-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0|697|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-
SoCoder -> Link Home -> Misc


 
Afr0
Created : 17 February 2011
Edited : 17 February 2011

[SoPolitical] Union busting

Wtf do you stand for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriiavbe7mw&feature=player_embedded
This is so true, and something I think alot of Americans and even people outside of the US needs to hear (because it is, unfortunately, happening all across the world, even in Norway).

 

Comments


Thursday, 17 February 2011, 14:44
JL235
Nonsense. Of course profits trickly down; companies that make profits want to expand and can only do so by hiring people!
Thursday, 17 February 2011, 15:20
Afr0
Just because they hire people doesn't mean that those people get fair wages. Hell, the whole notion of not letting workers unionize more or less screams "you can work here, but we decide the wages and you're damned if you try to opt for a payrise or even so much as think about extended vacation or sickleave".
Thursday, 17 February 2011, 15:49
Stealth
There are a lot of uneducated people that get elected in to office. Just because he threatened to call in the national guard doesn't mean that they wont tell him to go fuck himself. The national guards purpose is to protect Americans.
Friday, 18 February 2011, 01:22
Afr0
Yeah thank goodness he won't be able to use them.
We've never had anyone threaten to call in the national guard in Norway, but unfortunately businesses are increasingly unwilling to cooperate with unions.
Friday, 18 February 2011, 07:45
JL235
So in short, this is a video by a wannabe-political activist about a political problem which could not occur (and would seriously backfire if it did).

Seems like a bit of a waste to me. Especially with all that shouting.
Friday, 18 February 2011, 07:56
Afr0
about a political problem which could not occur


False.
Union busting is being heavily increased around the world. Whether or not the national guard is involved is kinda besides the point.
Just the fact that anyone would even suggest to pass a legislation that essentially makes it illegal for *all* workers in that state to unionize themselves is outrageous.
Friday, 18 February 2011, 08:02
JL235
Afr0 Whether or not the national guard is involved is kinda besides the point.

Getting what is essentially the army involved is actually a big deal, and is part of the point as it wouldn't have happened!

To clarify I'm not disagreeing with you that busting unions is bad I think unions in some countries are too powerful, but I would never remove unions entirely (they do good work for their members). I'm just saying that this is a non-story.
Friday, 18 February 2011, 09:01
Stealth
The power unions have can be abused (and often is). Most employees don't understand the bottom line. They have no idea how complex making a profit is. Roughly 50% of the profit a business makes in the US goes to tax. They get taxed out the ass. The government loves taxing them too because the average citizen is unaware of the extreme rates. Businesses struggle to survive sometimes and then you have a bully union where it's all about me me me and how much I can make. Employees don't care about the business, they just want to line their pockets. I wouldn't cooperate much with them either.
Friday, 18 February 2011, 09:43
Afr0
Businesses struggle to survive sometimes and then you have a bully union where it's all about me me me and how much I can make. Employees don't care about the business, they just want to line their pockets. I wouldn't cooperate much with them either.


Guess what? If the business was publicly owned, it wouldn't be taxed!
If you can't handle running a business responsibly, then you shouldn't do it.

I'm just saying that this is a non-story.


It isn't a non-story. The senator in question wanted to call in the national guard in order to avoid protest strikes against his legislation.
The fact that he proposed such a legislation in the first place is horrible!
Friday, 18 February 2011, 10:24
Stealth
If you can't handle running a business responsibly, then you shouldn't do it.


How about: if a business isn't being run responsibly then you don't work for them. Everyone always wants to "force" people to be fair. The employee wants a situation where they always win (and they'll pressure the government to make it happen). No, the government doesn't need to get involved. People just need to take more responsibility by voting with their money and where they choose to work. If everyone quit a company and everyone refused to work there, the company would be forced to give in to demands.

If the business was publicly owned, it wouldn't be taxed!


Do you propose we shift that tax burden on the employee?
Friday, 18 February 2011, 12:17
Afr0
No, the government doesn't need to get involved. People just need to take more responsibility by voting with their money and where they choose to work. If everyone quit a company and everyone refused to work there, the company would be forced to give in to demands.


You're forgetting the part where people can't always choose where they want to work. Hell, with the unemployment rates as they are in the US right now, some people are lucky to get employed at all. Fortunately we're not at that stage in Norway just yet.
On some level you're right - the government doesn't need to get involved. The fact that governments tax businesses doesn't really have anything to do with this. This is a matter between businesses and unions.
Unions are there to make sure that workers are paid at least minimum hourly wage, overtime, get a minimum amount of paid sick-leave (in Norway, the government helps pay for this, which is part of the reason why businesses pay taxes) and a minimum amount of paid vacation every year.
Friday, 18 February 2011, 12:31
Stealth
Unions are there to make sure that workers are paid at least minimum hourly wage, overtime, get a minimum amount of paid sick-leave


Unions do not need to do this in the United States. These things are federally mandated.

