Metal Reviews

You've cited an NYT article that explicit says:

a) Your $73 figure is bullshit
b) The actual figure is only $10 an hour more than in a non-union firm in the same sector
c) Those benefits only equate to a very small proportion of the final price of US-made cars
d) US cars are typically sold cheaper than Japanese cars anyway
e) People still want to buy Japanese cars over US made ones for a host of reasons other than price

You indulged in unsubstantiated union-bashing, is what happened, and you got called on it.

Nice, also, the "you and trapt are both ideologues", part... thanks for the psychoanalysis, but notice that this entire discussion has been on the practical question of unionised labour, wages and outsourcing. See my post above- it's a really tiresome fallback when the practicalities of your argument are creaking.

By the way, the "ideological" side of your argument is based on misconceptions, anyway. The primary purpose and concern of unions has never been egalitarianism. It has always been protecting or growing the terms and conditions of its members' employment. If you look at the history (and in some cases contemporary reality) you will find that "egalitarianism" as a principle is often booted far down the agenda. In many cases these practical concerns have been completely incompatible with egalitarianism.

You're kind of just attacking your own assumptions, now.

*EDITED out cos I'm kinda being an asshole here*

Actually, the article was not bullshit.
It never said that that was what they brought home in a paycheck, that was the calculated cost of employing a person, on average.
Even if you leave out the pension (which is just as disingenous, since a healthy pension is what the unions demand) it still comes out to around $55 an hour.
Note my ORIGINAL assertion, from a few pages back:




was just about right, in fact, and not "unsubstantiated union-bashing".
You really think you are one to "call me" on anything?

Only $10 more an hour, without the perks, of a non-union worker? That is a 25% difference in take home pay, not to mention the perks.
Only?



I don't have any ideology blinding me. Again, my own words state clearly that the problem lies at both ends, while you, true to your Marxist indoctrination, blame the corporations ENTIRELY.
Now who's an ideologue? Have you EVER espoused any view that is not far far left?

I can only imagine...
why waste your time, and mine?

We'll never ever see eye to eye, and if I had a dollar for every time I saw something you wrote in the politics thread that made me roll my eyes, I could retire, but I know that arguing about it with you would only be a waste of time.
Like I said, your self-righteous know-it-all attitude in regards to a foreign country, one that you've only heard about second hand, is the epitome of patronizing bullshit. Oooh, you've read some books / reports and heard a few lectures... not to mention watch Jon Stewart... a veritable expert on my country, from ALL angles, aintcha?
Why don't you worry about keeping your own backyard clean before making a fuss about others', for a change?

I found this particularly amusing.
Here you state that American cars are an inferior product, and by and large, I agree... and are sold cheaper... yet you still maintain that the ones that build them should get top dollar in compensation.


What was that about "attacking your own assumptions"?

It's a long read, but interesting.

http://www.thelaborers.net/documents/un ... uption.htm

Nope, nothing to see here, folks.

CotB ftw. I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

The current minimum wage is enough to live off of. The problem is that uneducated (relatively) workers that have minimum wage jobs often times aren't just worried about food, water, clothing and shelter. They spend money on cars they can't afford, huge TVs, and other such luxury items. My mother-in-law works for a Head Start program and goes into homes where the parents are on welfare or make minimum wage or just a little more. She says it's incredible what people spend their money on. Their kids can be running around in raggedy old clothes and they just went out and bought another dog, or a big tv, or a new car.

Having disposable income is part of the motivation to improve yourself through education and seeking out better jobs. Unions are good when they are protecting their workers from unsafe working conditions or down right exploitation. For the most part, they've stopped doing that. They are now involved in preserving the organization itself. The only way to do that is to find something to go after. They've made most workplaces much safer, they've limited the workday, they've done this and done that. Now they just want more, more, more. Where does it stop? At what point does one not need more money, benefits, whatever, for doing said job? If you want more, find a way to get a better job.

Thank you.
I knew I wasn't alone.

There are quite a few problems here.

The main one is that you're assuming those advances you, quite rightly, list, just stay at a certain level once they've got there. Globalisation creates a global workforce, which means the undermining of those wages. You're assuming they are pushing higher and higher. In reality, union efforts are overwhelmingly directed towards preventing wages going lower.

The same goes for health and safety. As firms have to compete with factories in India and China, where workplace tragedies such as fires in factories that kill many, many people occur because of poor workplace conditions. There is therefore downward pressure on safety conditions in US and European firms. The US govt. Dept. of Labor estimates that there are almost 100 preventable deaths in workplace accidents per week. Of course unions have made the workplace safer, but I'm sure you will agree there is a long way to go before they are safe enough- and the pressures will be downwards.

