I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings

Quote from Swan Noir:

But when you say they are all about greed -- which is largely an accurate statement -- how does that differentiate unions from most of our society?
More...

It's one thing for an employee to demand more money and to quit if it's not given. An employer would just go on and eventually (or not) replace him. It's quite another matter when the union demands more money for all or to strike... shutting down the employer's business... losing him likely a lot of money... and ultimately perhaps putting him into bankruptcy.

I loved it when Reagan canned all the PATCO people.
 
Can you square your last post and this statement you made yesterday?

"Unions had a different purpose in the early days of our industrial revolution, but now they're mostly about greed"

So collective bargaining was OK 100 years ago but it is now not legitimate? Unions have always demaned more money for all their members -- yes, even when you were in a union -- and the threat of shuting and even bankrupting the employer was always present. Why else would anyone take it seriously? I also loved it when Reagen made those PUBLIC EMPLOYEES acting in contravention of the law pay with their jobs. It was correct and it had been a long time since anyone in office had made anybody fly right. But to compare that situation to union workers in the context of non-governmental jobs is 10 (maybe 20) steps beyond absurd.

Indentured servitude is not a resonable way to run a great nation in the modern era. The right to bargain collectively is reasonable and to make that work the employer must know his business is at risk. Muscle goes both ways or it's not a negotiation ... it's a slaughter.

Quote from Scataphagos:

It's one thing for an employee to demand more money and to quit if it's not given. An employer would just go on and eventually (or not) replace him. It's quite another matter when the union demands more money for all or to strike... shutting down the employer's business... losing him likely a lot of money... and ultimately perhaps putting him into bankruptcy.

I loved it when Reagan canned all the PATCO people.
More...
 
Quote from Swan Noir:

Can you square your last post and this statement you made yesterday:

"Unions had a different purpose in the early days of our industrial revolution, but now they're mostly about greed"

Unions have always demaned more money for all their members -- yes, even when you were in a union -- and the threat of shuting and even bankrupting the employer was always present. Why else would anyone take it seriously?
More...

In the early days of industrialization, there were lots of labor abuses... excessive hours, child labor, company stores. Those abuses need to be addressed, and unions played a role.

"Take a union seriously"? I don't accept that labor should have such a big influence to destroy the entrepreneur or capital. I don't believe in the "labor collective" or the "social collective". Both are destroyers.

The percentage of unionized workers has fallen dramatically (especially in the private sector). Why do you think that is?
 
I think it is easier to unionize when the employees are locked in a building that is a fire trap -- as in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. You are correct that collective bargaing was but one piece of the puzzle and many of the other pieces are today moot.

OK ... you think collective bargaining is destructive and I think without it the equation of a single worker bargaining with say GE is just a bit one sided. I too hold entrepenurial activity and capital (particularly mine!) in high regard. We all know that truly level playing fields are pretty much always fiction -- one side or the other almost generally has an advantage. I just don't want the equation to be so lopsided that these sacrosanct job creators and their precious capital outweigh every other consideration.

I've owned and run businesses in five countries so I earned my stripes as an entrepenuer but many of these jerk offs who were born on third base (Trump comes to mind) talk like they hit a triple and act like they are doing us all a great favor by starting and growing a business. They stepped up because owning beats working for someone else and they wanted a better life. Fair enough but I wish they would stop acting like they stormed the beach at Anzio or did some other heroic act.

Quote from Scataphagos:

In the early days of industrialization, there were lots of labor abuses... excessive hours, child labor, company stores. Those abuses need to be addressed, and unions played a role.

"Take a union seriously"? I don't accept that labor should have such a big influence to destroy the entrepreneur or capital. I don't believe in the "labor collective" or the "social collective". Both are destroyers.

The percentage of unionized workers has fallen dramatically (especially in the private sector). Why do you think that is?
More...
 
