy, those CEOs they have it tough!  Oh, the travails and tribulations of seven-figure soldier on the march sixteen hours a day with only a tailored three-piece and and a five-credit card wallet between him and the grim reaper!    I should pen an ode to the noble CEO, the tireless producer of the divine Capital that doth keep our free-enterprise universe balanced on its axis.  Look skyward!  Hark!  You may see him now, closer to God than we can know, strapped in his first-class cabin seat, laptop open, toiling over spreadsheets.  This sacrifice of his time he makes for you and for me to make business thrive, to save us all from Godless socialism!  He is the "producer," we the wretched, the unworthy, the feckless ingrates....
:D :D :D

Boy, those CEOs they have it tough!  Oh, the travails and tribulations of seven-figure soldier on the march sixteen hours a day with only a tailored three-piece and and a five-credit card wallet between him and the grim reaper!    I should pen an ode to the noble CEO, the tireless producer of the divine Capital that doth keep our free-enterprise universe balanced on its axis.  Look skyward!  Hark!  You may see him now, closer to God than we can know, strapped in his first-class cabin seat, laptop open, toiling over spreadsheets.  This sacrifice of his time he makes for you and for me to make business thrive, to save us all from Godless socialism!  He is the "producer," we the wretched, the unworthy, the feckless ingrates....
:D :D :D


I think that's "Atlas Shrugged" you're describing.  But doesn't the risk inherent in running a business count for anything?  If entrepreneurs don't put up capital to start a business, there are no jobs for your noble workers to feel entitled to.

I think that's "Atlas Shrugged" you're describing.  But doesn't the risk inherent in running a business count for anything?  If entrepreneurs don't put up capital to start a business, there are no jobs for your noble workers to feel entitled to.

Most CEOs in present day America are anything but entrepeneurial.  Their job is to maximize profit for next quarter and keep as much wealth as possible OUT of the hands of the real "producers"--the workers who MAKE things, the the workers who SERVE the actual customers.  When the Republican party says "entrepeneur" they mean "parasite."  GOP policy CRUCIFIES small business and shows contempt for mom 'n pop operations.

  Why should they?  Because the office workers (non-union) have had to pay part of their premiums for years.  Not to mention that when the union rejected the last contract with the same provision, the non-union premiums went up. 

Than the office workers should unionize, and demand the szame health benefit as the production workers.  If they are willing to be exploited to rem,ain "professional" that's their prob.  Why should the unionized workers be willing to pay more so that non-union folks pay less?  Isn't it capitalist ideolgy that "greed is good"?  So why shouldn't union members use their power to that end?

And, maybe it's the blonde streaks I had put in my hair today, but what exactly IS a two tier system?  Under the Cat contract, they would be given the same yearly % increases, the only thing different would be the starting salary (info from an insider to the contract) which would be lower than currently offered. 


A 2 tier system is one that treats some employees differently than others, making them 2nd class employees.  Why should a union agree to reducing the starting salary of new hires?

I think that's "Atlas Shrugged" you're describing.  But doesn't the risk inherent in running a business count for anything?  If entrepreneurs don't put up capital to start a business, there are no jobs for your noble workers to feel entitled to.


Sure it does, but where did these "entrepreneures" get the capital in the first place? 

Not to mention that without CEO's, who's going to make the decisions?  I know, let's leave EVERY business decision up to the "grunts" and see how well the business does.  Let's let the factory workers run the company...after all, without them, there would BE NO company.  Let the "producers" (many, I would guess who have never even SEEN a spreadsheet, much less know how to read and interpret one or even what one is) toil over the spreadsheets in their first class cabin seats.  Let's keep the factory workers away from their families 3-6 months out of the year. :P :P ::) ::)


Cheers, I think this is beneith you.  I could write a dissertation on how the pervailing management paradgim favors ignorant workers, and aims at de-skilling workers.  I will spare you (for the time being), and just say that thr "grunts" you refer to are the ones who are so dumb as to produce the products, through their skills and intelligence, that allows your hubby's company to pay him that nice fat salary, which I am sure he also works hard to earn.  They can't read a spread sheet?  Could be.  Can he operate a lathe, or a drill press?  Can he dump a crucible and cast a molding?  You seem to be taking this much too personally.  I ask you, politily and with respect, to step back a bit.  Lets  not make this a stupid battle between middle management and shop floor labor.  Both are exploited, although in different ways.

Not to mention that without CEO's, who's going to make the decisions?  I know, let's leave EVERY business decision up to the "grunts" and see how well the business does.  Let's let the factory workers run the company...after all, without them, there would BE NO company.  Let the "producers" (many, I would guess who have never even SEEN a spreadsheet, much less know how to read and interpret one or even what one is) toil over the spreadsheets in their first class cabin seats.  Let's keep the factory workers away from their families 3-6 months out of the year. :P :P ::) ::)


I have to agree with Carlos.  I have worked in Personnel before and met too many people
very intelligent people in to many positions to look down on anyone, or underestimate the
ability of anyone, no matter what they do for a living.  I have met too many people in upper
management who have so mangled things that I do not immediately assume that they know
better than the stockroom people how to run the show.  I have known to may factory workers
who out of necessity have taken all the overtime they can get just to make ends meet, or had
to travel out of state to go to where the jobs are, and live of a shoestring so they can send money
home.  You must also consider the idea that as you look down on the "grunts" there is someone
looking down at you the same way..

