FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Walmart Strike (Page 5)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Walmart Strike
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation made some good points about unions on Talk of The Nation today:
quote:
The problem is that union contracts benefit some workers at the expense of others. Consider a high-performing worker. Well, the seniority system is actually holding him back. He could be - get a raise faster than what the unions negotiated for him, or seniority-based layoffs, with the new hires are going to be first on the chopping block to get laid off. They don't benefit from a union contract, but the union is insisting that, you know, they pay for it anyway.

I mean unions could - the Supreme Court has recognized repeatedly the right of unions to negotiate members-only contracts that only cover their members. So they could say, all right, we'll negotiate for our members. You guys do your own thing. They don't do that. They voluntarily choose to represent everyone in the workforce - precisely because they want those new hires to be forced into the seniority system so they get laid off first and the more senior union members don't get laid off.

And the law gives them that power, but they shouldn't be able to force all the workers in the company to pay dues to the union, simply to work. I mean it's, you know, it's your money. You've worked to earn that. If you're a worker, you shouldn't be forced to pay the union simply to hold a job.

ETA Sherk continuing his point:
quote:
You've got this, you know, your first hire or your last hired, first fired seniority provisions. And so you have like the Milwaukee public schools in 2010 awarded Megan Sampson their Outstanding First Year Teacher Award, and then a week later fired her. Why? Because she didn't have seniority.

Well, what happened to best interest of the children? No, I don't think it was, but she was fired because that was in the union contract that they wanted the new hires to go first. And I think it leads to tremendous unfairness for individual workers who the collective has decided you're going to take the hit for us.


Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Whew! Good thing employers have the best interest of the individual workers at heart. That's a relief.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Whew! Good thing employers have the best interest of the individual workers at heart. That's a relief.

Is that all you got? Sarcastic comments and a petulant, unions-can-do-no-harm approach to the discussion?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
The Heritage Foundation. It's like The Somalian quoting the Protocols of Zion in an argument with Lisa.

It ignores the utility argument of how sometimes the individual loses a little for a broader benefit for workers everywhere. This is accepted fact, its the social contract in microcosm.

In fact the argument above is the FYIGM argument, its "I could get stuff faster than all of your leachers slowing me down" and instead of him getting his raise "slower" than everyone else, its him along getting his raise at the expense of everyone else.

Its an entirely convincing argument, they don't argue numbers or economics, just pseudo objectivism. If your more capable, smarter, more attractive whatever, the other workers in the factory can suck it so you can get two rice bowls.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The Heritage Foundation. It's like The Somalian quoting the Protocols of Zion in an argument with Lisa.

"It's the Heritage foundation" isn't an argument. You can't dismiss the validity of a certain point based simply on who made the point. It's considered a logical fallacy. If an argument is logical, factual and relevant it should merit an honest response in a good-faith discussion. You don't like the Heritage Foundation? Fine. Just present your counterpoint.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I did both, you chose to ignore the counter argument.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Whew! Good thing employers have the best interest of the individual workers at heart. That's a relief.

Is that all you got? Sarcastic comments and a petulant, unions-can-do-no-harm approach to the discussion?
Sarcastic, yes. Unions do no wrong, no.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:

It ignores the utility argument of how sometimes the individual loses a little for a broader benefit for workers everywhere. This is accepted fact, its the social contract in microcosm.

No it doesn't. Actually, it addressed that argument specifically.

But, you know. The Heritage Foundation. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
... I don't think you understand what a 'feel-good piece' means, or the point of the post flew right over your head
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Asserting in some fashion, shape or form. That the social contract is 'wrong' is not a valid counter argument to the social contract. An argument without evidence is just an assertion.

In fact rereading it doesn't even directly address the social contract; it just asserts that there's some superhuman brilliant blue collar worker being held back by an alleged union somewhere IF ONLY IT WEREN'T FOR THE EVIL UNIONS.

Which isn't an argument, its basically a strawman and again, ignores all the benefit unions have brought to America in the first place that said poor superhuman brilliant blue collar worker ALSO benefits from.

