Locobot

Getting back to the original post I think people unwilling to pay union dues shouldn't receive any of the benefits unions have brought to the workplace: minimum wage, overtime, vacation, weekends, healthcare, medical leave, workplace safety, retirement, etc. These are the kind of things the econ. babblers mean when they are talking about "market inefficiency."

sixate

Just want to make one thing clear. My main job is the union job, and I recently started working part time at a non-union job. The only reason I'm working both is because I want to pay off some dumb fucking bills I created and it will get done faster if I work 2 jobs. Once the bills are gone I will quit the union job. I can go into detail and name many times that my union has fucked me over, but I won't bore you with the bullshit because it doesn't matter. Unions are shit, they're even shittier than the lazy fuckbags that I work with.

The non-union job does provide health care to their full-time employees, which is pretty equal to what I have now. I used to have much better insurance, but my union didn't do a thing when my company went against my contract and changed health care providers even though my contract states in black and white who the health care provider is supposed to be and what the coverage is supposed to be. I don't take the insurance at the part time non-union job because I don't need it. I save them money, and they pay me cash under the table. So we're both happy... BTW, that could never happen at a company that had a union.

Tman144, it's not that easy when you're in a union. When you're in a union you have to rely on your union to fight for you. If your union is full of corrupt pricks that don't care about their members then shit doesn't get done. They cover shit up and lie their asses off. That's just the way it is. What sucks about my situation is the people I work with aren't smart enough to get together and get something done.... It takes more than one. There's power in numbers, but when there's no numbers you have no power.

onetime2

If you mean on a national level, that's impossible. The minimum wage is now law, as is overtime, medical leave, workplace safety, etc. While the union movement impacted these things, they are no longer the driving force of them. Vacations, weekends, healthcare, retirement, etc are company specific practices and the unions have little to no impact on these in the vast majority of the economy.

If you mean on a more micro level as far as union vs non-union workers within a company or industry, I agree completely. I don't believe that non-union workers should benefit from contract concessions won by the union. If you're not paying for their representation you should not benefit from it. Of course, there aren't too many instances where there are both non-union and union workers doing the same jobs within companies. In fact, many unions fight tooth and nail to insure that non-union workers are never allowed into their labor markets since most union workers would lose out if they had to compete openly for these positons.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Tman144

sixate,
If you did finally quit your non-union job and began working full-time at this new job you would have health care and whatnot, right? But what if this new company decided that they weren't making enough money and took away all those benifits. You would want to try and get those benifits back, and the best way to do that would be to form a union. Unions are more of a "war-time" organization so-to speak. You don't recongnize their usefullness now because you haven't really needed them. You may need to get rid of your particular union, but unions in general are a very usefull tool in getting workers rights.

__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

apechild

Cute, Locobot. Real cute.

Minimum wage is almost as bad for American workers as unions, but I'll save that for another discussion.

Regarding weekends, you can thank religion for those. And vacation? Are you really trying to say that unions invented vacation? And medical leave? And retirement? Please.

Workplace benefits exist because prosperity allows us certain luxuries. We've come a long way from subsistence living. No longer do we need to toil in the fields from sunrise til sunset every day of the week because we have the technology and science gained throughout generations of innovation and hard work. You see, that's what happens when people have an incentive to do more than just the bare minimum.

Yet the bare minimum is all that unions seem to want their members to do. Mediocrity is rewarded while attempts to excel are discouraged, even punished. This is precisely what sixate finds so frustrating in his union and its exactly what has caused so many bankruptcies and failures within heavily unionized industries.

As has been established here already, unions strive to create an anti-competitive labor environment. It is designed to benefit the union membership but comes at the cost of those who provide the work opportunities, those outside of the union, as well as those within the union who are denied opportunities in order to protect the very worst.

Most of the participants in this discussion agree that unions incur great economic costs to their industries and the nation, but some will argue that unions create social benefits that far outweigh their economic costs. Their arguments rely upon the premise that certain social advancements would have never occurred without unions and that the laws of this nation are insufficient to protect the rights of workers- a hard premise to substantiate. Harder still is the task of quantifying the costs, in terms of jobs lost, innovation and productivity stifled, etc. For example, without the economic costs of unionized labor and artificial price floors, how much more wealth, prosperity, and tax revenue would we have in order to improve the lives and security of American workers? You see, there are just to many "what ifs."