Cheers, I think this is beneith you.  I could write a dissertation on how the pervailing management paradgim favors ignorant workers, and aims at de-skilling workers.  I will spare you (for the time being), and just say that thr "grunts" you refer to are the ones who are so dumb as to produce the products, through their skills and intelligence, that allows your hubby's company to pay him that nice fat salary, which I am sure he also works hard to earn.  They can't read a spread sheet?  Could be.  Can he operate a lathe, or a drill press?  Can he dump a crucible and cast a molding?  You seem to be taking this much too personally.  I ask you, politily and with respect, to step back a bit.  Lets  not make this a stupid battle between middle management and shop floor labor.  Both are exploited, although in different ways.

I confess to taking all this a bit too personally myself.  I am so sick of seeing the business executives annoint themeselves the Nietchian overmen, the chosen few from Ayn Rand, and spurred on by the politicians they've bought.  You know, the points of view of labor are pretty much excluded from mass media.  It's always businessmen and businessmen suck-ups analysing the economy on television.  The ONLY questions are what's good for the stock market and what's good for the "bottom line." 
However, it's not only "labor" per se left out.  The voices of the unrich and unglamorous are fading fast from pop culture.  This doesn't just apply to news but also to entertainment.  If you watch television, you would think "middle class" people liv in mansions and possess immaculate designer wardrobes.
It's not just television either.  The more consolidated newspapers get into gigant megacorporations, the more business-oriented they become.  Newspapers labor, cultural, and arts staff, and focus on the glorification of Wall Street and the deification of businessmen.
When they show poor people in the mass media, it's usually after some kind of natural disaster, or on a show such as COPS where you only get to see the criminal and the deranged.
Conservatives enlessly bash Hollywood elites, but what the business-oriented media presents to the public is much more poisonous.  Our news is being deformed into a corporate executive's wet dream.  This is not reality for 99% of humanity.  But the message the corporate elite sends to the rest of us is that the concerns of the American rich are actually the concerns of the average American.  Don't we all worry about the stock market?  Don't we all fret over our investments?  Don't we all drive luxury SUVs and accumulate frequent flier miles?, and so on and so on.
So, when I'm asked to feel grateful to Big Business, I get a little irritated.  The message Big Business sends to me is that I'm one step away from criminal!

Well, my hubby's company does not "produce" any goods, but yes, he CAN operate a lathe, molding injector and the like.  He can also run an excavator, bobcat, and forklift.  By doing those things, he paid his own way through college so he could earn his "nice fat salary".  And, yes, I DO take the subject of "unions" very personally.  I watched my father be screwed for his entire career by a union who refused to allow him to join.  There were 2 men at his company location who were "good enough" to fix the machines that KEPT the union members employed, but not "good enough" to join.  Yet, when two of the union members got the training to DO my father's job, they got to retain their union membership and basically force my father and his coworker into retirement.  I've seen BOTH of my parents (non-union) called "scabs" by union members on strike simply because they were trying to make a living.  I guess I've had a jaded experience with unions and I apologize for letting my personal belief vis-a-vis unions get in the way of the discussion.


I live Massachusetts, and know as much as anyone how unions have kept people out.  After the
War(WWII) my father could not get into any of the Boston area unions because of the closed,
family-oriented, and well as racist practices.  But, my father still taught me never to cross a picket
line, and to work toward opening the unions up.  Although the practices of the unions were
infuriating on one side, the benefits of what the unions brought to all areas outside of themselves
made it imperative to support them, while at the same time working at making them more inclusive.

My mother once lost a job because she was trying to form a union. For those of you in Mass. probably remember the Railroad Salvage (or Railroad Garbage as it was "fondly" called) stores. That was who my mother worked for. They had terrible work conditions. I can't remember specifics because I was about 9 or 10 at the time. But, I do remember having union meetings at our house. I think my mother still was active after she was fired. I'm not too sure if she suceeded or not. I should ask her about it.




Cat

I will not deny that some unions have followed policies that I would object to.  Like any organization, they are only as good as their members.  For a long time the AFL followed racist and sexist policies, and some unions certainly are corrupt. 

My point has been that in this dog-eat-dog system of ours, unions are necessary to protect workers' rights.

 

So, it's okay for the non-union workers to pay for the union workers?  It's THAT type of thinking that gives unions a bad name.  In all fairness, the workers should ALL pay the same amount.  Call it idealistic, but that's how I feel it should be. ::)
 

Unions negociate for their members, and try to get the best deal they can.  There are 3 unions representing different groups of workers at the Vermont  State Colleges.  Each negociates seperately.  Frankly, we wish we all could bargain as one unit, but the colleges opposed that concept, and the state labor board agreed with them.  So my union may get better bennies than the clerical staff, which might get better bennies than the professional staff.  The point is that we play by the rules laid out for us and do the best we can for our members.  Thats the union's job.  Unfortunately it has nothing to do with idealism, it has to do with power.

I'm not saying that ALL unions are bad.  Some are actually quite good.  However, it's the bad ones that give all the others a bad name.

Call it whatever you want, but someone suggested earlier that the office workers should have formed a union...and I have a problem with that.  IMO, they should not HAVE to unionize in order to get a fair deal.  What if management wanted to unionize as well?  Would that be allowed?  Who would the "factory" union negotiate with?  The "clerical union"?

As I said before, there was a time and place for unions and IMO, many have crossed the line and it's time for them to go.  Not all, but many.


I worked as a clerical and sure could have used a union.  My office manager hit on me a couple of times but
I turned him down.  When it came time for a raise, even though I as given a good review my raise didn't
match a cost in living percentage increase. I had complained to personnel but since the head of personnel
was lunch buddy with my office manager that went nowhere.  It would have been nice to have an intermediary
to discuss my salary and the office manager who was not involved with the company(very large).  It is a nice
thought that clericals should not have to unionize to get a fair deal, but it is a Holly Hobby thought.  Clericals
are one of the more vulnerable classes of workers out there.  The management of the company would
negotiate with the union designated by the clericals to represent them.

