Live Music
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 3:21pm
Israel
- R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:50pm
NYTimes Connections
- Steely_D - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:14pm
Can you afford to retire?
- JrzyTmata - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:05pm
What the hell OV?
- miamizsun - Jun 7, 2024 - 12:55pm
NY Times Strands
- rgio - Jun 7, 2024 - 12:27pm
Old timers, crosswords &
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 7, 2024 - 12:09pm
Military Matters
- R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:31am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- Laptopdog - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:09am
Wordle - daily game
- ptooey - Jun 7, 2024 - 10:14am
Republican Party
- black321 - Jun 7, 2024 - 9:30am
NASA & other news from space
- GeneP59 - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:42am
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:01am
Joe Biden
- ColdMiser - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:53am
Favorite Quotes
- black321 - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:45am
Radio Paradise Comments
- sunybuny - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:38am
What makes you smile?
- Red_Dragon - Jun 7, 2024 - 6:32am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 7, 2024 - 3:07am
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes
- fractalv - Jun 6, 2024 - 3:58pm
Artificial Intelligence
- johkir - Jun 6, 2024 - 3:57pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- Antigone - Jun 6, 2024 - 2:48pm
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on?
- kcar - Jun 6, 2024 - 1:25pm
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- oldviolin - Jun 6, 2024 - 12:35pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Jun 6, 2024 - 12:06pm
Economix
- black321 - Jun 6, 2024 - 11:31am
What's with the Sitar? ...and Robert Plant
- thisbody - Jun 6, 2024 - 11:16am
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Jun 6, 2024 - 10:39am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 6, 2024 - 8:32am
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - Jun 6, 2024 - 7:28am
Climate Change
- Red_Dragon - Jun 6, 2024 - 5:17am
Democratic Party
- kurtster - Jun 5, 2024 - 9:23pm
Name My Band
- Manbird - Jun 5, 2024 - 7:02pm
Canada
- Beaker - Jun 5, 2024 - 1:58pm
the Todd Rundgren topic
- miamizsun - Jun 5, 2024 - 5:00am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- MrDill - Jun 5, 2024 - 2:26am
What Makes You Laugh?
- Steely_D - Jun 5, 2024 - 12:44am
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 4, 2024 - 9:47pm
Automotive Lust
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 4, 2024 - 9:28pm
Art Show
- Manbird - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:20pm
China
- R_P - Jun 4, 2024 - 7:33pm
Bad Poetry
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:11pm
Classic TV Curiosities
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:09pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 11:50am
Trump
- Red_Dragon - Jun 4, 2024 - 11:05am
Music Videos
- black321 - Jun 4, 2024 - 10:11am
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:28am
Things You Thought Today
- thisbody - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:17am
Your First Albums
- Manbird - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:42pm
King Crimson
- Steely_D - Jun 3, 2024 - 2:25pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - Jun 3, 2024 - 10:19am
Your favourite conspiracy theory?
- Beaker - Jun 3, 2024 - 8:00am
Beer
- Red_Dragon - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:20am
Ukraine
- R_P - Jun 2, 2024 - 3:07pm
RP on Twitter
- R_P - Jun 1, 2024 - 2:47pm
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio...
- thisbody - Jun 1, 2024 - 10:20am
What Did You See Today?
- Isabeau - May 31, 2024 - 1:15pm
ONE WORD
- thisbody - May 31, 2024 - 10:39am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Alchemist - May 30, 2024 - 6:58pm
Human Curated?
- Ipse_Dixit - May 30, 2024 - 2:55pm
Evolution!
- R_P - May 30, 2024 - 12:22pm
favorite love songs
- thisbody - May 30, 2024 - 11:25am
Sonos
- konz - May 30, 2024 - 10:26am
Fascism In America
- R_P - May 29, 2024 - 11:01pm
You might be getting old if......