Heck, why is it more fair to lay off an experienced senior worker? Heck how does it make economically more sense? He's better trained, has industry tribal knowledge that the newbie lacks.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
... I don't think you understand what a 'feel-good piece' means, or the point of the post flew right over your head

An appeal to emotion while producing little to no relevant information about the full context and implications of the situation, rendering any sort of intelligent or rational discussion nearly impossible.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Gosh, noted poster capaxinfiniti, that article is clearly not a feel-good piece, why did you use "feel-good piece" to describe it? If you actually believe it you didn't understand or didn't really read it and should go read it carefully so you pick up on what you missed before!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Gosh, noted poster capaxinfiniti, that article is clearly not a feel-good piece, why did you use "feel-good piece" to describe it? If you actually believe it you didn't understand or didn't really read it and should go read it carefully so you pick up on what you missed before!

Cut the snark and we can have a big boy conversation.

Feel-good in that anyone who is careless enough to believe, without question, that this situation is as simple as portrayed can receive an immediate reaffirmation that their worldview is "correct." In short, feel good about the post's implied conclusion, that employers are heartless and cruel (cut wages then create a food pantry) in their pursuit of profits.

Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Still ignoring my post I see, not really an adult act.

Capa, if the situation is so complex, why is the best solution the 'simple' one of RTW despite all of the controversy surrounding it?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Capa, if the situation is so complex, why is the best solution the 'simple' one of RTW despite all of the controversy surrounding it?

The complex situation I'm was talking about is found in the blog post linked to by Samprimary.

But obviously the issue of Right-to-Work is complex as well. I admit I find your posts following my Sherk quote slightly confusing. The jump from RTW to social contract theory might be the culprit. What, exactly, is your contention? I'll see if I can respond to it.

Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Feel-good in that anyone who is careless enough to believe, without question, that this situation is as simple as portrayed can receive an immediate reaffirmation that their worldview is "correct." In short, feel good about the post's implied conclusion, that employers are heartless and cruel (cut wages then create a food pantry) in their pursuit of profits.
Well I for one am eager to hear the circumstances that motivates their compassionate concern such that rather than raising wages or benefits, they create a food bank...which need was spurred by the low wages in the first place.

I guess their concern is sufficient that it would permit the creation of a food bank, but not *quite* enough that they could raise wages?

Big boy conversation, hah. By all means, flee under the cloak of outrage at snark when it suits you-as though you're not an uncommon wielder yourself.

Still waiting to hear why there is a rational reason to believe employers are more guided by high minded concern for individual rights rather than their own bottom line when it comes to RTW, btw. It is bitterly amusing how quickly conservatives are to pretend the whole 'self-interest' angle of capitalism, supposed to be one of its best features and the harnessing thereof, isn't the main factor when it becomes expedient to ignore it on moral questions.

But then are so eager to pick it up again when pointing the finger at unions. Oh, yes-they're against RTW because it would hurt their wallets...but we aren't supposed to believe that employers are for it for the reverse reason. I'm sick of being asked to swallow this horse s*%t as though I were an idiot, under the blanket of 'well all politicians are bad'.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Capa, if the situation is so complex, why is the best solution the 'simple' one of RTW despite all of the controversy surrounding it?

The complex situation I'm was talking about is found in the blog post linked to by Samprimary.

But obviously the issue of Right-to-Work is complex as well. I admit I find your posts following my Sherk quote slightly confusing. The jump from RTW to social contract theory might be the culprit. What, exactly, is your contention? I'll see if I can respond to it.

So you concede? The link from one to the other is so obvious that I can only conclude your lack of understand as facetious.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well I for one am eager to hear the circumstances that motivates their compassionate concern such that rather than raising wages or benefits, they create a food bank...which need was spurred by the low wages in the first place.

I guess their concern is sufficient that it would permit the creation of a food bank, but not *quite* enough that they could raise wages?

Big boy conversation, hah. By all means, flee under the cloak of outrage at snark when it suits you-as though you're not an uncommon wielder yourself.

Still waiting to hear why there is a rational reason to believe employers are more guided by high minded concern for individual rights rather than their own bottom line when it comes to RTW, btw. It is bitterly amusing how quickly conservatives are to pretend the whole 'self-interest' angle of capitalism, supposed to be one of its best features and the harnessing thereof, isn't the main factor when it becomes expedient to ignore it on moral questions.

But then are so eager to pick it up again when pointing the finger at unions. Oh, yes-they're against RTW because it would hurt their wallets...but we aren't supposed to believe that employers are for it for the reverse reason. I'm sick of being asked to swallow this horse s*%t as though I were an idiot, under the blanket of 'well all politicians are bad'.

Cloak of outrage? You got that out of my one sentence? Look at the impetuous language and word choice of what you just posted. You get huffy and riled up and shoot off comments that makes no sense. I was calling for a more mature, civil discussion then you storm in with this.

