Fixing the economy is way to simple

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Sounds like a number of companies whose employees own a large portion of the shares of stock, like Publix or Food Giant.

Big difference. There is no difference of the degree of ownership.

Public companies are answerable in damages if they don't operate in their shareholder's best interests.

Which is to make a profit. There are no damages for giving short term profits priority over long term growth. Also show me one suit that a shareholder has won over excessive salaries and bonuses for corporate executives.

Sounds like collective bargaining to me. If the rank and file need to take a lower wage increase in the contract, that's fine, as long as the pension contributions continue to flow.

You want to provide some documentation about this allegation, unless it is a bargaining choice by the members to place more toward pension than wages. In some of the unions I represent, the union negotiates a wage package, and the members have the right to vote on how the package is allocated.

**Choke**Cough**

Right. The process is about as democratic as a wresting match...and wresting is less of a contact sport!

The democratic process is protected under federal law. Federal courts or the DOL can void election results when democratic process are not honored. All candidates must be allowed to utilize the membership list to communicate with members. The law governing unions includes a right to free speech by members, and officers are personally answerable in damages for interference with free speech. Show me a private sector business where the employees have a legally protected right to free speech. In a significant difference between how unions and corporations are governed its one member one vote - not more votes based on how much wealth one has accumulated.


Tell that to these guys: http://www.tdu.org/node/2372

The citation you have provided shows that this democratic organization within one of the largest unions in existence has had success in lowering executive compensation. It does show it to be an ongoing battle. Moreover, every three years, the members have the ability to fire any of the officers that they feel have been overpaid. They are required to annually report all of the money received by each officer. That's how the TDU was able to obtain and publish the compensation information.


Unions, of course, have some differences from for profit enterprises, but there are significant similarities - more alike than different especially in this era.

This is where you most wrong. The unions exist for an entirely different purpose than for-profit enterprises. Rather than make a profit at any costs, the unions have a legal obligation to serve the interests of all of the members. When union representation declines, the gap in income between workers and management increases, benefits decline, and employers gain greater control over the lives of the workers. See also: http://www.epi.org/publications/entr...mony_20070326/

and

http://www.rockhurst.edu/news/events.../lindquist.pdf

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Yep, the old blame Reagan bit.

Have to go back 30 years to cover your tracks, and then 70 years for 'new' ideas to fix it

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Sounds like a number of companies whose employees own a large portion of the shares of stock, like Publix or Food Giant.

I've worked for companies like this. It's a bunch of shit.
They toss you a handfull of stock, tell you you're an "owner", and then give you absolutely no say in matters. It's little more than a psychological ploy to make you feel empowered. Usually goes hand in hand with low hourly wages. They know where they can stick it.

Public companies are answerable in damages if they don't operate in their shareholder's best interests.

Which is to pay out the highest returns, even if it means outsourcing and/or cutting employees/benefits.

Sounds like collective bargaining to me. If the rank and file need to take a lower wage increase in the contract, that's fine, as long as the pension contributions continue to flow.

What pension? Someone still has a pension? I thought "Great Americans" work until they die? Oh, that's right, only workers with unions still have a pension at all. Hows the 401k workin' out? Think anyone will actually retire off of that unstable bullshit?


**Choke**Cough**

Right. The process is about as democratic as a wresting match...and wresting is less of a contact sport!

Same problem as all elections. The union holds an election down at the hall. Seven people show up to vote. Then, the other five hundred bitch when they don't get the leaders they wanted. Here in this wonderful "Right-to-Work State", it's even worse. You vote a union in by a clear majority, then those same seven who are the only ones who vote in leadership elections are also the only ones who pay any dues. The other five hundred who eagerly voted the union in now refuse to pay for the unions services, but still expect to be represented. How long would YOU continue to work for any clients that refuse to pay for your services? Not long, would be my guess. But, of course, this is the whole point of the "Right-To-Work" laws, isn't it?

Tell that to these guys: http://www.tdu.org/node/2372

Well, good for them. Once they are in charge, they will become what they now complain about.

Unions, of course, have some differences from for profit enterprises, but there are significant similarities - more alike than different especially in this era.

This is how the game really works. From the so-called "Employee owned" businesses to the so-called "Right-to-Work" laws, the whole thing is nothing more than a bunch of schemes to make and keep our workforce docile, compliant and cheap.

I know you won't agree. But then ----you're wrong.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

This is where you most wrong. The unions exist for an entirely different purpose than for-profit enterprises. Rather than make a profit at any costs, the unions have a legal obligation to serve the interests of all of the members. When union representation declines, the gap in income between workers and management increases, benefits decline, and employers gain greater control over the lives of the workers. See also: http://www.epi.org/publications/entr...mony_20070326/

and

http://www.rockhurst.edu/news/events.../lindquist.pdf

Regards,

D-Ray

D-Ray - with respect, I've sat at the bargaining table. I've seen unions operate up close and personal. I've seen unions trade wage increase demands for pension contribution, when the union has at least stated openly prior to negotiations that the pension account was flush. This has been a theme I've witnessed over and over, and I've been involved with labor negotiations since the mid 1980's. It is one example among many I've witnessed of unions acting more in line with perpetuating the organization than serving the rank and file. Beyond the veneer, unions typically act more like the businesses they negotiate with than not.