- Bill_J - May 29, 2024 - 6:05pm
Science in the News
- black321 - May 29, 2024 - 11:56am
Roku App - Roku Asterisk Menu
- RPnate1 - May 29, 2024 - 11:15am
Geomorphology
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 29, 2024 - 10:56am
The Obituary Page
- Steve - May 29, 2024 - 5:49am
Notification bar on android
- tjux - May 28, 2024 - 10:26pm
Interviews with the artists
- dischuckin - May 28, 2024 - 1:33pm
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - May 28, 2024 - 12:02pm
RP Daily Trivia Challenge
- ScottFromWyoming - May 27, 2024 - 8:24pm
Poetry Forum
- Manbird - May 27, 2024 - 7:20pm
fortune cookies, says:
- thisbody - May 27, 2024 - 3:50pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 27, 2024 - 9:29am
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Government Shutdown
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 12, 13, 14 Next |
arighter2
Location: dubuque Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 1:39pm |
|
oldslabsides wrote: if theirs is any indication, I'd say it's not much of an argument.
The money that was expected to be realized through investments in the market failed to materialize, yet GM is contractually obligated to it's workers. For the moment, anyway.
|
|
beamends
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 1:38pm |
|
cc_rider wrote: I absolutely believe that is true. 'Management' in the larger sense has no one to blame but themselves for the rise of unions. Conversely, unions have no one to blame but themselves for becoming scapegoats for management ire. It's a dysfunctional relationship, and there is plenty of blame to go around.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 1:34pm |
|
arighter2 wrote:Arguably, GM got screwed because of the under performance of their pension funds.
if theirs is any indication, I'd say it's not much of an argument.
|
|
arighter2
Location: dubuque Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 1:26pm |
|
oldslabsides wrote: My ex-inlaws both worked at the GM plant that used to be in this town. They were both proud union members. They were both paid an outrageous wage for menial tasks. They also received terrific benefits and now live on retirements that afford them a very comfortable old age. I don't begrudge them any of that, but the fact remains that a company cannot pay people upwards of $70 per hour in wages and benefits - plus a retirement fit for a king - to put in a screw or two or connect a wiring harness.
Arguably, GM got screwed because of the under performance of their pension funds.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 1:23pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote:No, I don't exonerate management. As William Coors famously said, "Unions are a result of poor management."
I absolutely believe that is true. 'Management' in the larger sense has no one to blame but themselves for the rise of unions. Conversely, unions have no one to blame but themselves for becoming scapegoats for management ire. It's a dysfunctional relationship, and there is plenty of blame to go around.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 1:13pm |
|
arighter2 wrote: 60k? Now you're just being absurd. Pretty sure most Wal-Mart workers make less than 17k annually, gross.
My ex-inlaws both worked at the GM plant that used to be in this town. They were both proud union members. They were both paid an outrageous wage for menial tasks. They also received terrific benefits and now live on retirements that afford them a very comfortable old age. I don't begrudge them any of that, but the fact remains that a company cannot pay people upwards of $70 per hour in wages and benefits - plus a retirement fit for a king - to put in a screw or two or connect a wiring harness.
|
|
arighter2
Location: dubuque Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 1:08pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: arighter2 wrote:So you assume the drop off in Detroit quality is union inefficiency, exonerating management? The drop in education is alarming, to be sure, but how much of that is teacher inefficiency, and how much a factor of the extant culture? Bear in mind, the best students abroad still flock here for post secondary work.
A stereotype may have an element of truth and remain misleading.
You are right that unionization is a disadvantage in the modern system, but given unsustainable systemic performance, are you sure the flaw is in the unions, and not inherent to the system? Unions would be superfluous if management paid a living wage. Can we really afford subsidizing labor to the tune of 5k EIC per Wal-martish worker?
No, I don't exonerate management. As William Coors famously said, "Unions are a result of poor management." No, we can't afford to subsidize people. We also can't afford to pay store clerks $60K a year. Their work isn't worth that, and demanding higher and higher wages for the same work is a recipe for non-competitiveness. 60k? Now you're just being absurd. Pretty sure most Wal-Mart workers make less than 17k annually, gross.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 12:40pm |
|
arighter2 wrote:So you assume the drop off in Detroit quality is union inefficiency, exonerating management? The drop in education is alarming, to be sure, but how much of that is teacher inefficiency, and how much a factor of the extant culture? Bear in mind, the best students abroad still flock here for post secondary work.
A stereotype may have an element of truth and remain misleading.