I'm not saying that ALL unions are bad.  Some are actually quite good.  However, it's the bad ones that give all the others a bad name.

Call it whatever you want, but someone suggested earlier that the office workers should have formed a union...and I have a problem with that.  IMO, they should not HAVE to unionize in order to get a fair deal.  What if management wanted to unionize as well?  Would that be allowed?  Who would the "factory" union negotiate with?  The "clerical union"?

As I said before, there was a time and place for unions and IMO, many have crossed the line and it's time for them to go.  Not all, but many.


And it the "radical feminists" who give the woman's movement a bad name, and the enviroterrorists...etc.  In a perfect world, no one would need a union, but the world is far from perfect.  The Dean at my college is a basically decent and good person, but sometimes he makes mistakes.  For example, at one point he tried to dictate to me the content of my lectures - a clear violation of academic freedom.  Naturally, I called him on it, and didn't need the union because he saw his error and backed off, but it was nice to know that I had a union to turn to if I needed it.

"Management" is already organized in that, even with a union, they have most of the power vis a vis the labor force, clerical, production, sales, etc.  All the "grunts" as you earlier described them (us) have is the contract to protect us from their arbitrary and capricious (or vindictive) decisions regarding our lives.  My point isn't to run down management - as I said above, my Dean, and the pres of my college, are good people.  Good people can make mistakes, and do.  As grievance officer on my campus I have addressed several with them on behalf of colleagues that otherwise would have been intimidated and simply accepted the injustice. 

I find it difficult to fault unions when top execs pull down millions while the producers of value have to scrimp to send their kids to college (or can't), or to buy meds for their aging parants.

My Great grandfather joined the Wobblies during the great Patterson NJ silk strike in 1913.  The only thing I remember about him was when he took me onhis knee, many years later, and said "kid, you are going to have to work for a living.  If there is a union where you work, join it, if there isn't one, form it". 

My point has been that in this dog-eat-dog system of ours, unions are necessary to protect workers' rights.


I can understand your feeling.  But how many times are unions exploiting the differences for their own gain?

I get so sick and tired of unions complaining how "abused" their members are.  I see things like the baseball strike, where multi-millionaires bitch because the owners make more then they do.  I get tired of seeing grocery workers demanding better pay and benefits then I make as a computer professional.  I get tired of seeing a city like Los Angeles shut down every 3 years because the union wants to squeeze another $1 from the almost bankrupt MTA.

I am curious, how are the workers lives improved when these strike cause the failure of the business?  In the last 50 years, there is a trail of wreckage of bankrupt and bought-out companies...  where union greed is part of the cause.

And as 80's Cheerleader has said before, quite often the Union members place themselves as a "Privledged class" within the organization.  They consider those who are NOT members as "scabs" or "unskilled" or "unimportant".

A great many times I have had such derision aimed at me.  Working for Boeing, most of the actual employees are union.  But 90% of the computer staff there are contractors.  To them, that made me a "scab".  When I worked for US Borax as a contractor, I had to cross a picket line.  This is because I had a contract to fulfill.  The union did not offer me anything to strike.  I was not a member of their or any other union, and I had no defense if I had walked out.  But that did not stop the rocks that were thrown at my car.

While some people complain about the "us" and "them" mentality of management and the need to unionize, I see most of that from the unions themselves.  When I am placed in the "them" group just because I am not in a union, it gives me no incentive to become one of "us".  It is just another form of eliteism.

I feel that corporations do have a responsibility to their employees.  They should pay decent wages, and provide safe decent working conditions.  They also owe it to their shareholders a return on their capitol.  And don't forget, a lot of that capitol is owned by employees themselves under stock ownership programs.

At the same time, employees owe the corporations as well.  They owe them a fair amount of work in exchange for the money spent.  After all, somebody who does not work should not be working, that spot can better be used by somebody that honestly needs and wants the job.

Benefits, as far as I know that is not an OBLIGATION of the employeer.  In fact, I find it strange that a great many people insist that both the Government AND Corporations owe this as a benefit to all.  How about it being a responsibility of the EMPLOYEE to take care of this?

However, a great many companys do make this available, as an incentive to keep good workers.  There are 3 companies that I worked for that offered this benefit, on a pay-share basis.  All were small, non-union companies.  All 3 were willing to pay part of the cost, in order to keep good people working for them.  Nobody forced them to, it was simply a way to keep workers happy.

BTW, those 3 companies were very different.  1 was a contracting agency I worked through, 1 was a family owned Engineering company, and the other was a Strip Club!  The one with the smallest number of employees and the best benefits package was the strip club, believe it or not.  :)

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief at some of the things people here are writing.

In the UK, at least where I work, if you are not in a union you do not have to pay anything towards the costs of negotiations etc.  When I meet a fellow technician I do not know if they are in the union or not (unless I remember seeing them at a meeting).  And, in all honesty, it would not make any difference to me if they are a member or not.  Obviously if they have a gripe I try to point out the benefits of being a member but our terms and conditions are such that they can have a colleague representing them during grievance  procedures (for example), it doesn't have to be a union rep.

I have been on strike a couple of times but these have only been one day affairs and then the matter has been resolved, luckily for us.  My dad was on strike for quite a while and it did affect the family finances for a while but nothing serious. He also mentioned that afterwards some colleagues were shunned because they crossed the picket lines and carried on working.  Over a year later people would only speak to them on work related matters.  I'm not sure I could treat a colleague like that so maybe I'm not a "union man".