You're forgetting the part where people can't always choose where they want to work.


When you work for someone, you have to play by their rules. You agree to an hourly pay in return for doing what the employer asks. If you don't feel like you are being paid enough, you have the right to walk away and break this agreement. However, bullying the employer to pay you more seems rather childish (in my opinion).
Friday, 18 February 2011, 12:53
Afr0
Unions do not need to do this in the United States. These things are federally mandated.


Guess what?
Minimum hourly wage is federally mandated here as well, but businessowners still see fit to break those rules, and bully employers into not going public about it.
How's that for childish behaviour?
Friday, 18 February 2011, 12:59
Stealth
Minimum hourly wage is federally mandated here as well, but businessowners still see fit to break those rules, and bully employers into not going public about it.
How's that for childish behaviour?


We don't have this problem in the United States (except for illegals, since businesses do not report pay for them--very illegal). Breaking minimum wage laws results in very serious consequences. Employers aren't willing to risk it.

Maybe Norway could benefit from tougher laws. If that's why you're so pro-union, then it makes sense. Unions don't really have the same purpose here. They are mainly used to try and squeeze more benefits and money from the employer.
Saturday, 19 February 2011, 00:38
Afr0
Maybe Norway could benefit from tougher laws. If that's why you're so pro-union, then it makes sense. Unions don't really have the same purpose here. They are mainly used to try and squeeze more benefits and money from the employer.


Yup, Norway could definately benefit from tougher laws. Recently, counties have been allowed to hire private companies to take care of public services. Ever since then, things have just started going to shit.
Basically, the private companies are cheaper, but only because they suppress wages, suppress unions, are heavily relying on part-time contracts etc.
Some workplaces (like certain elderly homes) have granted some perks for their employees, like the ability to sign off whenever you want (within your alloted vacation-allowance). Problem is, the holes are filled with [mostly foreign] vicars. These people are usually paid below the allowed minimum hourly wage, the don't get overtime payment etc.
Norway also uses unions to bargain for more wage, but it happens at a specific time every... second year or so (IIRC). The thing is, most workers in Norway that are unionized have collective bargaining rights, meaning that wages are not bargained for on a business by business level.
That said, alot of business owners are also unionized, so they also have bargaining power.
Saturday, 26 February 2011, 19:21
Stealth
There are a lot of uneducated people that get elected in to office. Just because he threatened to call in the national guard doesn't mean that they wont tell him to go fuck himself. The national guards purpose is to protect Americans.


I'm stealing hoboben's link. Authorities basically told him to go fuck himself.

understory.ran.org/2011/02/25/breaking-wisconsin-police-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol/
Sunday, 27 February 2011, 02:16
Afr0
Yay!
Monday, 28 February 2011, 06:29
9572AD
A) Government workers shouldn't have unions in the first place. The government itself is like the biggest union ever.

B) The bill is to LIMIT the time spent in Collective Bargaining so that the government can actually do its damned job.

C) Unions are so wonderful that they actively lie to their members to whip them into a frenzy and get them to stage utterly stupid protests like this. Unions only care about money and power for Unions.

Union member for 13 years, btw.
Monday, 28 February 2011, 17:15
9572AD
Woo, way to go Obama for condemning our state administration.
Obama shows himself to either be a fool or a tool.
Monday, 28 February 2011, 18:31
Stealth
I think the bigger issue here is the fact that the governer tried to remove the protestors with force. It's a constitutionally protected right. The very first one:

First Amendment of the United States Constitution Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Monday, 28 February 2011, 18:41
9572AD
Protesters are removed with force everywhere in the US, all the time. Even completely peaceful and silent ones. And especially from government buildings.

Maybe it ain't right, but it ain't news.
Monday, 28 February 2011, 22:22
Stealth
People need to stand up for their rights.

Frankly, people have the right to be heard by their government. They were fully justified even though you don't agree with them. Counter protest them if you hate what they are saying.
Monday, 28 February 2011, 23:50
Afr0
For once I actually agree with Stealth.
I'm not at home right now, so can't write much.
I'll comment further when I get home.
Tuesday, 01 March 2011, 05:00
9572AD
I never said they can't or shouldn't protest, only that attempting to use force to remove protesters is not a new or remotely uncommon thing in this country, and definitely not deserving of the hyped-up media attention it's getting.
Tuesday, 01 March 2011, 14:14
Stealth
It might have had to do with the preemptive statement that he was going to forcefully remove protestors if they came. That's out of line and a direct violation of the first amendment. Removing violent and wild protesters is one thing, but threatening to remove them before they even protest is too far. He was basically saying "I am not going to allow you to protest".
Thursday, 03 March 2011, 03:38
Afr0
C) Unions are so wonderful that they actively lie to their members to whip them into a frenzy and get them to stage utterly stupid protests like this. Unions only care about money and power for Unions.