You are right that unionization is a disadvantage in the modern system, but given unsustainable systemic performance, are you sure the flaw is in the unions, and not inherent to the system? Unions would be superfluous if management paid a living wage. Can we really afford subsidizing labor to the tune of 5k EIC per Wal-martish worker?
No, I don't exonerate management. As William Coors famously said, "Unions are a result of poor management." No, we can't afford to subsidize people. We also can't afford to pay store clerks $60K a year. Their work isn't worth that, and demanding higher and higher wages for the same work is a recipe for non-competitiveness.
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 12:31pm |
|
arighter2 wrote: So you assume the drop off in Detroit quality is union inefficiency, exonerating management? The drop in education is alarming, to be sure, but how much of that is teacher inefficiency, and how much a factor of the extant culture? Bear in mind, the best students abroad still flock here for post secondary work.
A stereotype may have an element of truth and remain misleading.
It's always the fault of labor - Fox News, Neal Boortz, and Rush Limbaugh told me so.
|
|
arighter2
Location: dubuque Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 12:13pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: arighter2 wrote:I've worked in several union shops and also a lot of non union shops. In my opinion the quality of work in the union shops was superior, but hey, by all means, let's all trash the unions based on stereotypes. Like the legendary quality of the American auto industry. The stellar performance of American schools. Stereotypes exist because they have an element of truth to them. I've worked in both as well; when the work is exactly the same every day and the technology never changes and the skill required is minimal...sure, whatever. In the real world a union shop can't keep up—rigid work rules, inflexible policies and structural hostility to change of any kind leaves them stuck at the last contract while competitors keep moving. We've been talking about teacher's unions, and if you want to defend the status quo keep in mind that that includes defending this. Go ahead. Tell us how great this is for students, for school systems, and how well it motivates a good teacher to stay and a bad teacher to find something else to do. Yes, it's an extreme case—but that's a matter of degree, not of kind. So you assume the drop off in Detroit quality is union inefficiency, exonerating management? The drop in education is alarming, to be sure, but how much of that is teacher inefficiency, and how much a factor of the extant culture? Bear in mind, the best students abroad still flock here for post secondary work. A stereotype may have an element of truth and remain misleading. You are right that unionization is a disadvantage in the modern system, but given unsustainable systemic performance, are you sure the flaw is in the unions, and not inherent to the system? Unions would be superfluous if management paid a living wage. Can we really afford subsidizing labor to the tune of 5k EIC per Wal-martish worker?
|
|
beamends
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:56am |
|
Lazy8 wrote: arighter2 wrote:I've worked in several union shops and also a lot of non union shops. In my opinion the quality of work in the union shops was superior, but hey, by all means, let's all trash the unions based on stereotypes. Like the legendary quality of the American auto industry. The stellar performance of American schools. Stereotypes exist because they have an element of truth to them. I've worked in both as well; when the work is exactly the same every day and the technology never changes and the skill required is minimal...sure, whatever. In the real world a union shop can't keep up—rigid work rules, inflexible policies and structural hostility to change of any kind leaves them stuck at the last contract while competitors keep moving. We've been talking about teacher's unions, and if you want to defend the status quo keep in mind that that includes defending this. Go ahead. Tell us how great this is for students, for school systems, and how well it motivates a good teacher to stay and a bad teacher to find something else to do. Yes, it's an extreme case—but that's a matter of degree, not of kind. Serious question - is there no professional standards body for teachers over there? We have a set up similar to the General Medical Council for doctors, now 'independent', formerly part of the Dept. of Education, and Ofsted for the schools (their inspections identify weak teachers so they can be offered support, or in the worst cases, re-training).