"Still waiting to hear why there is a rational reason to believe employers are more guided by high minded concern for individual rights rather than their own bottom line when it comes to RTW"

Right-to-Work is first and foremost for the employee. I'm not concerned with what guides the employers. The decision to seek employment at a certain location is a personal choice. The decision to join a union is a personal choice. RTW ensure that this choice is truly a choice and always remains one. It's the right of the employee to decide if they want the union to represent them. Unions come with negative consequences. (A point some don't agree with. See Blayne's comments.) If the employee thinks the positives outweigh the negatives, it's unlikely they would find the union dues burdensome.

People can defend RTW in whichever way they see fit. To me and every other conservative I know, the issue is one of personal rights.

Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Capa, if the situation is so complex, why is the best solution the 'simple' one of RTW despite all of the controversy surrounding it?

The complex situation I'm was talking about is found in the blog post linked to by Samprimary.

But obviously the issue of Right-to-Work is complex as well. I admit I find your posts following my Sherk quote slightly confusing. The jump from RTW to social contract theory might be the culprit. What, exactly, is your contention? I'll see if I can respond to it.

So you concede? The link from one to the other is so obvious that I can only conclude your lack of understand as facetious.
That's the only thing you can conclude? I'll admit again that I had difficulty parsing your comments but if I got the gist of it correct, Dan_Frank pointed out that your argument equally (perhaps more so) strengthens the position counter to your own.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I am not arguing Dan's post, I am arguing your post. And I posted my rebuttal, so either refute it or concede. Don't waste my time with disingenuous nonsense about how you suddenly aren't able to parse a simple post.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Feel-good in that anyone who is careless enough to believe, without question, that this situation is as simple as portrayed can receive an immediate reaffirmation that their worldview is "correct." In short, feel good about the post's implied conclusion, that employers are heartless and cruel (cut wages then create a food pantry) in their pursuit of profits.

Heartless? Maybe!
Cruel? Maybe?

So utterly blinkered as to not see what their actions say about themselves? Way to completely miss the point, morons. Let's us treat our employees like charity cases! in response to "We're paid so goddamn little we have to use food banks" they opened up a company food bank. And it appears are possibly soliciting those very underpaid employees to donate to the food bank, which they can then withdraw from?

It's too stupid. And about 20 years too early for our triumphant return to company towns.

And, like I suspected, you really don't know what "feel-good story" means. You think to anyone who agrees with this story sits down and reads it to really feel good about the world?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Right-to-Work is first and foremost for the employee.
You know who believes that? Stupid employees.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that there is an interesting parallel to be made about unions and vaccination. Sure. People think that vaccinating kids is a bad thing and, for a while, we all are okay because of herd immunity. Enough people ride free, though, and that immunity breaks downs and we all get sick.

Unions are similar. When they are strong, they protect all of us, even those of us who aren't in unions.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
And, like I suspected, you really don't know what "feel-good story" means. You think to anyone who agrees with this story sits down and reads it to really feel good about the world?

When you don't agree with someone's analysis you immediately claim they "didn't even read it" or that they don't know what X means. It's your standard, cut and paste response and it reeks of arrogance.

I didn't say it was a "warm fuzzies about the world" feel-good story. I explained what I was referring to when I called it a feel-good story. Reread my response. But if rereading it causes you to become more angry just ignore what I said. It's not a big deal.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Right-to-Work is first and foremost for the employee.
You know who believes that? Stupid employees.
Do you think it's appropriate to call me stupid, Tom? I have a long list of you calling people names, so I'm well aware of the caliber of person you are, no surprises there, but are you no longer capable of articulation your opinion or crafting an intelligent argument?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
And, like I suspected, you really don't know what "feel-good story" means. You think to anyone who agrees with this story sits down and reads it to really feel good about the world?

When you don't agree with someone's analysis you immediately claim they "didn't even read it" or that they don't know what X means. It's your standard, cut and paste response and it reeks of arrogance.

I didn't say it was a "warm fuzzies about the world" feel-good story. I explained what I was referring to when I called it a feel-good story. Reread my response. But if rereading it causes you to become more angry just ignore what I said. It's not a big deal.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Right-to-Work is first and foremost for the employee.
You know who believes that? Stupid employees.
Do you think it's appropriate to call me stupid, Tom? I have a long list of you calling people names, so I'm well aware of the caliber of person you are, no surprises there, but are you no longer capable of articulation your opinion or crafting an intelligent argument?