Transfer payments are not enough to counteract the trickle up. We need more trickle down.
Capital is lost as savings are lost to investment and money is created out of nothing.
Nobody has any real clue, I don't know anybody who understands economics. Maths is clear, the USA debt will be defaulted on.:eek:
 
[Quote from Swan Noir]

I think it is easier to unionize when the employees are locked in a building that is a fire trap -- as in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. You are correct that collective bargaing was but one piece of the puzzle and many of the other pieces are today moot.

OK ... you think collective bargaining is destructive and I think without it the equation of a single worker bargaining with say GE is just a bit one sided. I too hold entrepenurial activity and capital (particularly mine!) in high regard. We all know that truly level playing fields are pretty much always fiction -- one side or the other almost generally has an advantage. I just don't want the equation to be so lopsided that these sacrosanct job creators and their precious capital outweigh every other consideration.

I've owned and run businesses in five countries so I earned my stripes as an entrepenuer but many of these jerk offs who were born on third base (Trump comes to mind) talk like they hit a triple and act like they are doing us all a great favor by starting and growing a business. They stepped up because owning beats working for someone else and they wanted a better life. Fair enough but I wish they would stop acting like they stormed the beach at Anzio or did some other heroic act.
_________________________________


You sound like a responsible person of wealth. That makes you an anomaly in the current socio-economic context. There's nothing wrong with wealth when it doesn't disenfranchise the poor, the working class, the middle class.
 
I'm comfortable, not wealthy. I like to think no matter what shape my finances were in I would be able to see that a guy twho has been laying brick for 45 years can't have the eligibility age on social security pushed up even another year without paying a horrible price physically. Many on here will tell you he should have planned better but the fact is he never had the education to figure it all out or the income to lay much aside.

I'm really sick of privildged American's thinking their crap doesn't stink because a generation or two ago someone in their family was smart enough and maybe ruthless enough to grab a small piece of the action. Most of those that have even small trust funds -- say a million or two -- can't imagine what life might be like for them starting with zip.

Quote from Hansel H:

[Quote from Swan Noir]

I think it is easier to unionize when the employees are locked in a building that is a fire trap -- as in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. You are correct that collective bargaing was but one piece of the puzzle and many of the other pieces are today moot.

OK ... you think collective bargaining is destructive and I think without it the equation of a single worker bargaining with say GE is just a bit one sided. I too hold entrepenurial activity and capital (particularly mine!) in high regard. We all know that truly level playing fields are pretty much always fiction -- one side or the other almost generally has an advantage. I just don't want the equation to be so lopsided that these sacrosanct job creators and their precious capital outweigh every other consideration.

I've owned and run businesses in five countries so I earned my stripes as an entrepenuer but many of these jerk offs who were born on third base (Trump comes to mind) talk like they hit a triple and act like they are doing us all a great favor by starting and growing a business. They stepped up because owning beats working for someone else and they wanted a better life. Fair enough but I wish they would stop acting like they stormed the beach at Anzio or did some other heroic act.
_________________________________


You sound like a responsible person of wealth. That makes you an anomaly in the current socio-economic context. There's nothing wrong with wealth when it doesn't disenfranchise the poor, the working class, the middle class.
More...
 
Quote from Swan Noir:

I'm comfortable, not wealthy. I like to think no matter what shape my finances were in I would be able to see that a guy twho has been laying brick for 45 years can't have the eligibility age on social security pushed up even another year without paying a horrible price physically. Many on here will tell you he should have planned better but the fact is he never had the education to figure it all out or the income to lay much aside.

I'm really sick of privildged American's thinking their crap doesn't stink because a generation or two ago someone in their family was smart enough and maybe ruthless enough to grab a small piece of the action. Most of those that have even small trust funds -- say a million or two -- can't imagine what life might be like for them starting with zip.
_________________________________

Those born into privilege in any country always rationalize their advantages over others less fortunate and even rationalize their exploitation of the disadvantaged (e.g. the rich boy who leaves his gated community to go to the ghetto to get his weekly $5 blow job from the whore who must be genetically of a lesser species).

An edifice of logic can be built on any arbitrary supposition provided it has in it the smallest grain of plausibility.

I sometimes wonder if an acquaintance with suffering is not a prerequisite for human status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top