Unions

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Noivad]

Unions do more harm then good. The purpose of unions was orginally for people who learned a trade and demonstrated through aprenticeship quality work. but that happens no more. Its who you know, how well you know them, and how much you suck up to the system.

hows that for a start.

[Vash02]

Mostly good, partially bad. Most politicians dont know how to handle them so they cave in at their demands.

[Figment]

Unions do more harm then good. The purpose of unions was orginally for people who learned a trade and demonstrated through aprenticeship quality work. but that happens no more. Its who you know, how well you know them, and how much you suck up to the system.

hows that for a start.

What you describe is a guild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild), which tended to monopolise the trade of particular craftsman in a city as a form of job guarantee by controlling the competition.

Trade, worker or labour unions were founded to protect the worker's from exploitation.


They're good, also for a company, as long as they don't overshoot their goals. By ensuring good working conditions, they help preserve the health (physical and mental) of the workforce and ensure that the workforce can participate in the economy as consumers. By making sure workforce earn a decent amount of money, they keep money circulating in society, meaning more people can make a decent living (also off the workforce by providing goods and services to them as they're capable of paying for said services).


What I don't like about unions, particularly those in southern European countries, starting in Wallonia but especially in nations like France, Greece, Italy and Spain, is that they often use strike (aka blackmail) too early and on very trivial topics, rather than in extreme conditions or as a last resort. In doing so, they really hurt the companies and shoot themselves in their own feet. Often when a company is in trouble and therefore cuts are made on the workerforce or on the salaries, or even if they're frozen, unions will strike to demand no employment losses and a salary raise on top instead.

There are unions that are so full of themselves that they even go against the wishes of a local workforce they claim to protect, because they want to show other workers that the union does stuff for them. Similarly, a lot of unions only want salaries to go up without considering the bigger economical picture. Worse, strikes are often at the cost of the public and general economy. Holding the general public and economy hostage for your own gain is not just counter-productive (also in creating empathy among the populace for your cause).

That's just bad economics. If they were really social when budget cuts for a company have to be made and people may lose their jobs, they could also offer to work for slightly less if it retains jobs for others and get a bigger return in the future when profits are up as compensation.

Of course, when you make budgetary cuts, one should do so on management as well. For it's only logical that you look at your own incomes as well in dire times. Unfortunately, contracts are often badly written regarding management and they get a lot better deals then they should in situations like these. I fully understand people that accept budget cuts are needed, but are then pissed off if managers get a bonus in the millions after 'letting a lot of workers go'. Such a bonus could have been used to employ a lot of workers and that ultimately would have been better for the economy in general.

Personally find it betrayal if management sells of a company to an investor that's going to cut and sell the company for short term profits as well, where the one putting their signature on the deal personally get millions out of it. Unions are one of the few instruments to prevent that sort of damage to the long-term economy for personal short-term gain. Too many productive and profitable companies and corporations have gone belly up that way, often followed by the local economy.


Similarly, I also support unions that oppose the moving of work to another region if their current location is profitable. The economic impact and chain reaction of a factory closing or being sold off for the region is more than enough reason for this. As a company, just looking at profit margins on production and transportation costs is a bit too little reason IMO if you are still competitive and making a decent profit. If you have a holding somewhere (especially if it's been there for some time), you have a bit of responsibility towards that local economy and its suppliers that are dependent on you too. Those people for instance worked years for your company and that's not anything to be thankless for by just moving production to China, or whereever else. It may be very difficult for them to find new jobs.

To me that's more to do with mutual respect, loyalty and working ethics than socialism. But yeah, unions are sometimes a necessary evil that is too greedy, sometimes a very good thing. Just depends on who runs it and how they operate, IMO.

[Red Beard]

Whether it be the employer or the union; both are good, but if either is corrupt, it gets pretty ugly pretty fast.

[Figment]

Btw, speaking of good unions, it was unions that broke the communist political system in Eastern Europe.

[Vecha]

I don't think it is white and black....there is some good, some bad to unions.

Getting rid of them could potentially do more harm then good...

When it comes to education especially...getting rid of the teacher union isn't going to magically fix our Education system...there is ALOT more mismanagement going on than just a few bad apples(which they should be able to get rid of)...