I will submit that social benefits and general improvement in the standards of living for all Americans will occur faster and to a greater degree in the absence of unions in this country. And I would love to challenge anyone here to try to prove me wrong.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Superbelt

Sunday OR Saturday was the "weekend" for most people before the unionization of labor.

One day off for church, then everyone goes back to their 6 days a week 80+ hours of dangerous, hard work.

A real weekend, Vacations and medical leave and Retirement as well as the 40 hour work week, overtime rules and OSHA are a product of the lobbying of labor unions.

Stupid, propagandish statement. I don't think you know clue one about what a union is or does. You seem to have been fed your talking points. Have you any real world experience with a union?
Or perhaps, were you burnt by one?

[quote]As has been established here already, unions strive to create an anti-competitive labor environment. It is designed to benefit the union membership but comes at the cost of those who provide the work opportunities, those outside of the union, as well as those within the union who are denied opportunities in order to protect the very worst. [quote]
That's bluster as you have established no such thing. There is always competition. The company always has the right to fire their workers and hire new ones. All the workers are doing is massing together to maximize their barganing power. That is well within any mans rights. Why give one side of a company all the power to do what they wish? Why would you wish to deny the true backbone of an industry the right to help guide the company in the direction they want to see it go?

I can't prove you wrong, and you can't prove me wrong as there is no enclosed bubble where any of your economic theories has been or could ever be tested out.

But...
If left the way you want it, businesses do what is economical for their business. To maximize their profits. They will cut benefits and amenities as low as they possibly can while still retaining their employees and not hurting their productivity.

With a union workers demand a portion of the profits they help the company earn, and demand as good of working conditions as possibly from their employer. The give and take between labor and employer yields an arangement where, usually they meet somewhere in the middle ensuring an equitable deal for all.

Superbelt

apechild

Do you honestly believe that without labor unions we wouldn't have trwo-day weekends? Unions came up with the idea of Labor Day, and Grover Cleveland made it happen. The notion of the weekend, however, has its roots in Judeo-Christian beliefs, declaring a "day of rest." As world economies grew more productive, largely through technological advances realized during the industrial revolution, the quality of life improved for just about everyone, and less hours were required to produce more goods. As a result, people were able to reduce the time they spent working. The two-day weekend was born!

So, thank productivity for your weekends. It could well be that in a few years, through further gains in productivity, the concept of a weekend evolves into a three-day time-frame. That is, unless unions continue to actively reduce productivity...

40-hr weeks and o/t are pointless. If anything, they hurt us. Take a look at France and its 30-hour work week - what a mess they've got. Employers packing it up and leaving every day, unemployment soaring, tax receipts way down, and 12,000 dead during a heat wave because nurses weren't allowed to work.

Irrelevant.

Settle down, Superbelt. Seriously, catch your breath, read the forum rules, and think beofre you post. OK? Keep it civil or I WILL be forced to ignore you.

[Regarding my statements about unions creating anti-competitive labor markets]Yes I have. Re-read my posts.

Not without threat of a lawsuit or another strike.

Yeah, they're forming a mob. They try to create monopolies on labor, and use their monopolistic power to exploit businesses. Aptly labeled parasites, extortion is the name of the game for unions.

Extortion is no man's "right."

You don't. A work agreement is a two-sided agreement. Don't like your job? Leave.

Let the workers do their jobs and the managers do theirs. Each is an expert in his respective area. Do you tell your dentist how to fix your toothache? Didn't think so.

Note the "retaining employees" clause in your statement. Again, freedom of choice empowers the individual much more than any mob ever could. Once again, free markets are the great equalizer, and the profit motive creates the incentives.

Now answer this question - what can a union do that an individual or a class-action lawsuit can't? Then tell me whether or not the answer to that question can be deemed a fair practice.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

apechild

Superbelt,
Your graph quantifies the economic damage union mobs inflict upon non-union employees. Thanks for providing that.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Superbelt

Most of europe is just like France. 3 week vacations are guaranteed by the government.
If all this is so horrible, why does the Euro continue to rise and is overtaking the Dollar as the worlds security currency?

Sorry if you don't like my comments, but I believe your comments are just a smear against union labor. "bare minimum" "excel is discouraged, punished" Base lies.

Anything else I would want to reply to is just repeating myself, so I will leave it at that.