Careful, Capax. Tom gave you the moral high ground, don't give it up frivolously. [Wink]

Tom isn't, broadly, a low-caliber person or thinker. He just has his critical thinking capabilities massively disabled around certain topics. It's fine to not discuss with him on those topics. But if you choose to do that, just do it. Don't let the attacks rattle you. They aren't substantive criticisms, so they can just be ignored.

It's okay to ignore them, I promise. You're not Sam, you don't need to crusade on behalf of the slighted and belittled right-wing posters on the board. We can take attacks in stride, and not be offended. Or, if we can't, we should, because it's an invaluable skill to cultivate when engaging in political discussions.

And it's the individualist thing to do, too!

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Capa, if the situation is so complex, why is the best solution the 'simple' one of RTW despite all of the controversy surrounding it?

The complex situation I'm was talking about is found in the blog post linked to by Samprimary.

But obviously the issue of Right-to-Work is complex as well. I admit I find your posts following my Sherk quote slightly confusing. The jump from RTW to social contract theory might be the culprit. What, exactly, is your contention? I'll see if I can respond to it.

So you concede? The link from one to the other is so obvious that I can only conclude your lack of understand as facetious.
Blayne, it's kind of pathetic to respond to a legitimate clarifying question in the way you've done here. He didn't concede, he asked you to explain yourself, because you've done a poor job of it so far. If you don't want to explain yourself again, that's fine, you can drop it, but don't try to wrangle a win out of that. It won't fly.

The truth isn't obvious. We have to discover it. Your meaning also isn't obvious. Assuming that things are obvious, and anyone who can't see what you see is either stupid or evil and lying, is a really terrible way to approach critical discussion. It's a terrible way to approach life.

It leads to demonizing opposition, it makes it harder for you to accept critical responses, and it generally just screws up your interactions with people. It's not worth it.

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Way to completely miss the point, morons. Let's us treat our employees like charity cases! in response to "We're paid so goddamn little we have to use food banks" they opened up a company food bank. And it appears are possibly soliciting those very underpaid employees to donate to the food bank, which they can then withdraw from?

I assumed they expect to receive donations from the employees that were not doing as poorly. Either because they were paid more (I doubt everyone is paid the same. At the very least there's probably a few layers of management), or because they had fewer expenses (also a strong possibility; I've worked with people who relied on food banks before. We were paid the same, and I had lots of surplus cash. Different lifestyles have different upkeep levels.)

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
And, like I suspected, you really don't know what "feel-good story" means. You think to anyone who agrees with this story sits down and reads it to really feel good about the world?

No, he thinks people who read it do so to reaffirm their sense of injustice and stoke the fires of anti-business/anti-capitalist outrage in their hearts. They do it to feel bad about the world, and to feel good about their attempts to force improvements.

"Feel-good" wasn't the best way to put it, I'll agree. It's nonstandard usage. But he explained what he meant already, and the phenomena he's thinking of is pretty accurate, I think.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well I for one am eager to hear the circumstances that motivates their compassionate concern such that rather than raising wages or benefits, they create a food bank...which need was spurred by the low wages in the first place.

I guess their concern is sufficient that it would permit the creation of a food bank, but not *quite* enough that they could raise wages?

Right. Food bank is probably way cheaper. And easier to justify than increasing wages for a job that presumably isn't worth a lot more.

I mean, is it a high-skill job, or one that is low-skill with relatively high turnover? Some low-skill jobs in big corps have a certain level of stability and low-stress you can't find in food service, and a little more pay, so they are more appealing "career" paths for low-skill workers. But ultimately it's still a low-skill job that could support a higher turnover, so it's hard to justify a high pay in situations like that.

Or is it a normally high skill job with low turnover? Did they just hit everyone with massive pay cuts? What's up? I don't know the details. Do you?

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Still waiting to hear why there is a rational reason to believe employers are more guided by high minded concern for individual rights rather than their own bottom line when it comes to RTW, btw. It is bitterly amusing how quickly conservatives are to pretend the whole 'self-interest' angle of capitalism, supposed to be one of its best features and the harnessing thereof, isn't the main factor when it becomes expedient to ignore it on moral questions.

But then are so eager to pick it up again when pointing the finger at unions. Oh, yes-they're against RTW because it would hurt their wallets...but we aren't supposed to believe that employers are for it for the reverse reason. I'm sick of being asked to swallow this horse s*%t as though I were an idiot, under the blanket of 'well all politicians are bad'.