In the seafaring sector, I have seen boats the size of the Titanic with gashes in the side below the water level. This boat had a dishcloth stuck in it to fix the leak. I spoke to a seafarers union inspector- a union guy, but certainly an honest one, who told me that this thing is not inexorably improving. There is continuous DOWNWARDS pressure on ship owners which if anything will make this more common. The same applies to other types of workplace- especially in the US, where regs are generally laxer than in Europe.

The second problem is when you say the minimum wage is enough to live on: you may be right, but the minimum wage isn't enforced, and can't be enforced without some level of organisation in the workplace that is there every day, and in contact with the entire workforce. And yes, who has a vested interest in making sure it's observed. These things which seem like they are "good enough" on paper or in theory very often aren't in the real world.

V: please, please, please give it up already!

Nice argument.

Hah, could be waiting a while for that, then, much to my shame.


Well, this is why I think unions are part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Firstly, they are the best way to enforce a minimum wage. Secondly, they create a positive incentive for people of different languages and ethnicities and cultures to formulate common objectives and a sense of cohesive identity.




Hah, yeah... I couldn't get through Clash of Civilisations.

[img]BTW--just wondering for those intimately familiar with Marxism.

What is the current mainstream Marxist position (is there one?) for explaining Islamic fundamentalism? Remnants of colonialism/informal colonialism? I'd be very interested to know[/img]

Trapt probably answered this, but I guess the most common explanation would be to explain it as a reaction to the geopolitical aggression of western powers. Which, of course, are tied to the need for economic expansion inherent in the capitalist model.

Can I just say as well that for every asshole who buys a tv with benefits instead of the basic food etc, there are a good ten or twenty who aren't so ridiculous, and it's them that we have to be thinking of. Sure, benefits should be better targeted, but talking about withdrawing them altogether because of assholes who exploit the system is mentalist.

Absolutely fucking incredible.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/23470391/detail.html

It's come to this, has it?

A good ten or twenty, you say?
That's an unsubstantiated claim, I wonder if rio or trapt will demand proof of that? After all, fair is fair, right?
I guess they probably won't since it fits neatly into their pre-conceived notions of the way things are...
funny thing is, I actually backed up my claims of union corruption and overcompensated workers, but that still wasn't good enough.
So much for having an open mind.


Don't worry Zad, I know what you're saying, and you're probably right, but I don't think Orion was making any assertion (correct me if I'm wrong, Orion) that people should be left to starve.
What he and I are are saying is the compensation union workers recieve far exceeds what they should be getting paid; if it's simply a matter of "getting what I can, to hell with everybody else", then by the same token, how can one blame incompetent CEOs for grabbing as big a slice of the pie as they can? Because, last time I checked, $55 / hour+ benefits+pension and double time on holidays is quite a bit beyond a mere "livable" wage.

And that a little hardship can go a long way towards self motivation. Whatever happened to striving for something better?
And an odd thing: the same people that will squander their meager income on useless flashy things, are the same type that don't grasp the concept of personal responsibility, self-scarifice and acheivment. Coincidence? Those people should be given nothing but the bare minimum. Another odd thing: people that are dissatisfied with squeaking by, are willing to work (or go to school) and do not abuse the system are very often the type that strives to improve their lot in life.

And I supplied an article, replete with sources, that illustrates what any adult that has lived in this country and isn't blind and deaf, or living in some remote cave knows: that the big unions have a long history of corruption. I don't know what the unions in the UK are like, but here it's (union corruption) common knowledge, indeed it has reached pop culture status.
It's hilarious (though understandable) how trapt and rio act like they had no idea! that corruption and unions go together like pizza and beer, to the point of demanding evidence.

They should have dressed up as the INS instead.



.:c:.

Look,

If you're arguing that union members shouldn't expect anything more than just a "livable wage" (or "anything more than the bare minimum") then I guess we've reached an unbridgeable impasse of moral beliefs. Don't call me an extremist though, because on that particular issue I'd be very surprised if more people agreed with you than me. Please correct me if that's not what you're saying, but it's certainly the implication here.

Regardless, like I said to orion, nowadays union efforts in most sectors are overwhelmingly dedicated to preserving, not advancing wages and living standards. It's not a question of "striving for something better"- it is a question of trying to stop things going backwards.

As for corruption- nobody has disputed that the Teamsters used to be connected to the mafia, but to cite high-profile but individual examples as validation for the claim that in contemporary reality unions are systematically corrupt is very unfair. It's the epitome of the kind of "popular wisdom" that I thought you were contemptuous of.