My graph quantifies the equitable treatment of employees, not extortion. The companies have it, why should the employees not try to get it.
I would sure feel sorry for the poor schlub working the same job making 7 dollars an hour less on average than a union employee who is getting his fair share.

apechild

Because we have a large trade deficit. And why do we have a large trade deficit? Because our economy is so much better than their socialist/labor/welfare economies that we can afford to buy all the frickin' cheap, stanky camembert and boujolais nouveau we can stand to consume.

Seriously, you should look into taking an economics course.

Believe what you want to believe, pal, but I'll let my economic analysis and reason-based arguments stand on their own merit.

Um, actually it shows unequitable treatment. See how one bar is bigger than the other? Yeah. That means they're not equal. Not equitable. And what do the folks in the one bar do to deserve more than those in the other? Hmm?

You have money, why should I not try to get yours? The ends do not justify the means, Superbelt.

Me too. I feel sorry for him because the union used extortion to take money that should otherwise have gone to him.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

sixate

As a matter of fact, that statement you find so stupid is is exactly what the problem is. I have 8 years experience of being in a union so I can speak from experience. And your statement asking if he was burnt ny a union is another part of the problem. Good hard workers do get burned by unions. Tell me why someone who doesn't do a quarter of the work that I do should get paid the same as me when they're worthless. Then these worthless losers tell me yo slow down because I make them look bad... WTF! I have no part in making anyone look bad. Lazy pieces of shit do that on their own.

wilbjammin

I am full of questions and a lack of answers, where this thread has headed is a bit confounding to me. I'd like to see what some of you think.


I don't know if you have read <u>Who Governs?</u> by Robert Dahl, John Gaventa's <u>Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley</u>, <u>Power: A Radical View</u> by Steven Lukes, "The Two Faces of Power" by Bachrach and Baratz, and other writings providing models of power, influence and control. Looking at these models, particularly Gaventa's, seems to provide some insight into the discussion going on here.

What I am reminded of here in this thread is the difficulty of managing power and how the people directly affected by the power structure tend of have real difficulties grasping the power that they should have access to. I've never been a part of a union, so my only access to unions comes from accounts of others and the news. What is striking is how it sounds like many union workers here feel as though their union provides them no real power, and that people not in unions resent unions for creating monopolies on labor. I am still a little confused about how people are so quick to say "if you don't like your job, then leave it", when the facticity of most people's lives makes that option incredibly difficult. There are less jobs than there are people, this has been institutionalized by our government.

Gaventa notes that in some circumstances when it is reasonable or expected for a group to resist and attempt to create change that the group does not. Reasons for this include lack of education or education being provided with a bias by the empowered class, a history of being defeated repeatedly, symbolic significance of landmarks and other items used daily that support the power structure, and several others. The question that is burning in my mind now is - if unions are so bad and seemingly worthless to so many union workers, <i>why haven't they don't anything to change it?</i> If so many are dissatisfied with unions within and without, why isn't anything being done? Or, is there actually plenty being done, and this discussion is actually signifying some other problems with the American system or culture? In any event it seems there are serious perceived problems, and perceived problems deserve attention... where is the disconnect?

Certainly in a union you have numbers, and if there is power in numbers, what is preventing this power from actualization? And, in the rest of the labor force, there are numbers as well, if there is such strong anti-union sentiments, why hasn't the rest of the labor force done something about it? Is everyone so powerless and angry, that all we can do is complain about the system and no one can do anything about it?

__________________
Innominate.

Tman144

My BS meter just went off the chart there. The industrial revolution didn't improve the quality of life for everyone, only the rich had their quality of life improved. Meanwhile the rest of the population was forced to work long hours in factories for little pay and live in crowded tenaments. You think that unions were formed because all of the workers were living in plush apartments thinking of ways to steal their employers money? No, unions were formed because people wanted to be payed enough so that their kids could eat and go to school.

Increased productivity does mean a better quality of life on behalf of the working class. When companies can produce more per worker, know what they do? They stop hiring workers. They don't pass the savings on down the line, they pocket it and pay the workers enough so that they don't die.

__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

apechild

Maybe you should get your little BS meter recalibrated.

To suggest that the technological and scientific advances that came about during the industrial revolution did not improve the quality of life for the average worker is to ignore the economic realities of the time.

Start with the invention of the steam engine, and the incredible mobility it gave to everyone once mass transit was introduced. Then consider Henry Ford's assembly line, which resulted in the manufacture of cars, ambulances, and fire engines that worked better than anything anyone had ever seen, and were also vastly more affordable.