You'll be waiting a long time, dude.

I've said numerous times that I don't think that most companies are motivated for the greater good or for broad rights or whatever. I have no trouble believing they're motivated for financial gain. That's why so many companies get into bed with local and federal governments!

Some ideological thinktanks are pretty clearly motivated by ideology, though. Like Cato, or Heritage, or the Kochs. There's a clear ideology at play there.

Broadly, people are motivated by what they see as good reasons for stuff. That can be money, or ideology, or any of a million other things.

None of that is really relevant, though. Unions oppose RTW because RTW hurts unions, duh. It hurts their ability to make money and increase their power. It hurts their ability to fight for better conditions for their workers. It hurts them, broadly, for all sorts of reasons. So they oppose it. Right, this isn't rocket science.

And the employers that favor RTW do so because... it hurts unions! And they don't want to deal with unions. There are a million reasons here, too. Still not rocket science.

Ultimately, those reasons come back to the basic reason of this: The employer doesn't think that's the best way to run his business. Probably because of the increased cost. Also the increases in bureaucratic struggles and rules and procedures and whatnot. But that's basically a cost, so, see above.

Wonks at right wing thinktanks support RTW for ideological reasons, broadly. These might dovetail with the employer's reasons, but they aren't the same because there's no practical impetus for them. It's pure ideology. Naturally, Capax and I sound more like this than we do employers.

And wonks at left wing thinktanks oppose RTW for ideological reasons that also dovetail with the reasons Unions oppose them. But there are going to be some differences, more of a focus on broad social good, because again it's purely ideological. See Kate's comments for an example of what I mean.

But frankly, Rakeesh, I just don't see what you're referring to here. I think you're making big assumptions about our reasons for supporting RTW laws. This isn't the first time you've indicated that you think your opposition is, in effect, saying "get rid of regulations and everyone will do the things the regulations were trying to achieve anyway out of the goodness of their heart."

But, to the extent you think I or Capax are saying that, it's a straw man. I reject that characterization of my opinion, and I suspect he would too.

It's valuable, in critical discussion, to restate your opponent's ideas. It can help create clarity, and ensure that you understand them. The goal should be restating them in terms that they would agree with. If they say you aren't doing that, then you should adjust accordingly. If you don't, then it goes from a valuable tool for increasing clarity into a straw man argument that actively reduces clarity.

I don't think that's your intent, but so far that's how it's come through. Just FYI.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The Twinkies bankruptcy is a classic example of costs created by labor unions that are not confined to paychecks.

The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.

All of this was obviously intended to create more jobs for the unions' members. But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy, which can cost 18,500 jobs. The union is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Killing The Goose

Where I work the profit margin is small. If we were burdened with such senseless inefficiency we would likely be operating in the red.

Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy...
I think if you do the research on this, you'll find what drove the company into bankruptcy was executive fraud and largesse.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Careful, Capax. Tom gave you the moral high ground, don't give it up frivolously. [Wink]

Thank you for the reminder. The fact that it wasn't substantive - and is consistent with a pattern of behavior he has exhibited - caused me to lose patience with such a blatant personal attack. I've done extremely well at ignoring such comments in recent months. You've prompted me to continue my efforts. [Smile]
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy...
I think if you do the research on this, you'll find what drove the company into bankruptcy was executive fraud and largesse.
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/

Yes, it was mismanaged. But a number of powerful, very pro-union people had their role in that debacle too. Sowell points out that the operational inefficiency mandated by the union, not just the wage and pension liabilities, indicate a self-serving intransigence on the part of unions. Intentionally creating drag on the system doesn't lead one to believe the union wanted mutual success with their employer, rather the union saw Hostess as a source of money to be exploited by way of inane contractual obligations.

Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
It seems to me that if you're saying "intentionally creating drag on the system" means that the parties involved didn't want success at Hostess, the management of Hostess was far more committed to destroying that company.

This particular line of attack is interesting because unions will always be the enemy of a certain kind of efficiency -- namely, the harming of individual workers in the name of "productivity." That's their mission statement. A union, when it is doing its job, is finding ways to produce inefficiencies in favor of its members that do not overburden the actual operations of a company. And this is tolerable because very rarely is a company actually running so close to the edge that inefficiency threatens it; this is a myth that is promulgated by the same people who believe that a publicly owned company has no moral obligation to anyone or anything but the pockets of its shareholders.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Not just that but the unions had already undertaken cuts to benefits and salaries; the point to the recent strike and lawsuit is to insure that whatever benefits they have remaining can be upheld by the courts and not go poof.