A great many times I have had such derision aimed at me.  Working for Boeing, most of the actual employees are union.  But 90% of the computer staff there are contractors.  To them, that made me a "scab".  When I worked for US Borax as a contractor, I had to cross a picket line.  This is because I had a contract to fulfill.  The union did not offer me anything to strike.  I was not a member of their or any other union, and I had no defense if I had walked out.  But that did not stop the rocks that were thrown at my car.
So they company could have sued you for breach of contract?

While some people complain about the "us" and "them" mentality of management and the need to unionize, I see most of that from the unions themselves.  When I am placed in the "them" group just because I am not in a union, it gives me no incentive to become one of "us".  It is just another form of eliteism.
I suppose unions can be "elitist," which is too bad.  Going way back to the early 20th century, "elitism" was one ofthe issues addressed by the IWW (the Industrial Workers of the World, also known as the "Wobblies").  The Wobblies wanted unions to include all laborers, not just skilled craftsman as advocated by the AFL-CIO.  Big Bill Haywood said if unions are not inclusive, you don't have a union, you have a club.
Management will pit the skilled aganst the unskilled, the migrant against the native, the young against the old, and the independent contractor against the company employee.  It is incumbent upon unions to bridge these gaps, but that's easier said than done!

I feel that corporations do have a responsibility to their employees.  They should pay decent wages, and provide safe decent working conditions.  They also owe it to their shareholders a return on their capitol.  And don't forget, a lot of that capitol is owned by employees themselves under stock ownership programs.
Yes, but comparitively little to the big players.  Most workers are invested in the form of mutual funds and retirement plans.  They have little control over these investment packages.  Basically, they can choose to play or not, that's about it.

At the same time, employees owe the corporations as well.  They owe them a fair amount of work in exchange for the money spent.  After all, somebody who does not work should not be working, that spot can better be used by somebody that honestly needs and wants the job.
Aside from the circular logic of "somebody who does not work should not be working," I agree.  However, the bons of contention come with deciding what is "fair."  To Wal-Mart it is fair to pay their employees such a low wage they can't afford to shop at Wal-Mart (see Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed).

Benefits, as far as I know that is not an OBLIGATION of the employeer.  In fact, I find it strange that a great many people insist that both the Government AND Corporations owe this as a benefit to all.  How about it being a responsibility of the EMPLOYEE to take care of this?
I'm sorry, but this is the proverbially Uncle Tom attitude pushed by Corporate America and the fascist media.  If the American workforce buys into it, they'll get NOTHING!

However, a great many companys do make this available, as an incentive to keep good workers.  There are 3 companies that I worked for that offered this benefit, on a pay-share basis.  All were small, non-union companies.  All 3 were willing to pay part of the cost, in order to keep good people working for them.  Nobody forced them to, it was simply a way to keep workers happy.
As you say, they were small companies.  Big companies are much LESS likely to take these steps because management will claim they're too costly and anti-competitive.  That's why we need to protect mom 'n pop operations from the huge and predatory mega-corps.

Lots of points since my last post, so where to begin?

First, Max, your history is a bit off.  At the hight of the Wobbly movement (my favorite union - I was a mermber for a short time, it still exists) there was no CIO.  It was formed during the '30s, in part by x-wobblies to organize the unskilled an semi-skilled mass production workers on an industry-wide basis, similar to what the IWW advocated.

As to the rest, unions are only as democratic and representative as their members demand that they be.  Mine is both because my colleagues and I insist on participation.  No union officer gets paid for their work - we get milage and an occasional meal, but no pay. 

As I said, it is a certainty that some unions have lost sight of the broader goals of solidarity and social justice that the Wobblies and other early unions advocated, and to my mind that is a shame.  Just keep in mind, though, that unions are areflection of the broader society and its values.

I said above that unions negotiate for their members, and NO ONE else - they are prevented BY LAW from doing so.  If my union can get a better deal than the clerical workers I feel bad for them, but we can't negotiate for them.  So I take the bennies WE negotiate, and hope they do better next time.  Do we deserve those bennies?  As long as we can force mamagement to provide them we certainly do.  I didn't write labor law, but I'm sure glad when it works to my benefit.

Many small firms DO provide good bennies to their employess for exactly the reasons Danoota... mentioned, and more power to them, but lots of employers, like Wal-Mart (we don't do Wal-Mart) don't.  I just might spend my retirement trying to organize the local one. 

Unions are not a panacea, and clearly make mistakes, but they are the best hope for us "grunts".

That's how it is here.  If you cross a picket line FOR ANY REASON (union or not), you are a 'bad guy' and will be shunned by the union both in and outside the job.  Not to mention, being called names and having garbage thrown at your vehicle.  In the most recent "strike" at Caterpillar, they had to have police officers present at both entrances to the Aurora facility as one of the strikers was shooting a firearm and throwing lit firecrackers at cars who were entering/leaving.  Also, I'm not sure about the UK, but in the States, when you are "on strike", you get no help from the government.  Some unions offer minimal payments to their employees when on strike, but many don't. 