Example of some stupid decisions going on in my county(I am an English teacher)...they recently spent a metric shit ton of $$$$ on a class set of Ipads...THEN spent more money on a laptop for every kid.

This is all being done while a multitude of units are being cut( a unit is a teaching spot....ability to hire another(or several) teachers.

One of several reasons(such as classroom sizes) why I decided to leave public education...tutoring now, and love it.

So...yeah...that's my rant...:mad:

[CutterJohn]

Unions are cool if not taken too far. An individual has virtually chance against a company. The only possible action they can take is to quit. Unions help balance the power of the company vs the workers.

Downside of unions is that bad ones can lose sight of the fact that the company must actually maintain profitability.

I'm also rather torn on unions for government jobs. If a union is managed badly enough, and the workers greedy enough, it can destroy the company, and their jobs. There is a certain degree of feedback there that government lacks, since they can't go out of business.




For my money, I believe employee owned companies are the ideal situation. You no longer have the adversarial management vs union setup. Everyone is on the same page. The workers are all about making sure the company is well run, since they are all owners. And the owners are all about making sure the workers are happy, since all the owners are workers.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I think unions are a very good idea; it's one of the few ways large numbers of laborers can protect themselves from wealthy employers who have no real motivation to treat their workers humanely. We've seen what the working world looked like without them. They were invented out of necessity.

[Hamma]

Unions are almost always bad news. Public unions for example of Firefighters, Police Officers etc who try and scrape every last dollar for themselves (our tax dollars) infuriate me.

[Warborn]

Unions are good, but sometimes they can be their own worst enemy. While their purpose is to safeguard the rights of workers and ensure they get a fair shake, and that's a commendable purpose indeed, if they're too successful it can be damaging to the business or even the entire industry they're in.

However, without unions you're back to work schedules where weekends don't exist, where workers can be fired for any reason the employer decides, where they work themselves to death to barely make a living wage, and where people die routinely due to unsafe working conditions. The alternative to unions is pretty grim. Unions exist for a good reason, and that's because in the free market, capitalism is predatory as fuck and will grind people up and spit them out for the sake of saving a buck. You can't trust companies to do right by the people who work for them, so unfortunately unions become a necessity if people want to work in someplace that doesn't resemble a coal mine during the industrial revolution.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Unions are almost always bad news. Public unions for example of Firefighters, Police Officers etc who try and scrape every last dollar for themselves (our tax dollars) infuriate me.

Speaking as someone who is the son of a former police officer, I can tell you that they would be underpaid at twice their salary. I'd much rather my tax dollars go to men and women whose job it is to take bullets for me, or drag me out of burning buildings, than to the salaries of congresspeople who don't represent me.

[Quovatis]

It infuriates me that many people go into a line of work, knowing that the pay will not be that great, then bitch and moan that they aren't getting paid enough once they're there. Teachers are the best example of this, as are many public workers. If you're not comfortable with the pay, find something else to do. Blame nobody but yourself. Don't get me wrong, teachers and police officers are very noble professions, but you need to understand what you're getting into before pursuing that career. Don't bitch after the fact.

I chose to be an astronomer. The pay is pretty low for the 10 years of higher education I invested, but I knew that going in. I love what I do, and I'm not going to bitch about the pay.

A job is not a right, it's a privilege.

[Warborn]

It infuriates me that many people go into a line of work, knowing that the pay will not be that great, then bitch and moan that they aren't getting paid enough once they're there.

So how do you expect teachers or whoever to get raises? Should... maybe cops advocate for teacher raises, while teachers advocate for cop raises? Or should just nobody become either of those professions because society has decided they need to make barely livable wages and never any more?

My sister-in-law is a teacher here in Canada and she makes ~$80k/year with her A-levels. Teaching in Canada is a competitive profession because it offers good wages and the summer months off. Maybe not coincidentally, our education performance is better than American kids (although our universities obviously aren't as good as American ones).

[Hamma]

The solution isn't unions that's for sure. Sadly the solution is a total change of mindset which isn't going to happen.

Being a Police Officer, a Teacher, or a Firerfighter are all very noble professions that are important to society. But to go in and use a union to try and get rich at doing it when there is no money to go around is just totally silly.