I know that the priorities that are communicated to the rank and file are many times not the same as those discussed at the exec committee level. I understand the stated functions and practices of unions. The articles you've posted paint a nice picture of the role of unions both in practice as well as their role in society. However, I suspect that the authors of those pieces have never sat at a bargaining table and would be stunned to see what actually occurs.

We can agree to disagree here.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

D-Ray - with respect, I've sat at the bargaining table. I've seen unions operate up close and personal. I've seen unions trade wage increase demands for pension contribution, when the union has at least stated openly prior to negotiations that the pension account was flush. This has been a theme I've witnessed over and over, and I've been involved with labor negotiations since the mid 1980's. It is one example among many I've witnessed of unions acting more in line with perpetuating the organization than serving the rank and file. Beyond the veneer, unions typically act more like the businesses they negotiate with than not.

I know that the priorities that are communicated to the rank and file are many times not the same as those discussed at the exec committee level. I understand the stated functions and practices of unions. The articles you've posted paint a nice picture of the role of unions both in practice as well as their role in society. However, I suspect that the authors of those pieces have never sat at a bargaining table and would be stunned to see what actually occurs.

We can agree to disagree here.

There are a lot of factors at work there. What was the general age of the members of the bargaining unit? If it was an aging work force, the membership would be very much inclined to value pension credits and contributions over taxable wages. That way the members get more bang for their buck in increasing pension coverage. Many times, the priorities are communicated to the union reps rather than the other way around. I assume that you were sitting at the table in a management role. Do you think the bargaining committee was going to let you in on all of the negotiating strategy?

I'm sure that the authors of those articles would acknowledge a societal interest in unions retaining institutional strength. It is that strength that enables them to advance the interests of workers. Moreover, the statistics bear out the inverse relationship between unionism and wealth disparity. The more unions are weakened, the greater the disparity in wealth grows.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

D-Ray - with respect, I've sat at the bargaining table. I've seen unions operate up close and personal. I've seen unions trade wage increase demands for pension contribution, when the union has at least stated openly prior to negotiations that the pension account was flush. This has been a theme I've witnessed over and over, and I've been involved with labor negotiations since the mid 1980's. It is one example among many I've witnessed of unions acting more in line with perpetuating the organization than serving the rank and file. Beyond the veneer, unions typically act more like the businesses they negotiate with than not.

I know that the priorities that are communicated to the rank and file are many times not the same as those discussed at the exec committee level. I understand the stated functions and practices of unions. The articles you've posted paint a nice picture of the role of unions both in practice as well as their role in society. However, I suspect that the authors of those pieces have never sat at a bargaining table and would be stunned to see what actually occurs.

We can agree to disagree here.

Businesses since the 80's placed the union worker in the position of selling out the younger union workers in order to not cut their wages/benefits while profits increased only to later find ways to get rid of the older union worker

Can we agree here?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Yep, the old blame Reagan bit.

Have to go back 30 years to cover your tracks, and then 70 years for 'new' ideas to fix it

Pete

Pete, you know that economic effects don't occur overnight. Reagan, Bush and Bush were un-tax and spend. The only President in the last 30 years who had a measurable impact on the deficit was Clinton, who raised taxes AND cut spending. Obama inherited an economic system that had seen government's ability to maintain revenue severely weakened, and which had resulted in a huge crash in the economy. The economic reports show that without the interventions that Obama supported and or proposed, the deficit would actually have been much higher, because there would have been even more joblessness.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

And Congress passes the budget of course.

Pete

[Charles]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

And Congress passes the budget of course.

Pete

Pete, are you saying that the Republican congress made Clinton's budget a success?

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

D-Ray - with respect, I've sat at the bargaining table. I've seen unions operate up close and personal. I've seen unions trade wage increase demands for pension contribution, when the union has at least stated openly prior to negotiations that the pension account was flush. This has been a theme I've witnessed over and over, and I've been involved with labor negotiations since the mid 1980's. It is one example among many I've witnessed of unions acting more in line with perpetuating the organization than serving the rank and file. Beyond the veneer, unions typically act more like the businesses they negotiate with than not.

I know that the priorities that are communicated to the rank and file are many times not the same as those discussed at the exec committee level. I understand the stated functions and practices of unions. The articles you've posted paint a nice picture of the role of unions both in practice as well as their role in society. However, I suspect that the authors of those pieces have never sat at a bargaining table and would be stunned to see what actually occurs.

We can agree to disagree here.

I have. But, of course, I was on the "troublemaker" side of the table.

Dave