Which is kind of the point. Money and power for unions means money and power for members.

And if attempting to remove protesters by force is a common thing in the US, then thank goodness that these people were joined by the people that were supposed to remove them!
Thursday, 03 March 2011, 10:13
9572AD
"Which is kind of the point. Money and power for unions means money and power for members."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No.

I dunno about where you live, but more money and power for unions means more money and power for the people RUNNING the unions, who are NOT the people REPRESENTED by the unions. They only care about the people they represent to the minimum extent that keeps them in power.

Kind of like the government.
Thursday, 03 March 2011, 10:19
9572AD
Or to put it another way: I've never seen a union do a single useful thing FOR any of its members - aside from the utterly incompetent and uselessly lazy members, for whom the union only keeps them in a job they don't deserve.
They will, however, gladly take your money to allow you the privilege of having a job, and tell you what to believe and how to vote. While your representatives spend 3/4 of the year on vacation in the Caribbean.
Thursday, 03 March 2011, 12:59
Stealth
And if attempting to remove protesters by force is a common thing in the US, then thank goodness that these people were joined by the people that were supposed to remove them!


For the record- This is usually done because protesters are blocking roads or causing some other form of inconvenience to everyone else. We don't have a huge free speech problem in the US.

The supreme court ruled that we can flip cops the bird just to protect free speech. Go USA!
Saturday, 05 March 2011, 04:02
Afr0
They will, however, gladly take your money to allow you the privilege of having a job, and tell you what to believe and how to vote. While your representatives spend 3/4 of the year on vacation in the Caribbean.


This is, if not the full point, then certainly part of it. Unions serve as a protection against part-time employments, so that qualified workers get to keep their full-time contracts and get proper payment.

I dunno about where you live, but more money and power for unions means more money and power for the people RUNNING the unions, who are NOT the people REPRESENTED by the unions. They only care about the people they represent to the minimum extent that keeps them in power.

Kind of like the government.


You sound very sceptical of unions. And the government. I'd guess you've had a bad experience wit either one at some point in your life.
Seriously, even if your reps spend '3/4 of the year on vacation in the Caribbean', that probably means they do a good job for the rest of the year. If their track record was as bad as you seem to imply, they'd get sacked pretty quickly.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011, 21:04
Stealth
Busted

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/judge-blocks-wisconsin-anti-union-law-again.php
Thursday, 31 March 2011, 04:06
9572AD
You mean "asstard".

Seriously, only around half the states allow state workers collective bargaining rights anyhow. WI has only been doing it for 50ish years, and can no longer afford it.

Those poor state workers will eventually be forced to settle for outrageous state pay instead of blackmailing for utterly-outrageous better-than-state-pay, while the rest of us continue to get our jack-shite-pay taxed all to hell to support them.
Thursday, 31 March 2011, 14:48
9572AD
(also I'm not sure how a judge of a county of the state - again, not a state judge: a county judge - could possibly have any authority to block a state law, anyhow)
Thursday, 31 March 2011, 15:03
Afr0
This is awesome, great work!
Let's hope the state won't continiue to defy the order.

9572AD: How do you know that the taxes you pay will go towards supporting them? If the state can't afford the services that the workers are providing, that's not how it should be paid. It should be paid by cutting in cultural budgets, road budgets, things like that. Or the state could simply not hire some workers! That would force some of them to move to a different state and create some kind of equilibrium.
Besides, this isn't even about wages in the first place. It is about the right to be unionized, which is a principal right more than anything else.
Thursday, 31 March 2011, 16:08
HoboBen
9572AD: you criticise the wages of these unionised workers, but why not criticise the multi-billionaires? Surely you should demand that it's *their* taxes that pay the wages, not yours!
Thursday, 31 March 2011, 17:42
9572AD
I don't think we have any multi-billionaires in Wisconsin, but regardless why should I criticise them? They aren't using my tax money to fund their lavish lifestyle. The people of the state aren't paying for benefits for billionaires that they themselves lack.

I don't believe a public employee should have a right to be unionized. I'll just go ahead and say it full-stop. Public service is a burden you take up for the public good, it should not be a way to get fat off the public's labors. That's my principal.
Friday, 01 April 2011, 18:04
JL235
Public workers should be unionized. People have a right to be protected and there are plenty of examples where unions have helped to fight injustice. Lets also remember that unions started because of the harsh injustices forced onto underpaid and badly treated labourers. However unions are far from perfect.