I worked in education as a computer tech for the first 10 years or so of my career and I made pennies. But I didn't complain because sadly that's what I was stuck with. I pulled my eject button and moved into private industry.

[Quovatis]

Jobs differ from the public and private sector.

In the private sector, companies hire you because they feel that you will ultimately make more money for the company than they have to pay you. If you are very good at what you do, they will pay more for your services to keep you around, etc. If you think you deserve a raise, you ask for it. If the company disagrees with your assessment, you can either accept that fact or look for another company that is willing to do better. If you suck at what you do, you will be fired.

In the public sector, it's very different. The government hires you not to make money, but to do the assigned job in the most efficient manner at the least cost. If you are very efficient and can do the work of 2 people for less, you will likely be promoted. If you suck at what you do, you will probably still have the job because of all the PC and bureaucracy in the government. It's so hard for the government to get rid of poor workers that it costs the taxpayers more money to hire others, plus the lack of services. It think that's the bigger problem, especially in education. It's not competitive, because sucky teachers can't be fired, not that good ones aren't paid enough. And I think the poor education system in the USA has more to do with other things besides the quality of the teachers.

And Hamma is right. It's a mindset problem. People think they are entitled to a particular job as if it is their right to have it. That is not the case.

I've been to Europe many times. Yes, they get paid a lot and get a ton of vacation time. They also go on strike very often. My first visit to Amsterdam was rather unpleasant because the garbage collectors union went on strike and there were piles of garbage 10 ft high on every street corner. Stuff like that happens all the time it seems. WTG unions. Without unions, you could simply hire others that are willing to work for the advertised pay level with no disruption in services. Nobody is forcing anyone to work at a particular job. We have choices.

[ItsTheSheppy]

The idea of the "rich" teacher or the "rich" police office is a fantasy I find surprising otherwise rational people maintain in their heads as fact. I have never known a cop or a teacher or a firefighter who made a reasonable living wage. I grew up the son of a cop and a nurse. We did not live a particularly glitzy lifestyle. Around where I live, the starting pay for a full-fledged teacher is about 30-35k a year. I make more than that, but I live in a one-bedroom apartment, with no dependents, and I just barely get by. And I don't even have a cable bill!

It's also important to remember that a lot of these folks aren't exactly spoiled for choice in the job market. Not everyone can be a millionaire; someone has to clean the toilets, or mine the coal, or drive the taxi. Somebody has to do it, and it always seems like the people most angry about those people demanding better pay are folks who enjoy the services provided by them, but who prefer not to do the jobs themselves. I'll tell you one thing: I like driving on roads, but I certainly don't want to pave them.

Why do we live in this culture where there's the feeling that they deserve to be paid meager wages? That they somehow haven't earned more money than, say, me, or you, or the next guy? Who set those rules? In my opinion, you deserve to make the money you can make, however you make it; if they unionize, and force better wages, good for them. Why is that a bad thing?

[Figment]

Typically Quovatis, if you don't pay well, you don't get good people for the job though since they'll go where the pay is better.

[Quovatis]

Pay is dictated by how many people can do the job. Are you seriously saying that someone who cleans toilets should make the same money as, say, a rocket scientist? 99% of the population can clean toilets, so of course the pay will be low. 35k a year with a the summers off is a pretty good deal, actually. I lived off of 25k a year, working year-round, and could afford my own house. I managed my money and didn't bitch about it. Again, nobody is forcing you to be a teacher or a cop.

[Quovatis]

Typically Quovatis, if you don't pay well, you don't get good people for the job though since they'll go where the pay is better.

That's right. There is an equilibrium there. It's called the free market. If the company can't attract adequate workers for the pay, they will pay more.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Just so we're understanding each other here Quovatis, are you suggesting that poor people who work shit jobs deserve poverty, and that it's morally or ethically improper for them to be making money that's above their station?

If so, I'd be curious as to where you draw that feeling from, on whose authority it is to enforce that station, and what harm it does to say, you, if a teacher makes 80k a year versus 40k?