The U.S. government is now subsidizing Caterpillar's efforts to move production abroad, and away from those meddling unions.  Great country! Great government!  Caterpillar also likes to sell bulldozers to the Israeli occupying forces via the U.S. military.  Very nice.
You know, Caterpillar "won" the strike essentially by hiring permanent replacement workers, which is illegal in most civilized countries.  This was condemned by the Internationl Labor Organization, another multi-national human rights agency the U.S. bosses sneer at.
American workers have been indoctrinated to say, "We don't need your crummy labor unions around here," while the average income declines year after year.  We have witnessed the de-industrialization of America.  Whether we understand it or not, the lack of industrial infrastructure in America weakens us in the long run.  If we had to mobilize for a real war, like WWII, we couldn't do it today the way we did in 1941.  The resources aren't there.
You know what's becoming a major problem in middle America?  Hunger.  
As generations of blue collar stability are replaced with eradicated factories and a hollowed out agricultural sector, Americans in find themselves not getting by on four low-wage service jobs between two working adults in one family.
Many areas still look middle class, but inside the house the refridgerator as empty and the bills are unpaid.  The amount of charity food given by relief organizations doubled from 500 milllion to 1 billion pounds between 1990 and 2000.
We were much better off before the unions lost the war with the bosses.
At this rate, in another generation, whole swaths of America will be desolate and laid to utter waste.
Yet, '80s Cheerleader insists the corporate bosses are inculpable and the unions are to blame.  I find it disheartening.  You know, unless he's one of the favored fat cats, "Hubby" is expendable too.

Lots of points since my last post, so where to begin?

First, Max, your history is a bit off.  At the hight of the Wobbly movement (my favorite union - I was a mermber for a short time, it still exists) there was no CIO.  It was formed during the '30s, in part by x-wobblies to organize the unskilled an semi-skilled mass production workers on an industry-wide basis, similar to what the IWW advocated.


Oops!
:-[
I'm off by 30 years.  I have the Wobblies forming in 1905, and the CIO coming about in 1935.  Was I thinking of the AFL and the Knights of Labor?

I guess it's disheartening to me to hear people bash "Corporate America" every chance they get.  After all, I'm sure it's "CA" who is pushing people to buy expensive vehicles, add a $1500 stereo system and $1000 rims instead of feeding their family or paying their bills. 
Ah, but it is!

And, of course, noone in "CA" contributes to charity, helps out a shelters or food banks, or anything like that...they keep all of their $$ to themselves ::) ::) ::) <<sarcasm 

Like I say, hunger is a real problem in America.  Sociologists call it "food insecurity," Republicans call it "lack of personal responsibility," but I prefer a simpler word, hunger.  As for people spending money on car stereos instead of feeding their families, well, that sounds like a Dickensian myth, the kind Reagan was fond of.
This is going to be hard for you to accept, but the reason many poor people appear to be spendthrift is they know they can never save enough to work their way out of poverty.  In many cases, they're right.  You can pass judgment on them if you like, but it doesn't change the reality.  May I recommend a book?  David K. Shiper, The Working Poor.  This book is excellent because Shipler--a journalist, social scholar, and professor--does not place blame solely on society, nor solely in the individual.  Shipler does demonstrate how poverty happens in America, in the way I understand it, but cannot articulate so well.
As for charity, the folks don't want charity, they want to work and earn their own keep.  The fact that some corporations and their executives contribute to humanitarian causes does not change the fact of corporate purpose, as my quote from David Korten defines it.
The fact that your husband worked hard all his life to get where he is DOES NOT justify the great injustices of corporate America.  A lot of people work hard and play by the rules, but fortune does not smile upon them and they end up indigent.  The Right denies this is possible in America, which is a big lie.

That's how it is here.  If you cross a picket line FOR ANY REASON (union or not), you are a 'bad guy' and will be shunned by the union both in and outside the job.  Not to mention, being called names and having garbage thrown at your vehicle.  In the most recent "strike" at Caterpillar, they had to have police officers present at both entrances to the Aurora facility as one of the strikers was shooting a firearm and throwing lit firecrackers at cars who were entering/leaving. 


I'm sure its the same here in some organisations.  When the miners were on strike in the 80's then many people were intimidated into not crossing the picket lines.  The union shipped workers around to mines not on strike to try and force them out as well.  (at least that's how I remember it, I didn't really take a lot of notice at the time).  The police were on the picket lines in their riot gear for most of the strike.

Bill Bryson, in his book Notes from a Small Island, talks about when he worked for a newspaper as a reporter and the print unions went on strike.  They were a very powerful union at the time and Murdoch (?) came in and moved the paper away from Fleet Street and brought in his own printers.  Bryson recalls the police lines protecting him, and other reporters, as they drove in to work.  And they would have police escorts out as they drove in convoy to a barrage of bricks and bottles (no guns thankfully)


Also, I'm not sure about the UK, but in the States, when you are "on strike", you get no help from the government.  Some unions offer minimal payments to their employees when on strike, but many don't. 


No help from the government here either.  When my union was on strike we asked the employer to pay our one day's  money in to the student hardship fund, otherwise they would have just kept it.  I've never been on long term strike so don't know if the union would make minimum payments, but I doubt it.

I have personally seen both types of people looking for help. Yes, there are those who abuse the system-looking for anything they can get and feel that the world OWES them. There are also people who find themselves in a tough situation. Either they were laid off or they are working a job or two that is not making enough for them makes ends meet. A few weeks ago, at the food shelf, there was this woman who stormed off because I told her that she was using the food shelf too often and we needed to find out WHY or if there was some government program she could get on to help her out. She didn't want to hear that and claimed she was refused (which she wasn't) and stormed out. The guy waiting in line said that he was a witness to that she was not refused. Then he said that he just needed diapers. I asked him if he needed anything else and he said no. Then he said that he ate only every other day so his wife and kids could eat. I made sure that he had some food. It was interesting to have the full gambit basically at the same time-an abuser of the system and someone who didn't want to use the system even though he really needed it. It is very hard to try to find a balance to giving the help where it is needed and stopping the abusers.