Just a few years ago a teacher sent a _very_ threatening and sexually harrassing letter to another teacher (someone I knew). The culprit was then suspended on pay for over a year whilst the school went through the long procedure to sack them. The procedure was mainly so long due to all of the union protection the teacher had.

Regardless of if it's right or wrong to sack that teacher, the whole process should be resolved over a couple of weeks (at most).

Secondly I'm sick of the endless threat of strikes that unions use in the UK. I almost missed my grandmothers funeral due to a train strike last year that never materialised. Unions should not be able to use scare-mungering in such a way.

Third as much as people have a right to strike, people also have a right not to strike. Many union members often victimize fellow employees who do not agree with their agenda. Again, this is a bad thing.

Fourth for a long time in the UK the public sector has effectively been a 'job for life'. Your performance did not matter because every sector could endlessly eat more and more money. It's only recently that the 'gold plated pensions' in the civil service have been curbed.

I have known of head teachers who use up their entire school's budget solely because it will ensure they will receive a higher budget next year. They are spending our taxes solely for the sake of spending money. That is bad.

Businesses are answerable to their profits. If they lose money then they lose their job. You need to make money to survive. Privatization does not work in all cases, but because of their bottom line it requires them to be more sensible and efficient then the public sector.

I have never heard of billionnairres acting this way. As 9572AD said they pay for themselves. Even those who avoid tax put far more money into the tax system then regular people.
Saturday, 02 April 2011, 04:18
Afr0
Regardless of if it's right or wrong to sack that teacher, the whole process should be resolved over a couple of weeks (at most).


Why?
The culprit was suspended on pay!

I almost missed my grandmothers funeral due to a train strike last year that never materialised. Unions should not be able to use scare-mungering in such a way.


If you almost missed a funeral because of a strike that didn't happen, then that's your fault, not unions'! If you think there's going to be a strike and you're afraid to order a train ticket, then order a plane ticket instead! Or take the bus.

Third as much as people have a right to strike, people also have a right not to strike. Many union members often victimize fellow employees who do not agree with their agenda. Again, this is a bad thing.


Aye, it is a bad thing, but (especially in big strikes) things tend to become somewhat personal. The people refusing to strike are usually seen as being in league with the boss(es), and are made out to be as bad as they are. In fact, sometimes bosses pay workers extra (or they strike lucrative deals) to not strike in order to try to bring the strike down. Which is horrible.

Your performance did not matter because every sector could endlessly eat more and more money.


That is the main problem with privatization and New Public Management. Politicians tend to think it is a Good Thing (TM) because it forces people to compete amongst themselves more and thus become more effective. In the short-term it might work, but in the long-term it wears down efficiency, sends health-issues spiking, kills initiative and is generally a Bad Thing (TM).

You need to make money to survive. Privatization does not work in all cases, but because of their bottom line it requires them to be more sensible and efficient then the public sector.


You know why the private sector can afford to be more 'sensible and efficient' than the public sector? Because turnovers are much higher. That's the bottom line. If people can't stay 100% effective 100% of the time, they're replaced.
Saturday, 02 April 2011, 05:11
JL235
Afr0 Why?
The culprit was suspended on pay!

He should not be suspended on pay for over a year! That's a complete waste of both time and money.

Afr0 If you almost missed a funeral because of a strike that didn't happen, then that's your fault, not unions'! If you think there's going to be a strike and you're afraid to order a train ticket, then order a plane ticket instead! Or take the bus.

I actually booked the ticket before the strike. I shouldn't have to buy extra tickets. Instead my plans should not be messed up.

Afr0 You know why the private sector can afford to be more 'sensible and efficient' than the public sector? Because turnovers are much higher. That's the bottom line. If people can't stay 100% effective 100% of the time, they're replaced.

Then maybe we need higher turnovers in the public sector.
Saturday, 02 April 2011, 06:38
Afr0
I actually booked the ticket before the strike. I shouldn't have to buy extra tickets. Instead my plans should not be messed up.


But your plans weren't messed up? Also you should be able to pay a bit more to insure your ticket against unforeseen issues. At least you can in Norway.

Then maybe we need higher turnovers in the public sector.


Did you not read what I wrote?

That is the main problem with privatization and New Public Management. Politicians tend to think it is a Good Thing (TM) because it forces people to compete amongst themselves more and thus become more effective. In the short-term it might work, but in the long-term it wears down efficiency, sends health-issues spiking, kills initiative and is generally a Bad Thing (TM).

Saturday, 02 April 2011, 06:41
Afr0
He should not be suspended on pay for over a year! That's a complete waste of both time and money


I don't know the intricacies of this exact case, but generally speaking, anything involving legal issues tend to take a long time. Unions have specialized lawyers that members can hire, and lawyers are experts in pulling out time. That's more a lawyer and justice system issue if you ask me.