[Figment]

Pay is dictated by how many people can do the job. Are you seriously saying that someone who cleans toilets should make the same money as, say, a rocket scientist? 99% of the population can clean toilets, so of course the pay will be low. 35k a year with a the summers off is a pretty good deal, actually. I lived off of 25k a year, working year-round, and could afford my own house. I managed my money and didn't bitch about it. Again, nobody is forcing you to be a teacher or a cop.

The same? I don't think anyone said that.

Enough to make a living? Yes, because it's a job that many can, but many don't want to do, plus the whole point of working is that you provide for yourself. Even if it's not an ambitious job.


When we look at the responsibility of teachers and the future of our next generations, then they got a very important job. More important than devising a new lens for an interstellar telescope? Perhaps yes, as they touch a lot more lives directly than a telescope ever will.

But I'd not want incompetents or zealots in charge of my kids teaching for instance. It should be possible to fire them, like anyone else.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

Didn't they also create that communist political system in the first place when they created the Soviet Union?

Well, they didnt put in enough safeguards to stop a crazed mustachioed man from gaining power.

[Quovatis]

Just so we're understanding each other here Quovatis, are you suggesting that poor people who work shit jobs deserve poverty, and that it's morally or ethically improper for them to be making money that's above their station?

If so, I'd be curious as to where you draw that feeling from, on whose authority it is to enforce that station, and what harm it does to say, you, if a teacher makes 80k a year versus 40k?

No, they don't deserve poverty. But unskilled jobs generally pay low wages because pretty much anyone can do it. That's just how things are. The exact pay is determined by the current economy, not by policy. Artificially paying a worker more than they are really worth (i.e. what high minimum wage laws do for the so-called "shit jobs") doesn't help things. By paying them more than they are worth, the company can hire fewer people, leading to even more unemployment among unskilled workers.

What harm does it do to me if a teacher makes 80k vs 40k? Well, since I, as a taxpayer, indirectly pay for this teacher, it does hurt me. By your logic, why stop at 80k...lets make every government worker a millionaire! The pay for a teacher should be whatever the market dictates. That is, get the best teacher possible for the lowest salary. If that number is 40k or 80k, I don't really care, but the reality seems to be on the lower end. But again, paying a teacher more doesn't necessarily mean you get a better education system. It's more complicated than that.

[Sirisian]

As mentioned this isn't a black and white issue as usual. The only union I know of in my life is the teaching assistants' union at my campus which meets once in a while to discuss pay and set contracts. I know one of the main leaders (just another TA student) who draws up the contracts and gets feedback for changes when discussing with the university. I would probably label them as a good union. They create honest systems in the contracts. For instance stuff like if they promise a person a TA they can't pull it before classes start which used to allowed and caused problems for students studying abroad here.

I'm neutral when it comes to unions. I'm not a member of the teaching assistants' union. I have wondered what it would be like without them. I imagine it would force people to draw up their own contracts with a lawyer, which I'd probably say few if anyone has the time to do. That or you sign the one the employer gives to you after reading it. The problem with the latter is if you find out something wasn't covered in it then you're out of luck. I guess that's where learning from experience comes into play.

I actually won't have to deal with unions as there aren't any for programmers as far as I know. For the jobs I've had I just negotiated the contract myself. (Which for CS fields isn't normally as complicated as it sounds. Remove stuff about them owning your personal code among other things).

I agree with the sentiment about public sector unions. There's a level of sanity that needs to employed there so it can't be exploited. What that level is, I have no idea.

[Warborn]

The solution isn't unions that's for sure. Sadly the solution is a total change of mindset which isn't going to happen.

Being a Police Officer, a Teacher, or a Firerfighter are all very noble professions that are important to society. But to go in and use a union to try and get rich at doing it when there is no money to go around is just totally silly.

I worked in education as a computer tech for the first 10 years or so of my career and I made pennies. But I didn't complain because sadly that's what I was stuck with. I pulled my eject button and moved into private industry.

You've been sold a lie here I'm afraid. Paying your teachers a decent wage isn't going to bankrupt the country. Somehow Canada (or at least Ontario, Alberta -- aka. Little Texas -- might be different) manages to sustain teachers which receive something like 2x the amount that US teachers make. And it isn't about "getting rich", it's about making the profession attractive to intelligent and capable people.