Cat

Oops!
:-[
I'm off by 30 years.  I have the Wobblies forming in 1905, and the CIO coming about in 1935.  Was I thinking of the AFL and the Knights of Labor?


The K of L was formed right after the Civil War and reached its peak in 1886.  It favored cooperatives, was inclusive for women and blacks but excluded the Chinese, and was organized as both a craft based and an industrial union.  The AFL was organized by craft workers, who were frustrated by the Knights, in 1886 or so, under another name.  The Wobblies were formed in 1905 in Chicago.  Big Bill said it was the declaration of independence of the working class.  Get ahold of U Utah Phillips album of Wobbly songs and stories, its great - in fact, don't - we'll dub a copy for you.

Aside from the "labor History" lesson, for which I apologize, I think we all need to step back a bit. 

To Cheer, I too could claim to be "self-made", although I had lots of support to get where I am.  This is not to denigrate "hubby's" achievements but to suggest that not everyone is so lucky.  Your personal experiences with unions are unfortunate, as you describe them, but I'm sure that the guy I got fired for sexual harassment would also dis the union for not protecting him, even though it did, and even though I agreed that it had to.

Max's points (and mine) center around the idea that most employers, and especially the big ones, don't give a rat's butt about the people who work for them.  I have mentioned my last factory job in a small, humane shop where the boss (owner) did care and did appreciate those who worked for him.  Both exist.  No one at that plant needed a union, or even thought about one.  The hose factory was a diffrerent matter.

Charity is nice.  I just read that Wal-Mart is giving $$$ to some charity or other.  Better if they paid a living wage to their "associates".  Wal-Mart needs to be organized.

One of Pete Seeger's songs contains the verse "the sons of the sons of the fighters take all for granted, and in turn, oppress".  True enough, but struggle (read conflict, oppression, death) has got us what we have, and the struggle must go on to protect it and expand the quest for justice and equality.  The union movement is just one of the battle fronts.

I never said it justified anything.  It was an example to show that people CAN better THEMSELVES without any help from anyone. 


I have found that people who think they have gotten where they are without any help from anyone usually have short memories.  It's an Ayn Rand  the individual can do it against all odds.  She of course doesn't mention the family that bankrolled her coming to the states, the family that took her in, the teachers who gave her extra time, etc. I know a guy who did quite well for himself.  One day his adult children were talking about people on welfare, the whole spiel about how they should get jobs, work harder, so the guy went to his desk and pulled out the pack of foodstamps that he had kept from the days when things were pretty grim, and sat down and told the kids all about the things he had hidden from them when they were younger.  There isn't enough of that going around.  I am sure if the truth were told most people would find that their parents, grandparents, were helped along the way with government programs that they now decry.

I have found that people who think they have gotten where they are without any help from anyone usually have short memories.  It's an Ayn Rand  the individual can do it against all odds.  She of course doesn't mention the family that bankrolled her coming to the states, the family that took her in, the teachers who gave her extra time, etc. I know a guy who did quite well for himself.  One day his adult children were talking about people on welfare, the whole spiel about how they should get jobs, work harder, so the guy went to his desk and pulled out the pack of foodstamps that he had kept from the days when things were pretty grim, and sat down and told the kids all about the things he had hidden from them when they were younger.  There isn't enough of that going around.  I am sure if the truth were told most people would find that their parents, grandparents, were helped along the way with government programs that they now decry.


Absolutely, and as you suggest, by lots of supportive friends, relatives, teachers etc.  This notion of the "self made" person is a crock.  Yes, I worked my butt off to get an education, but my parants fed and housed me (with a bedroom AND a study) during that process, and gave me all kinds of emotional support.  My X also worked to help me through grad school (so did I).  Nobody does it alone.

So they company could have sued you for breach of contract?


It is possible, but that would not have happened.

What would have happened is that I would never be able to work for that contractor again.  Considering that from 1987 to 2000 I got 90% of my work from that one contractor, that would have made a MAJOR imparement in getting work.  In addition, I would have been unable to use them as a reference.

When you work as a contractor, you do not want to be known as somebody who will refuse to cross a picket line.  In California, a great many companies are picketed.  Hughes had picket lines I had to cross who stated that they were unfair for refuseing to allow their custodial services to unionize (never mind the fact that the custodial staff were all contractors themselves - unable to unionize even if they wanted to).  Such pickets are par for the course there.

One thing a lot of people point out is how much more managers and CEOs are paid.

To me, that is just fine.  I do not have a problem with this.  In the military, Officers are paid more then enlisted.  NCOs are paid more then Privates.  Generals are paid more then anybody.

At the same time, their jobs are much more at risk.  In most cases, a worker can't be fired for making a mistake.  However, when an executive or CEO makes a mistake, he can loose his job.  And it may not even be a work-related foulup.  Just saying the wrong thing in public can lead to their dismissal.  With the greater responsibility, comes a greater threat to job stability.

If the production line does not meet the quota set, the worker by and large will not get fired.  But the manager of that production line can loose his job.  If the company fails to make a profit, the workers will not get fired (not counting downsizing because of the lower profits).  However, the CEO and other management can (and often do) loose their jobs.

Also, a lot of the time the CEO also has a vested interest in the business.  They often hold large amounts of stock in the corporation they are the head of.  Steve Jobs, Howard Hughes, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Michael Dell.  All of these CEOs are also the founders of their respective companies.  If not for them, the employees would not have jobs in the first place.  And the companies got to where they are now because of their initial investment and work.  Is it unreasonable for them to expect to profit because of this? 