But yeah, Tom of all people loses his critical thinking skills around certain topics? That's amusing.

Lets ask this question a different way, is there anyone besides yourself and Capa who do not understand the point of my post?

Because here's the thing, the burden of proof is on capax. History, such as the gilded age has already shown what a lack of unions can lead to; socialism has already proven itself more practical and workable a theory to manage society than libertarianism, this is already a fact as well.

Capax's efforts strike me as a weak willed attempt to shift the burden of proof onto other parties, due to a lack of evidence on his part for his argumentation. The most evidence posted to date? An opinion piece, one whose arguments have already been driven into the ground.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
Dan, I admire you and your long post for the noble attempt to get this thread back on track.

quote:

This particular line of attack is interesting because unions will always be the enemy of a certain kind of efficiency -- namely, the harming of individual workers in the name of "productivity." That's their mission statement. A union, when it is doing its job, is finding ways to produce inefficiencies in favor of its members that do not overburden the actual operations of a company.

But isn't productivity a valuable thing? Otherwise why would there be work that needs doing in the first place?

quote:
And this is tolerable because very rarely is a company actually running so close to the edge that inefficiency threatens it; this is a myth that is promulgated by the same people who believe that a publicly owned company has no moral obligation to anyone or anything but the pockets of its shareholders.
But there may be negative side-effects of inefficiency even when the company is in no danger; for example, if the price of the goods or services provided goes up.

I guess my general outlook is: if someone needs more money, it doesn't follow automatically that their employer (as opposed to society as a whole, via social programs) is the one who should provide it. That's why the story Sam linked doesn't click with me. Sure, the company's response was probably tone-deaf and gave ammo to their opponents, but that doesn't make them wrong.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Paying walmart employees a living wage would increase the cost of goods only by 1% across the board.

Additionally what are we comparing productivity to? Productivity in the US has kept going up over the last 12 years and up and up while wages go down and employment is a slow crawl.

There's not enough demand because there's not enough people with good wages to promote that demand. Higher wages means higher demand, and economic growth.

US Productivity thanks to technology, training, and education is already so much vastly higher relative to its past history that is it at all right to suggest we should really be squeezing workers out of more productivity without due recourse through collective means?

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/working-conditions

Here's a video that talks about workplace conditions in the US Gaming industry, a multi billion dollar industry with very little to nill unions.

Extremely high productivity but terrible sweatshop conditions.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
Working conditions are a place where I would agree with you that improvement is needed, even if it comes at a reduction in efficiency. The main problem is overwork, as in your example of the game industry. The 40 hour work week should be stringently enforced, and I would support increasing the overtime bonus throughout the US.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Right, and we can't trust the government (regulatory capture) to enforce it, which is where unions come in.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Lets ask this question a different way, is there anyone besides yourself and Capa who do not understand the point of my post?

I don't know. Who cares? Capax was the one you were talking to, so your goal should be clear, effective communication with him.

You failed to do that. If you want to continue discussing with him, that should be addressed. Again, you don't get to be vague and unclear and then declare victory and go home. It just makes you look like a tool. Take a deep breath, and either try again, or acknowledge that you don't want to talk to Capax. And then don't.

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Because here's the thing, the burden of proof is on capax. History, such as the gilded age has already shown what a lack of unions can lead to; socialism has already proven itself more practical and workable a theory to manage society than libertarianism, this is already a fact as well.

None of those are facts. They're all heavily disputed. You just dismiss the dispute as if it's already settled. That's not a critical, open-minded approach to finding the truth.

Again, I know you already think you know the truth. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. Don't. But just repeatedly asserting that what you believe is the truth and anyone who disagrees is stupid/lying isn't productive.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I guess my general outlook is: if someone needs more money, it doesn't follow automatically that their employer (as opposed to society as a whole, via social programs) is the one who should provide it.
Leaving aside the question of whether it is better to get people to accept "charity" than to recognize the inherent value of their labor, I don't think you'll find significant overlap between people who think unions should be abolished and people who think we need more social programs to take care of the poor.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I guess my general outlook is: if someone needs more money, it doesn't follow automatically that their employer (as opposed to society as a whole, via social programs) is the one who should provide it.
Leaving aside the question of whether it is better to get people to accept "charity" than to recognize the inherent value of their labor,
I do think that! As a matter of fact, I would say their labor has no intrinsic value, and the facets of US culture that make the acceptance of charity shameful are deeply sick.

quote:
I don't think you'll find significant overlap between people who think unions should be abolished and people who think we need more social programs to take care of the poor.
No doubt that's right. Is it supposed to count against what I said?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
A modest proposal:

Right To Work laws can be the groundwork for some other sorely needed reforms in our society.