|
|
(former member)
Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:55am |
|
islander wrote:Security may be higher within a union, but it is an artificial construct that inherently weakens the company in the market. If the company fails, so does your security (unless you have political benefactors to prop you up, but generally..). Which is what bothers me so much when striking workers talk smack about their own company. In the medical setting, it was unfortunately common to see striking nurses carry pickets saying " the care here sucks" and then demand higher wages. It made no sense.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:49am |
|
arighter2 wrote:I've worked in several union shops and also a lot of non union shops. In my opinion the quality of work in the union shops was superior, but hey, by all means, let's all trash the unions based on stereotypes. Like the legendary quality of the American auto industry. The stellar performance of American schools. Stereotypes exist because they have an element of truth to them. I've worked in both as well; when the work is exactly the same every day and the technology never changes and the skill required is minimal...sure, whatever. In the real world a union shop can't keep up—rigid work rules, inflexible policies and structural hostility to change of any kind leaves them stuck at the last contract while competitors keep moving. We've been talking about teacher's unions, and if you want to defend the status quo keep in mind that that includes defending this. Go ahead. Tell us how great this is for students, for school systems, and how well it motivates a good teacher to stay and a bad teacher to find something else to do. Yes, it's an extreme case—but that's a matter of degree, not of kind.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:47am |
|
arighter2 wrote: That's true, and I have seen that, but based on my observation such people are a minority, and the slack is more than made up by others. In general, people will work harder if they feel the work is valued. Salary and security play a role in that.
It depends a lot on how you look at things. I don't believe there is an inherent managment vs. labor rift. I think if you are above average, your salary will reflect that. Security may be higher within a union, but it is an artificial construct that inherently weekens the company in the market. If the company fails, so does your security (unless you have political benefactors to prop you up, but generally..). My employees work hard for their own rewards, and by doing so they strengthen the company (in which they have an ownership stake as well as an employment opportunity), and therefor their own security. They take pride in their work because they are professionals, pay and security flow from that, not the other way around.
|
|
arighter2
Location: dubuque Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:47am |
|
black321 wrote:
I guess it depends on the individual...but there's more moral hazard risk associated with unions.
As I said elsewhere, there are offsetting factors. Can the same be said for bank executives? The difference is in the nature of the incentive.
|
|
black321
Location: An earth without maps Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:47am |
|
arighter2 wrote: That's true, and I have seen that, but based on my observation such people are a minority, and the slack is more than made up by others. In general, people will work harder if they feel the work is valued. Salary and security play a role in that.
thats always true. But I think unions and libertarians ignore some basic human qualities that are not beneficial: sloth and greed, respectively.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:44am |
|
islander wrote:To be clear, I have worked in both union and non-union shops and I currently manage both union and non-union workers (indirectly but as a customer). The issue I have is not with the work (best welder I've ever seen is a union pipe fitter on my job right now), but with the way things get done. To me, the incentive/reward system is not well structured in a union environment.
I personally don't care how people choose to set up their employment contracts. In fact, I have stated that it would be easier for me in some respects if my direct crew were union. But it doesn't suit their personalities, nor the way we work here. I can't imagine one of my guys saying "that's not in my job description", and I like it that way.
The whole thing is frustrating, because unions and management typically have an adversarial relationship, which does not serve anyone's interests. In some ways unions provide another layer of management, which is not automatically a bad thing. Hear me out. What if management could go to the union and say "we need two welders: one master welder and one apprentice." The union goes through its rolls and checks to see who is qualified (i.e. up to union standards) and available. Which is exactly what a manager would do, right? Conversely, let's say a company folds, for whatever reason. The union could provide employment resources, like those rolls mentioned earlier. I believe it is possible for unions and management to work TOGETHER, rather than always at each other's throats. In many cases, both management and the union are not set up for that sort of cooperation though: it's all about getting concessions from the other side. But it's like so many other aspects of this big blue ball: there are no sides, there is really only US.
|
|
arighter2
Location: dubuque Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:40am |
|
islander wrote: It's also easier to slack off when it's difficult and complicated to be disciplined and you will get the same pay and bonuses regardless.
That's true, and I have seen that, but based on my observation such people are a minority, and the slack is more than made up by others. In general, people will work harder if they feel the work is valued. Salary and security play a role in that.
|
|
black321
Location: An earth without maps Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:35am |
|
arighter2 wrote: Nonsense. It's easier to take pride in your work when you're backed by some security.
I guess it depends on the individual...but there's more moral hazard risk associated with unions.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:34am |
|
arighter2 wrote: Nonsense. It's easier to take pride in your work when you're backed by some security.
It's also easier to slack off when it's difficult and complicated to be disciplined and you will get the same pay and bonuses regardless.
|
|
|