And remember, just because they are the founders, they STILL have to answer to a Board Of Directors.  And the Board Of Directors have to answer to the stock holders.  Steve Jobs was fired once before from Apple because of his actions.  It is very possible that he may be fired again.

Yes, but comparitively little to the big players.  Most workers are invested in the form of mutual funds and retirement plans.  They have little control over these investment packages.  Basically, they can choose to play or not, that's about it.


I do not think it is anybody's responsibility BUT the employees to handle their retirement plans.

Most companies offer very good plans, ranging from 401K (which they put money into FOR the employee), to stock purchase, to pension plans.  In addition, SSI is available for everybody, reguardless of income.  Even Bill Gates can collect SSI when he retires.

There is NOTHING preventing anybody from starting their own retirement plan.  Being a contractor, I was responsible for my own retirement.  People who own their own businesses have the same problem.  To them, the business itself is their retirement plan.  This is why my boss is still working at 68.  He plans to go into "semi-retirement" next year.  Since he owns 2 conjoined businesses (a motorcycle shop and a computer shop), he will have his sons manage the bike shop, and I will manage the computer shop.  The income from these businesses will ensure that he has a comfortable retirement.

One thing a lot of people point out is how much more managers and CEOs are paid.

To me, that is just fine.  I do not have a problem with this.  In the military, Officers are paid more then enlisted.  NCOs are paid more then Privates.  Generals are paid more then anybody.

At the same time, their jobs are much more at risk.  In most cases, a worker can't be fired for making a mistake.  However, when an executive or CEO makes a mistake, he can loose his job.  And it may not even be a work-related foulup.  Just saying the wrong thing in public can lead to their dismissal.  With the greater responsibility, comes a greater threat to job stability.

If the production line does not meet the quota set, the worker by and large will not get fired.  But the manager of that production line can loose his job.  If the company fails to make a profit, the workers will not get fired (not counting downsizing because of the lower profits).  However, the CEO and other management can (and often do) loose their jobs.

Also, a lot of the time the CEO also has a vested interest in the business.  They often hold large amounts of stock in the corporation they are the head of.  Steve Jobs, Howard Hughes, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Michael Dell.  All of these CEOs are also the founders of their respective companies.  If not for them, the employees would not have jobs in the first place.  And the companies got to where they are now because of their initial investment and work.  Is it unreasonable for them to expect to profit because of this? 

And remember, just because they are the founders, they STILL have to answer to a Board Of Directors.  And the Board Of Directors have to answer to the stock holders.  Steve Jobs was fired once before from Apple because of his actions.  It is very possible that he may be fired again.


Do the names KJen Lay, or Denis Kozlowski ring a bell?  Or how about the Imclome guy?  or Whats his name Welsh?  Cetainly some execs do earn their money and do work hard to get it, but some of these CEO's are just blood suckers.  How about Ken Lay preventing his employees from selling their Enron stock while he was dumping has as fast as he could, and thereby whipping out their retirement income while he feathered his own nest?

One thing a lot of people point out is how much more managers and CEOs are paid.

To me, that is just fine.  I do not have a problem with this.  In the military, Officers are paid more then enlisted.  NCOs are paid more then Privates.  Generals are paid more then anybody.

At the same time, their jobs are much more at risk.  In most cases, a worker can't be fired for making a mistake. 

Whoa! Hold on there, pardner!  I don't think you want to say what you seem to be saying.  One of the benefits of rising in rank is, as they say, "sh*t rolls down hill."  Upper management fobs off its incompetence onto lower management, lower management heaps upper management's burdens, along with its own incompetence onto labor.  You've heard of the Peter Principle?  There's a lot of truth to it.
Most "workers" these days labor under "employment at will."  No contract, no union, no nothing. Workers employed "at will" can indeed be fired for making a mistake.  Or not!  I've been fired from McJobs for no justifiable reason.  Well, they just didn't like me, and that's justice enough for McJob drones.
An American CEO, on the other hand, can run a company into the ground for twenty straight quarters, and "retire" with a ten million dollar bonus.  This is not the obscene outrage it should be, it's accepted standard practice.  Silly Leftie rags such as Business Week have decried it, but, hey, what are you gonna do about it, Mr. Journalist?
This Ayn Randed image drilled into our national consciousness of the CEO as brave knight of the Free Market is in serious conflict with the sad reality!

Do the names Ken Lay, or Denis Kozlowski ring a bell?  Or how about the Imclome guy?  or Whats his name Welsh?  Cetainly some execs do earn their money and do work hard to get it, but some of these CEO's are just blood suckers.  How about Ken Lay preventing his employees from selling their Enron stock while he was dumping has as fast as he could, and thereby whiping out their retirement income while he feathered his own nest?


Yea, and I think those scum should get long LONG prison sentences.

I like one proposal I heard right after the Enron meltdown, and it is in following with what most stock advisors suggest.  And that is DIVERSIFY YOUR PORTFOLIO.

I think it is rather foolish to place all of your retirement plans into any one stock.  If something happens (like the Enron meltdown), it guarantees that you will walk away with nothing.  If they had spread their investments around, they would not have been as vulnerable.

I know a guy who worked early on for PriceLine.  After the initial boom of the late 1990's, he owned a mansion in Malibu, had a Jaguar and a full dress Harley, and was living the high life. All of this was based on loans, useing his stock as collateral.