I could go on and on, but why bother? Countless volumes have already been written on the subject, and it's pretty apparent how technological and scientific progress improves the standards of living for everyone.

Forced, huh? Forced labor is slavery, pal. We didn't have that during the industrial revolution and we don't have it now either. And please try not to confuse the industrial revolution with the great depression, OK?

I'll be blunt. Unions were formed because they created a means by which workers were able to get more than they deserved.

False. Companies in a competitive free market environment do not seek stasis, they seek growth. I showed in a previous post what comes about as a result of increased productivity. Since you ignored it then, I'll present it for you once again:

Productivity and efficiency gains translate into increased profitability, and/or lower prices for consumers
Increased profitability creates greater growth opportunities, while lower prices creates greater consumer buying power
Increased consumer buying power increases demand for products and service
Growth opportunities and increased demand for products and services lead to a greater demand for labor
Greater demand for labor leads to increased hiring and higher wages
Higher wages leads to higher disposable income levels and increased personal spending
Increased personal spending results in more economic growth opportunities
Growth opportunities lead to greater demand for labor
Greater demand for labor lead to increased hiring and higher wages

And so on...

If you want to see the big picture you will need to think well beyond the first factor in this vast economic equation.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

ashap

Unions can be a good thing or a bad thing much like everything else in this world. I think they ususally have good intentions, but sometimes fallprey to the corruption of money - much like big business and government.

I don't think you should have to join a union to get a job, but if the union is there you shouldn't expect the same benefits as the union workers.

sixate

First, I'd like to thank you for your insight.

Now, I'll try to answer your questions.
Yes, there is power in numbers. Now here's why we can't take advantage of that where I work. To start, you need to have enough intelligent individuals who know their rights who can lead the group. We don't have that where I work. About 95% of the time I'm the only one who questions anything that the union does. My reps never give me straight answers. All they say is: That's union business, not yours. Well, I'm part of the union you fucking idiot. I pay my dues. It is my fucking business. Now, lets say I can get my union to do something. My local reps can only do so much. Then the it's up to the international to follow through and finish the job, which never gets done. All they care about is getting my fucking money each month. I could do more and run for a local union spot, which people asked me to do last year, but what it comes down to is I work with idiots who aren't worth me wasting my time. A union is only as strong as it's members. So if 95% of it's members are weak dumb worthless potheads who only care about getting high then your union is only as strong as those morons, and it doesn't matter how strong one guy is. That's why it's called a union. It takes more than one to get shit done. I think it's obvious to say the union isn't strong at all in a situation like that. On a side not, there are about 20 people that i work with who never even finished high school. Two guys can't even read, and I can't even begin to count how many guys I work with don't even have a checkings or savings account. I'm not making that shit up. You couldn't possibly believe how dumb the son of a bitches are.

There are strong anti-union sentiments where I work, but here's what it comes down to. If there wasn't a union all the dudes that get high at work, show up drunk, and miss a ton of work wouldn't have jobs. Where else can you go and sleep half your day and get a pretty good check every week, and have better insurance than many people? The union protects lazy people like this, and there isn't a person out there who can deny that. If someone can deny that fact it's only because they have no clue and have never worked for a union or they're one of the lazy fucks themselves. So when people weigh the option of getting rid of the union they are smart enough to realize they won't have a job if the union was ever voted out, and that's why the union where I work will never get the boot. The fucking losers I work with couldn't find other jobs if their lives depended on it. They probably couldn't hold a job flipping burgers at McDonald's. Here's a good example of how dumb and broke people are that I work with. The company went against our contract and changed insurance. There was about a 2 week period where we had no insurance at all. By rights we coulda, and quite honestly shoulda walked out. I was ready to. Here's the problem. People are broke as fuck! This one dude needed to get a prescription filled. It was gonna cost him $56 because we didn't have insurance at the time. He didn't have the money. This guy has been working a full time job where he makes pretty good money for 16 years! He told a union rep that he only had $21 and some change left over from his last check, and that's all the money he had in his name. I was standing there when he said this... The best part is the fucking loser started to cry! HAHA! I laughed right in his face and said: I bet you'll still find a way to buy your drugs this week, huh? The sad part is more than half the idiots I work with are in the same situation. They can't afford to walk out and fight, and it's their own fault that they're broke as hell. So the company takes advantage of the situation, and quite honestly I don't blame them because I;d probably do the same thing.