But, hey, I dunno, maybe it isn't important to try and draw the best people into professions like teacher or police officer. Maybe the people who struggled through crappy colleges and barely scraped by and can't get a job doing anything else are really the ones you want teaching your kids and keeping you safe.

[ItsTheSheppy]

No, they don't deserve poverty. But unskilled jobs generally pay low wages because pretty much anyone can do it. That's just how things are. The exact pay is determined by the current economy, not by policy. Artificially paying a worker more than they are really worth (i.e. what high minimum wage laws do for the so-called "shit jobs") doesn't help things. By paying them more than they are worth, the company can hire fewer people, leading to even more unemployment among unskilled workers.

What harm does it do to me if a teacher makes 80k vs 40k? Well, since I, as a taxpayer, indirectly pay for this teacher, it does hurt me. By your logic, why stop at 80k...lets make every government worker a millionaire! The pay for a teacher should be whatever the market dictates. That is, get the best teacher possible for the lowest salary. If that number is 40k or 80k, I don't really care, but the reality seems to be on the lower end. But again, paying a teacher more doesn't necessarily mean you get a better education system. It's more complicated than that.

There's a couple places in your post here where you trip up.

First is labeling something as "unskilled". I'm going to go ahead and guess that you have never worked as a public school teacher, or as a police officer, or as a construction worker or coal miner and so forth. I imagine they would bristle to learn that their jobs, which tend to be very labor-intensive and feature long hours and constant training, are "unskilled". Calling them unskilled is just an incorrectly-assigned euphemism that masks a sentiment; here meant to stand for "Jobs I don't consider as important as mine".

Also, saying that the company paying them "more than they are worth" (again, a distinction you appear to be making without any authority to draw upon) is a fallacy. The company will pay them whatever the company determines is meaningful and necessary. That's why the wages are referred to as "negotiated". The union declares what they want, the company declared what they want, and they work out a deal. Nobody is being held hostage.

I'll thank you to avoid straw men; nobody is saying that teachers should make a million dollars. What we are saying is teachers should be allowed to unify and defend their right to be payed competitive and meaningful wages and to have nice things like health benefits and retirement plans; things most working Americans demand from their places of work. I will tell you straight-up that 35k a year is not a dignified wage to be payed for the amount of skill and effort it takes to be a teacher. If you disagree, I'm sorry, but you're wrong, flat-out. You clearly either don't know what teachers do, or have a very wrongheaded idea of how much effort that job requires, and the value the job brings to the community.

Paying teachers more would make the positions more attractive and increase competition for them. If the teachers who are already there can negotiate higher wages, good for them. If you're concerned about where your taxes are going, look at the budget breakdown of our country and see where your cents on the dollar are going. I'll save you some time: they're mostly going to guns and bullets. Education hardly factors. It should. But it doesn't.

[Quovatis]

First off, my "unskilled" comment relates to the discussion about cleaning toilets and flipping burgers. I never said teachers are unskilled, nor do I know of any teacher that gets paid minimum wage.

Getting paid "more than they are worth" refers to being forced to pay them more than the market dictates by law, not something I pull out of the air (i.e. minimum wage laws). This again refers to unskilled jobs, not teaching.

I was a teacher, getting 25k a year, and I didn't bitch. Where in the constitution does it say any worker has a RIGHT to a "meaningful" salary (and how do you define meaningful and who decides that)? Using the word "right" is not to be taken lightly.

[ItsTheSheppy]

First off, my "unskilled" comment relates to the discussion about cleaning toilets and flipping burgers. I never said teachers are unskilled, nor do I know of any teacher that gets paid minimum wage.

Getting paid "more than they are worth" refers to being forced to pay them more than the market dictates by law, not something I pull out of the air (i.e. minimum wage laws). This again refers to unskilled jobs, not teaching.

I was a teacher, getting 25k a year, and I didn't bitch.

I can't think of any reason someone cleaning toilets and flipping burgers 'deserves' to pay the least amount our government will legally allow someone to be paid. That there even has to be a minimum wage is rather insulting, isn't it? "I'd pay you less, but I'd be arrested". How nice.