When the price crashed, he had to turn it all over to the bank and walk away.  I met him in 2000, and he was just getting ready to move out of his parent's house again (he had to move back when the stock crashed).  But nobody made him buy that much stock, and nobody made him hold it for so long that it became worthless.

Stock and Comodities are risky, and should not be used with critical funds.  Most investment brokers recommend a diverse portfolio, to prevent disasters like this.  In the event of the failure in one company, the others protect most of the investment, minimizing loss.

This is not the first time this has happened either.  In 1979-1980, the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the market in silver.  But because COMEX realized what was happening, they stepped in and prevented them from making any large transfers in silver.  By this time, the price had climbed from $6 to $50 an ounce, causeing almost all of the "free scrap" (pre-1965 coins, teeth, jewelry, silverware, etc) silver in the nation to be turned in for a hefty profit, releasing enough silver to keep the Hunt Brothers from being successful.  When it was all said and done, they were bankrupt and lost billions.  In addition, the IRS stepped in and they had to pay hefty fines due to undeclaired profits during the initial stages of the scheme.

Yea, and I think those scum should get long LONG prison sentences.

I like one proposal I heard right after the Enron meltdown, and it is in following with what most stock advisors suggest.  And that is DIVERSIFY YOUR PORTFOLIO.


I think it is rather foolish to place all of your retirement plans into any one stock.  If something happens (like the Enron meltdown), it guarantees that you will walk away with nothing.  If they had spread their investments around, they would not have been as vulnerable.Didn't the Enron fatcats forbid Enron employees from selling their stock prior to the big crash?  Weren't the Enron fatcats utterly deceitful about the the health of the company prior to 2001?  If I'm ever in the position to own stock, I'll certainly "diversify," but no amount of precautions can protect you from crooks who operate outside the law.  There's also the difference between owning stock on your own and owning stock as part of a mutual fund or a retirement plan.  As far as I know, the 401K-type investors have far less control over their funds and how they're invested.  If you sense the fund's investments are going sour, you can pull out, but you'll pay a huge penalty anyway.
As you say, a good deterent against white collar crime would be BIG SCARY PUNISHMENTS, but so far I've only seen the Enron a-holes get their wrists slapped.

I know a guy who worked early on for PriceLine.  After the initial boom of the late 1990's, he owned a mansion in Malibu, had a Jaguar and a full dress Harley, and was living the high life. All of this was based on loans, useing his stock as collateral.

When the price crashed, he had to turn it all over to the bank and walk away.  I met him in 2000, and he was just getting ready to move out of his parent's house again (he had to move back when the stock crashed).  But nobody made him buy that much stock, and nobody made him hold it for so long that it became worthless.
Well, that's nothing new.  In one form or another people have been making a quick buck and living beyond their means for centuries.  When the creditors come knocking, the story ends pretty much the same way.  Why, something like this happened in Dickens' Great Expectations, IIRC, except Phillip "Pip" Pirrup didn't have a "full dress Harley."  Maybe he will in the next modern adaptation for Hollywood!
???

  In 1979-1980, the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the market in silver.  But because COMEX realized what was happening, they stepped in and prevented them from making any large transfers in silver.  By this time, the price had climbed from $6 to $50 an ounce, causeing almost all of the "free scrap" (pre-1965 coins, teeth, jewelry, silverware, etc) silver in the nation to be turned in for a hefty profit, releasing enough silver to keep the Hunt Brothers from being successful.  When it was all said and done, they were bankrupt and lost billions.  In addition, the IRS stepped in and they had to pay hefty fines due to undeclaired profits during the initial stages of the scheme.

Ah, Billy and Bunkie! Dopey scions of a Texas oil family, sound familiar?
Is the Hunt family still wealthy, or are they out of the game?

Enron folkls were prevented from selling their stock while Kenny boy and the rest were dumping theirs.  The big guys never loose and the little guys never win.

Enron folkls were prevented from selling their stock while Kenny boy and the rest were dumping theirs.  The big guys never loose and the little guys never win.


This is true.  The 401K funds were frozen so that the employess were not able to access them,
at the same time Ken &Co. were dumping their shares.

Enron folkls were prevented from selling their stock while Kenny boy and the rest were dumping theirs.  The big guys never loose and the little guys never win.


In most of these cases, the stock bought was covered under mandatory non-sell timelimits.  When an employee gets stock (most normally through "Stock Options"), they get the most beneficial breaks in reguards to Capitol Gains taxes if they hold them for a year or more.  Also quite often there are requirements to hold them for a minimum amount of time.  This is to prevent a large amount of stock entering the open market from lowering the price of the stock (stock dumping).

This is all fairly normal.  In reality, if somebody really wanted to pull their stock out, they could.  But they would have had to pay penalties and the money would become immediatly taxable as income (just like any funds withdrawn prematurely from a 401k program).

The crime is how the managers at Enron manipulated the stock prices, and used it for their own gain.  And the trend started back in 1995, when Enron started to create the dummy corporations to hide losses, making the company look more profitable then it really was.

Ken Lay is a crook, and should be treated as one.  Just like the Hunt Brothers, they manipulated the price of a commedity (stock instead of silver) to enrich themselves, not careing who else suffered.  This is capitolization at it's worst.  Luckily, most executives do not work this way.  Most will even go into debt themselves to try and keep their company alive, not pump in some painkillers, trying to get one last race out of the horse before shooting it.

I guess its comforting to believe that "most CEO's" sacrifice for their companies, but it just doesn't ring true.  They are out for all they can get, and have the morality, INHO of ally cats (no that is offencive to ally cats).  Small businesspeople, on the other hand, I think tend to be more humane.