Now that we do have insurance. That moron who needed $56 would've only had to pay $5 under our old insurance. Now it'll cost him at least $20, and possibly $40 depending on if that medication is on a formulary list, which there are a lot of drugs on that list. That's a huge increase in what we have to pay, and my union has done nothing. There are other little things, but that's the biggest change. The sad thing is i don't need any prescriptions and I almost never get sick because I take care of myself. I almost never use the insurance and I'm pissed more than the people who do use it.

rogue49

There wouldn't be unions if there weren't assholes in charge.
Unfortunately, unions suck because there are assholes in charge.

It's a catch-22, and the low man is getting screwed either way because of the selfishness at the top.

Only way you going to get away from this,
is to learn something others want, but can't do & few others can.
Once you have this, they have to deal on your terms.

This is why capitalism works, because it's the most efficient economy model that "takes advantage" of the selfish agendas of others.
If you look upon the good will of others, most of the time you'll be disappointed.

wilbjammin

I had a feeling that education was a big part of this (thus my citation of Gaventa). Do you think that they intentionally hire people that have less education than others to keep the power structure intact?

I have my theories about how those in charge in government have attempted to defund education to create a larger class of people who don't participate politically and create a great pool of cheap labor for the corporations. It seems evident to me that some of those examples you gave could have been mitigated with education (i.e. personal finance courses). Do any of you think there is a connection here? Additionally, the drug dependency/abuse scenario seems to depict a situation where many people don't like their lives and wish to escape it. It sounds as though there are just a lot of lost people out there; I would imagine that any education efforts made now to remedy this would be a long time in coming to show any significant changes.

__________________
Innominate.

sixate

A rather intersting opinion on education. Not sure that I agree, but I certainly understand your point.

I'm not exactly sure if companies hire dumb people on purpose. I mean yeah, they can take advantage of dumbasses, but wouldn't it make sense to hire smart motivated individuals who you won't have to baby sit. Plus, if you get highly motivated workers you won't need as many employees. I just think that most of the population is stupid. I'm not sure where the fault lies. Isn't it our own responsibility to get educated? All the tools to learn are out there. We just need to use them..... How do you teach motivation?

filtherton

Apechild, i'm still waiting for your graph chowing the effects on unemployment of ceo and shareholder greed. Also, do you seriously believe that the average employer will make any more concessions than they have to?
And, how can you claim that union members get paid more than they deserve? That is something only an economist or a ceo would say. To think that the minimum wage 6.?? is more than someone deserves for time they will never get back while their bosses stand to make millions for in some instances comparatively little labr or effort is insulting. I'm sorry, but if all you can see is econ, and antiworker econ at that, you seriously need to take a look at the real world. Maybe you could explain to me why econ, as you are using it, isn't bullshit? How do your models apply to the real world, give an example? Even with an example you'd have to be full of shit if you try to claim that they apply accross the board under all circumstances. Your argument is one-dimensional. You can talk econ all you want, but you have to realize that econ in many instances is nothing more than artistic guesswork. Atleast acknowledge the limits of your argument.
You keep telling us to read up on econ, i have-much of it is bullshit, maybe you could try reading up on labor struggles throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Then you'd see how quick employers were to provide a safe working environment and better-than-slave wages.

apechild

Greed, otherwise known as rational self interest, is good. Everyone should act in his own best interest, provided he does so within an ethical and legal framework. Some CEOs have acted unethically, and many of them have been forced to pay fines or serve jail sentences for their crimes. As have some shareholders. So have some of the greedy union mobsters out there. But while corporations are subject to anti-trust legislation in efforts to limit the influence their greed can garner, no such legislation exists to limit the greedy anti-competitive behavior of the unions. What a shame...

No. What's your point? Why should they?

With objective economic analysis and sound reasoning. How would you like to rebut me?

Most economists and ceos are extremely well educated, successful, experienced individuals. Are you trying to somehow discredit what I'm saying by associating my words with those of financiers, business leaders, and experts in labor markets and monetary policy? Well thank you, filtherton. I'm flattered.

To think that someone should be paid more than $6 an hour when the labor they produce is not worth the expense of supervising their pathetic, useless butt is the insult, my friend. No one is entitled to hand outs. You have to earn what you make in this world. Don't like it? Then stand on a street corner and beg.

I am the real world.

Maybe I could, but I think I've been more than generous already in dispensing my free economics lessons. I can't force you to understand it.