I'm still hazy on what "more than they're worth" means. Is there a cap to how much a data analyst can be paid? If so, can you enlighten me? I'd be interested to know if there is an illegally high amount of money I could be paid. Gives me some idea as to my limitations.

As for your own personal experience: good for you. You were making wages near poverty level and happy. That's fine. But you don't get to tell other people that it's good for them because it's good for you.

[Warborn]

As for your own personal experience: good for you. You were making wages near poverty level and happy. That's fine. But you don't get to tell other people that it's good for them because it's good for you.

Maybe if more people like him didn't think for some reason it's admirable to get paid dog shit and be happy about it, people doing that job wouldn't be getting paid dogshit.

It's so funny how some people talk in the US. I saw a clip from Bill Maher's show, where someone from his show talked to people in Mississippi -- an apparently very poor but also very conservative state -- and there were guys missing teeth and living in a heap of garbage talking about how they don't want health care to be affordable and how good it was back in the day when nobody had anything and they were proud of it.

The quote at the end there really summed up this line of thinking: "We would rather go broke and die hungry than give up our moral beliefs. I'm going to stand up for what I believe in even if I go broke doing it."

How noble. Except that what he believes in is apparently the right for him to die hungry and go broke. Getting paid a living wage for your work and being able to rest easy knowing you won't go broke if you get hurt or sick isn't some kind of insidious Commu-Nazi Socialist Muslim ideology that requires you to say you love Allah and hate freedom. Only in America is what amounts to the basic expectations of citizens seen as a dastardly plot to destroy their moral belief in dying young and in pain because they're poor and can't afford health care.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again here: the Republican party, and conservative movement in general, has to be commended for accomplishing what people in power have been trying to figure out for all of human history: how the rich can get the poor to support them.

And as it turns out, it's rather simple. First, play to their fears. Tell them that their fears, no matter how irrational or couched in ignorance, are real, and that they will fight tirelessly to protect them from those fears. "All we have to fear is fear itself"... ah, how far we've come.

Second, invent new ones. Make sure those fears are of the people who would help the poor and marginalized. Your opponents, essentially.

Third, support the economic policies of the rich to garner support and political power. Repeat as necessary.

The conservatives have always had the money, and liberals, the poor. Only at some point, through some incredibly crafty and, frankly, genius theater, the right managed to grab the poor too. Not by making them less poor. By keeping them poor, and scared of the bogeyman, and telling them only they have the anti-bogeyman ointment.

you have to applaud it, as you die a little inside.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

Republicans have only 12% less of the <$100,000 income (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/income-and-voting/) than Democrats. Democrats don't have the poor vote in any major sense. If they did, they'd never lose an election, as quite a large portion of the population is poor. But as the poor, toothless Mississippians who live in filth said, they'll keep voting Republican even though it doesn't do anything to benefit them because by God they have morals and they stand for something and maybe one day, who knows, maybe voting Republican will do something for them. And who'll be laughing then?

There'll always be poor, stupid people who'll vote Republican no matter what because they've been sold some bullshit about how Democrats are girls and even if your political part doesn't give a fuck about doing anything for you, you're a *** if you complain. So if you acknowledge that there are problems with America and vote Democrat because you don't think "more money for rich people" sounds like a good party line, that means you're a lesbian.

Quoting or referencing Bill Mahar earns you an automatic douchebag stamp.

Ad hominem responses earn you an automatic douchebag stamp. I don't care what your opinion of Bill Maher is.

[Quovatis]

I can't think of any reason someone cleaning toilets and flipping burgers 'deserves' to pay the least amount our government will legally allow someone to be paid.


Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that.

[HalfManHalfGod]

Have a look at some teachers salaries.

http://www.familytaxpayers.org/salary.php

Just type in a common name such as "smith"

They certainly are not making nothing.

Remember these people get boo-co vaca, health insurance, a pension at 55 with 60% pay until death plus SocSec. Remember they pay almost nothing into their pension, health insurance etc...they are funded by tax payer monies. Also once they've taught for 2 years they get tenure and can NEVER be fired.

Here's the best part, they get summers off! They are free to make additional income or loaf around and drink margaritas. Trust me, my friends are teachers, their tans are perfect.