Corruption in unions is inherently self-defeating. Members leave if unions are corrupt. So in a case like the Teamsters, it is inevitable over time that membership attack corruption from the ground up- e.g. the Teamsters for a Democratic Union movement. This is not the case in private businesses, or even in government.

By the way, if anybody labours under the misapprehension that I am uncritical of trade unions, then please read my article! (follow the link in the Seminary thread). If you want a paper copy, it's only £5! (that's about $7.50, V, as I'm sure you'll be first in the queue)

Yo, V, I'd rather we wound this down now as, like you say, we won't agree. We should get back to talking metal and chalk unions up alongside race as something you and I should never talk about.

Just in case you're interested (because you've talked a lot about my ideological beliefs here), the below is a short elaboration of WHY I believe what I do about labour relations.

(if you don't care, please ignore)

...

Gregor is a long way from a neutral, but the statistics he's listing here are from the National Labor Relations Board so presumably reasonably objective. A few years back I worked on an investigation into alleged illegal union busting at a warehouse in the deep south, and spoke to a number of people who'd seen these things first hand.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ionbashers







I met people who'd been fired for stealing without any evidence, without any further investigation, and on the word of one person- suspiciously soon after they'd been conspicuously organising in the workplace. (The accused was a well-respected member of staff who'd been there for many years with no disciplinary problems. They'd been accused of taking approximately $2 worth of produce). Everyone there was forced(!) to go into closed meetings where supervisors would issue veiled ominous predictions about how they would shut down the firm, or they would lose all their healthcare, or even that they would lose food stamps, if the union got in. This was in a plant where mgmt. was quite open and unapologetic about having fired people for such infractions as leaving for lunch 30 seconds (really) before scheduled time. I could go on for a long time here.

A lot of this is obviously the testimony of the workers involved hence why I would never name any of the agencies involved because a lot of the accusations were unproven. But mgmt. were very explicit about their opposition to unionisation, and were open about using tactics that I believe were extremely unfair, given that they were in a position of power over their workforce. This goes back to what I was saying- unions are emphatically NOT in a position of power, especially in the US. They are really fighting for what they can get.

And to bring it back full circle- I'd be very surprised if the things we started with: undocumented migrants undermining conditions in US workplaces, are not greatly exacerbated by that decline and lack of union power.

....

On a related note, the same thing is happening here in the UK, at this very moment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... day-strike

A key BASSA union organiser gets fired in tenuous circumstances

OK fair enough, we're both reasonable men, usually (haha) after all.
Obviously unions have done some good in the past, but there is a downside as well, and some of the reasons that those employers took the actions they did may be tied in with that (see previous discussion). Or it may be for reasons that have nothing at all to do with their union status; the article doesn't supply any sources to back that up; it could have been any number of factors: bad economy, lack of work, maybe those employees were goof-offs, who knows.

The assumption is being made that all non-union labor is done in harsh sweatshop conditions, with the minimium pay.
In my experience, that is not true.
I've been in the workforce since 1984, and I have never worked in a unionized plant, and out of those 25 some odd years, I have only seen one case of lousy work conditions (low wages, exploitation of foriegn workers, unsafe conditions, nepotism, squalor, etc).
Last time I heard (I once in a great while have a phone conversation with someone that still works there) they have lost about 30% of their business over the last year.
The vast majority of my work expience has been fair and pleasant enough, with employers being pretty damn flexible, and recognizant of performance.

The article doesn't supply any reasons for the employers dissmissing (well, some were merely "disciplined") the workers, leaving the reader to any and all kinds of speculation. It states "for union activity", but what does that mean, and how is that proven?
Was that the official reason given, or was that the reason that was surmised by the union employee that was disciplined / fired?
I would imagine if they were dissmissed or disciplined for something like union activity, they would have a lawsuit. If anything in this country, employers are apt to tread very lightly on matters of discipline and dissmiss workers only after a lengthy process of "first verbal warning > second verbal > first written > second written and even a third written" before being let go. Of course there are grounds for automatic termination, but even those have to be pretty egregious.
I know a few small business owners, and believe me, their has to be a good reason, not barring the company not making money, of course.
That 31,000 number is but a drop in the bucket, though of how many non-union people have become unemployed in the past year; as you know, it is in the many millions.
As for safety, OSHA covers that.

Did you read the article I supplied?

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree, as always, haha, because our world views are pretty far apart; I am not claiming that I am right, necessarilly, just the way I see things.
Carry on.

note: please excuse any grammatcal errors; it is 5:00am and I have barely started my first cup of coffee, so...

There would have been riots and the inevitable subsequent lawsuits.