I've given several already. I'm not taking your bait because this is becoming quite futile and a waste of my time.

Basic concepts, like supply and demand govern rational human behavior. While some irrational people exist, these basic laws aren't even subject to debate. They are economic realities. Trying to argue with these concepts will do you about as much good as jumping off a cliff and arguing with gravity.

I'm through with you.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

mml

Wow, lots of good stuff on both sides. I actually watched the interview between Dean and Mathews and it was enjoyablebut pointless, since this is a states issue, not one for the federal government.

I live in a right to work state, where I have been both a "worker" and in management. I have also worked with Unions on political and lobbying issues in the past. My ultimate feeling is that Unions have played a vital and essential role in the history of the United States. I think that they have every right to exsist and to pursure their own goals. However, I as a worker, should be able to join or not join a group if I choose. I, as an employer, should be able to hire someone if I think they are qualified, whether or not they belong to a union. Forcing unions on people or banning them begins to step on my personal freedoms. I like the concept of a right-to-work state, and if the Unions are truely needed (as they were in the past) they will survive.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

OFKU0

Years ago I worked in a distillery that was unionized. Like Sixate says,the place was filled with useless fuckbags that did nothing but get drunk all day and sleep.

The frustrating thing for me and others was that we actually had some pride in what we were doing, and wanted to be a viable part of the production.

The owners were not against us. They, like the rest of us who showed up and worked, wanted the union disbanded,not to fuck over those of us who wanted to work,but to lose the deadweight and push production to its maximum.

The owners were prepared to offer the same benefits and pay.There was a waiting list of hundreds of people dying to get a job there. The company was also offering incentives for meeting production quotas.This wasn't to be slave driven and dictated by the owners but rather by the employees .Ever here of sport stars getting incentives to surpass a quota? Same thing.

Unfortunately the union said it would strike.The owners said go ahead,we'll close down shop and go back to Puerto Rico. They didn't because they felt indebted to Canada for taking them in when Castro kicked them out of Cuba and stole all they had.In the end all the grade 6 educated fuckbags got their way and continued to earn $50,000 a year for their lack of effort.

I left shortly after since the environment and the union was turning a negative person into me.That was almost 15 years ago.I work in a couple of different areas now,mainly in a consulting role when my main gig is taking a break.In my experiences,the most creative,positive people who want to make a difference and contol there destiny never get anywhere near a union.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

wilbjammin

Have you heard of the term "over-qualified"? I think companies tend to want the people that are going to stick around and allow themselves to get walked on rather than people that are motivated and want to work up the ladder. Yeah, they are going to want some people that are very motivated, but for the boring grunt work that anyone can do there is no reason to. Either they'll stay or they'll leave and they are easily replaced. Though, I guess it really depends on the industry and the company on an individual basis, it is hard to make generalizations that work for everything on this matter.

Is it our personal responsibility to get educated? Yes, but does that also mean that the people who aren't educated aren't educated just because they're lazy or unmotivated? For people like me, school was a positive experience. I was able to go nearly everyday, my classes weren't too hard (yet typically were challenging for me), and I was able to do my homework easily (having a computer and support at home). When someone has to work a second job, or help the parents on the farm (which I saw a lot with the poor and Hispanic familes back home), or if the parents don't emphasize the importance of education and make it difficult for the student to actually get to school at all, or when someone has some processing difficulty that makes it embarrassing to be in a class with other kids and the school doesn't realize the kid needs an IEP or a 504, or when going to school is a violent experience, etc etc etc the incentive to learn and to get educated is gone. Unfortunately, even kids have lives that can prevent them from succeeding later on in life. This is generally connected directly with the drug abuse that you're bound to see with someone stuck in a life that they don't want to be in.

How do you teach motivation? After a certain point it probably is a lost cause with some people. There is a strong cultural phenomenon that is promoted by the media (I know how we love to harken on the media, but I've seen this so many times that I have to mention it) that encourages people to defer responsibility from themselves to practically anything else. This is quite a barrier to motivating people when the cultural standard is to not take responsibility for one's own life. The schizopheric nature of our society is clear here, because we also laud those Puritan ideals of a work ethic. "Anyone can do anything if they work hard enough, and if didn't work out it isn't your fault." is generally the message that I see. Also, when people don't succeed right away, even going back to grade school and middle school they tend to be put on a track when it is reinforced for them to fail. Eventually, many of these people expect to fail at what they do, their motivation is shot because every time that they have been motivated before they got crapped on. I would guess, that in most cases, bad family experiences contribute to all of this the most.