Since the scandal that has struck Tiger Woods, the US has fallen behind in Golf. Even Tennis is seeing European and even Chinese victors. The solution is what I call "Right To Golf".

Right to Golf is simple legislation that requires all Country Clubs to waive mandatory membership dues and usage fees.

Opening up our best golf courses and other facilities to the public is the quickest way to attract more players, lowering the already steep cost of getting involved in the sport.

This is not an anti-Country Club measure. It is sure to increase attendance at Country Clubs through out the state. The more golfers we have, the more they will want to golf. Clubs could expand, make new courses, and grow. Demand will be there, since its free.

Further, if the country club you attend is important to you, and the services the provide are important, I am sure you will continue paying your dues and fees out of respect for those institutions.

I am sure right now that Country Clubs are holding back great golfers, with their rules and regulations about when and how to play. Waiting for tee times, making reservations, replacing divots, these all get in the way of the true dedicated golfer who just wants to hit the ball, and hit it NOW.

Save Golf in the US. Pass the "Right To Golf" now.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Working conditions are a place where I would agree with you that improvement is needed, even if it comes at a reduction in efficiency. The main problem is overwork, as in your example of the game industry. The 40 hour work week should be stringently enforced, and I would support increasing the overtime bonus throughout the US.

None of the laws we have regarding workplace safety, a 40 hour week, overtime or what have you, would have existed without unions, Nor will they continue to exist for long without strong unions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Destineer isn't anti-union, Kate.

Also, in that one sentence you issue a disputed historical assertion as fact. And then, even worse, you make a prediction about the future that is also just an unargued assertion.

I mean... I disagree. But you didn't offer any argument to explain your claim, so, what should I do? I guess I'll just politely disagree and move on?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I guess my general outlook is: if someone needs more money, it doesn't follow automatically that their employer (as opposed to society as a whole, via social programs) is the one who should provide it.
Leaving aside the question of whether it is better to get people to accept "charity" than to recognize the inherent value of their labor,
I do think that! As a matter of fact, I would say their labor has no intrinsic value, and the facets of US culture that make the acceptance of charity shameful are deeply sick.
Yeah, the idea that labor has "intrinsic value" is a pernicious fable in our culture. I think it contributes to the misunderstandings around this topic. Like when high-profile politicians say that someone who works hard should get enough money to have a house/car/middle class life etc.

Labor has value when people value that labor, or more accurately, the result of that labor. You can work hard digging a ditch nobody wants dug, and it doesn't have value. Or, if it has value to you, that's great, but nobody's gonna pay you for digging it.

You can work hard writing a post on an internet forum... and maybe that does have value to people, but not monetary value, so you still won't get paid.

There's nothing wrong with those scenarios. That's just part of life. Labor isn't intrinsically valuable. The value comes from mutual exchange for mutual benefit.

Also, Destineer: What exactly are you calling deeply sick?

I mean, I generally think that most things in our society that are shame based are wrong, at least wrong in motivation. Shame isn't a good reason not to steal/murder etc. but I think it's a fairly common one.

Similarly, there's no point in being ashamed of taking charity. But if you only want to receive stuff from other people when they it's an exchange for mutual benefit, then I can see potentially refusing some charity. Unless the person is being charitable genuinely because they want to do so and they think it will improve their lives. Then it would be a form of mutual exchange. But such a person might turn away some forms of "pity" charity. Is that deeply sick? I'm not so sure.

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
I don't think you'll find significant overlap between people who think unions should be abolished and people who think we need more social programs to take care of the poor.
No doubt that's right. Is it supposed to count against what I said?
I don't know. Hayek is held up as an example of a very free-market/capitalist sort of guy by most people, and Hayek advocated e.g. a guaranteed minimum income.

If by "significant" you mean "large number of random people," you may be right... though maybe not, because lots of mostly non-political center-ish sort of people sometimes scoff at unions but broadly support Social Security, etc.