__________________
Innominate.

filtherton

There is a difference between greed and self interest. Greed is the taking more than you need, it is not a good thing and is not in the best interest of humanity.


Well, i guess my point is that if it is all right for the employer to bend the worker over the barrel, why is it wrong for the worker to attempt to exert power over the employer through organization? Both the employer and the workercan fuck eachother and themselves over- what's wrong with a level playing field.


Well, according to your endorsement of "rational self interest" and greed it is only rational and therefore good for the unions to try and get as much as they can for as little as they can, right? That only makes good economic sense?

Besides, with sound reasoning and objective economic analysis you could make a case for a great many things, including slavery and indentured servitude. You need to consider other factors- like is this ethical, is this something i wouldn't mind being on the other side of?


Actually, i was alluding to the over emphasis most economists and the average ceo place on the bottom line. Maximizing profit is apparently more important than providing a better quality of life, including the quality of life of the least fortunate among us.

Are you paris hilton? How much is an hour of your life worth? How much is it worth when that hour is spent lining the pockets of someone who shows their appreciation by paying you as little as they can possibly get away with according to the law? That's bullshit. As for handouts, corporate welfare cost me more money as a taxpayer than social welfare last year. Indeed, where would our economy be if not for the handouts provided to such "needy" corporations as nike and microsoft.

Further, not all economists would argue that a minimum wage is a bad thing. Some predict that it may force employers to update the skills and productivity of their employees.


You're not the real world, you're a model of the real world based on many innacurate assumptions about the way things work. You're based on the idea of a free marketplace that doesn't actually exist attempting to justify and explain things with little regard to the idea that the economy exists to serve all of humanity, rather than to fuel its own fires ad infinitum.

Or maybe you couldn't, since you apparently can't even acknowledge that there may be flaws in your assumptions. I certainly hope your econ lessons are free, since anyone paying for them would be under the assumption that there aren't any limitations to the accuracy of your statements. You assume the we live in a competitive free market(what does that even mean? do you mean perfect competition?)- where exactly does corporate welfare, trade tariffs, and the like come into the competitive free market? If you were offering a good econ lesson, you'd offer all the sides of the story

I have seen no real-world examples, just one-sided economic theories and models.

I'm not arguing against the laws of supply and demand, just that they are not as simple as you portray them. You're the one trying to argue that the only function of unions is to increase unemployment.
Heres one more:
Unions and the minimum wage increase wages and benefits for workers.
Workers have more disposable income.
Workers spend their disposable income.
More money goes into the economy, creating more growth opportunities for businesses in general.

sixate

Guys that I work with make a whole helluva lot more than $6 an hour, plus insurance. Do they deserve to come into work high as a kite, drunk, and then sleep half of their day away. Essentially they do fucking nothing for what what they get paid. I can assure you the only way that will happen is if there's a worthless union run by a bunch of lazy potheads who protect these morons.

wilbjammin, i like the way you think. It's a little different than my opinion, yet you raise some interesting questions and have different ideas on where some problems occur. I wish I had some answers for you, but I don't. Education and motivation are hard to teach. We all have different backgrounds, and that's a huge factor in our levels of education and motivation, and sadly, many people never break away from the lifestyle they grow up with.

wilbjammin

Thanks, unfortunately, I don't have the answers to what I bring up and I'm not even sure if I've I'm getting the whole picture. I tend to think that a lot of things are connected in more ways than we realize. It is very theoretical to say "these are the problems and this what would fix it". I do think that improved education would help, but otherwise there are many other factors that I have no idea how to address and haven't identified yet. It is a place to start a discussion though. I like looking at issues from as many different perspectives as possible. Whether or not some lines of inquiry prove to be fruitless or not doesn't really matter; I find the process helpful and it makes me feel a little less powerless.

Many people never do break away from the lifestyle that they grow up with, so definitely when you find many people making the same choices that you consider to be poor it will take many years and effort for a positive change if one is ever coming.

__________________
Innominate.

smooth

Many of the graduate students who work in any University of California are unionized. All of us pay "fair use dues" for the benefits gained from collective bargaining. Those of us who choose to be active, voting members can pay a few dollars more per month.

I don't know if this makes all graduate workers unionized but the universities certainly count us as such, regardless of whether we've paid the active dues.