But if by "significant" you just mean notable people whose ideas significantly shape the discussion, there may be even more overlap. I'm not sure, honestly. But I wouldn't discount it.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I am not convinced Dan that there is a two way effort to understand the other side. He does not understand my post because either the points I've raised are inherently incomprehensible for him to understand or because he simply dismissed it and didn't read it. He says that its a 'jump' from RTW to Social contract, but this is clearly not the case in context.

quote:

None of those are facts. They're all heavily disputed. You just dismiss the dispute as if it's already settled. That's not a critical, open-minded approach to finding the truth.

Have you yourself, fully research US labour history; looked at the rate of change in living standards, workplace safety, quality of life, wealth gap, and wages? I know I looked at it, and I know which forces actually resulted in improvements in the above.

Ever read The Jungle?

quote:

Again, I know you already think you know the truth. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. Don't. But just repeatedly asserting that what you believe is the truth and anyone who disagrees is stupid/lying isn't productive.

But turning the US to 19th century living standards and destroying the middle class is productive? Badum tush.

Your complaining about assertions, but have you ever at any point actually presented evidence that unions do not have an effect in improving wages, standard of living, workplace safety and so on? Or does these improvements not matter and that the employers 'rights' surpass these?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
. . . but have you ever at any point actually presented evidence that unions do not have an effect in improving wages, standard of living, workplace safety and so on? Or does these improvements not matter and that the employers 'rights' surpass these?

Those events were not scientific phenomena in a controlled setting, Blayne. So I think your claims are spurious. The kind of "evidence" you're claiming to have does not exist. At least, not in the sense you're acting like it does.

What we have is various events in history that occurred, and then explanations attempting to accurately explain those events and their causes. What's needed is explanatory power, e.g. argument, to make the case for a given idea.

Historical facts (e.g. when minimum wage was adopted, or when X% of the population had a 2-day weekend) play a vital role here, in helping to falsify bad arguments. Those facts could conceivably be called "evidence," but they don't stand on their own. They don't have any explanatory power without interpretation. And arguments shape those interpretations.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Those events were not scientific phenomena in a controlled setting

If that is your standards of evidence then why does this not apply in reverse? Where is the exhaustive studies by RTW proponents? Where's the evidence that RTW creates jobs? Increase wages of blue collar workers? How is this not hypocritical?

Where's the evidence that RTW laws DO NOT negatively affect workers rights?

If there is none, then why do you accept it over unions whom have evidence even if not to your standards? By that logic RTW should be on even shakier ground and less credible.

Is there any explanation for this that is not a weak rationalization?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:

Those events were not scientific phenomena in a controlled setting

If that is your standards of evidence then why does this not apply in reverse? Where is the exhaustive studies by RTW proponents? Where's the evidence that RTW creates jobs? Increase wages of blue collar workers? How is this not hypocritical?

Where's the evidence that RTW laws DO NOT negatively affect workers rights?

If there is none, then why do you accept it over unions whom have evidence even if not to your standards? By that logic RTW should be on even shakier ground and less credible.

Is there any explanation for this that is not a weak rationalization?

You completely missed my point. It's not about standards of evidence, or exhaustive studies, or anything like that. I would have the same objections that I enumerated above.

Really, not a single thing you've said above is actually a response to what I said. You've made some wild, slapdash assumptions and tried to turn things around on me. But it doesn't work, because you've failed to understand my point.

Would you like me to attempt to explain again? I can try.

Alternatively, rather than arguing with what you think I'm saying, could you phrase, in your words, what you think I'm saying? Maybe it will be easier for me to see how this miscommunication occurred if I can better understand what, exactly, you think I said.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Except it is, you state that there's "doubt", and you seem to find it sufficient to dismiss the counter arguments based on that doubt, so the doubt should be evenly applied. There's more relative doubt regarding RTW laws, thus you should not be in favor of RTW laws since there's more doubts about their utility.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Now you're misquoting me. I didn't use the word "doubt" anywhere in my post.

I assume your quoted "doubt" is actually a paraphrase of something I said, but I can't figure out what.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Also, in that one sentence you issue a disputed historical assertion as fact. And then, even worse, you make a prediction about the future that is also just an unargued assertion.
Absolute statements, using word like all or none, I think i agree with you. That's probably an overstatement. But as to the broader issue I think it's pretty clear she meant to get at (but she can correct me if I'm wrong), do I understand you to be claiming that without strong labor agitation and politicking, legal protections for things like overtime and safety would be more or less the same?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Do you think it's appropriate to call me stupid, Tom?
I didn't say I thought you believed what you were saying. The people who believe it are stupid.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2