My mother in is a high school guidance consular make 120k a year! I know that for a fact and its correctly reported here so these are actual salaries.


Edit: Bill Mahar is a douchebag

[Hamma]

You've been sold a lie here I'm afraid. Paying your teachers a decent wage isn't going to bankrupt the country. Somehow Canada (or at least Ontario, Alberta -- aka. Little Texas -- might be different) manages to sustain teachers which receive something like 2x the amount that US teachers make. And it isn't about "getting rich", it's about making the profession attractive to intelligent and capable people.

But, hey, I dunno, maybe it isn't important to try and draw the best people into professions like teacher or police officer. Maybe the people who struggled through crappy colleges and barely scraped by and can't get a job doing anything else are really the ones you want teaching your kids and keeping you safe.

You are assuming I think they shouldn't be paid well. I don't think that at all.. but I don't think the answers are a union raping the city govt for all they have and taking money from other important things like fixing roads and infrastructure.

The issue is mindset. The issue is that we don't pay these teachers what they deserve and shitty teachers slide by because of unions.

They should be paid a fair amount of money no question at all. But Unions aren't going to solve the issue it has to be a total change in how we operate.

[Figment]

Didn't they also create that communist political system in the first place when they created the Soviet Union?

No, they did not.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

Not a union as we know them today of course

So maybe linking unions to communism and the Soviet Union isn't a very honest thing to do in a thread discussing modern unions. Just a crazy thought about approaching a topic with a bit of integrity rather than weaseling in a reference to dastardly communism.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Red Beard]

Not a union as we know them today of course, but the Bolsheviks were the vast majority workers and peasants, not merchants, soldiers, or aristocracy.

Still wanted a central bank though...hmmm!

[Warborn]

I also find it ridiculous that if I get moved to another office that's across the hall I can't move my own stuff because the corporate movers are unionized. Or people can't pick up a soda can off the floor because that's a union job.

Unions exist because employers almost always attempt to fuck their employees and exploit them for all they're worth. If there's a stipulation that you can't pick up litter yourself because it's a union job, the issue isn't that unions are jerks who love seeing litter and want you to call one of their guys to pick up a pop can, the issue is that unions have had to set such firm and absolute rules because otherwise employers will exploit or circumvent them whenever and however they can.

I don't deny that sometimes unions are annoying. Working in a hospital, nursing unions have some stuff that everyone else has to work around to an extent. And when I was working for the city as a paramedic, our union was the general city union so all negotiating was done with them, and as such we got paid really substandard wages compared to the rest of the province.

So, unions aren't perfect. But without them, jobs would once again become unsafe, wages minimal, and working schedules incredibly demanding. As I mentioned earlier, the only reason unions exist is because capitalism with a free hand is vicious and unsympathetic. If the price people pay to make sure their employer can't bleed them is a bit of silly stuff about litter or moving office supplies, so be it. It's a small price to pay.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Without unions, a lot of protective legislation would not exist. So yes, as long as the legislation is there, there's less need for an active union. You therefore see a decline in the union members in the Netherlands as well. In some countries it is almost tradition to be a union member when employed.

That doesn't mean that unions are obsolete.



Regarding your statements about how the USSR formed... I think you're better of checking out this and reading it fully:
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/russiaandukraine/a/rrevstimeline1.htm

It was a time of great turbulence in Russia and a lot of alternate paths could have been walked. Also, you should check out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989#Solidarity.27s_impact_grows

Solidarity, a Polish trade union that's at the base of the fall of communism in the Warschau Pact nations. Malorn: Socialism =/= Communism.

The type of socialists labour parties fall under are Social Democrats.

Traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades.[60] This approach been called the Nordic model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

There's lightyears of difference with Social Democrats and the socialism as perceived by for instance South Americans. Social Democrats have embraced capitalism, but seek to improve (worker/civilian) conditions and restrict excesses.


You should really do a bit more research Malorn, because you tar everyone with the same brush. It's like those people who claim that mass murderers are always atheists. Even though it's quite easy to name genocides performed by religious people. Always pointing at everything "more left than themselves" as leading to Communism without understanding anything regarding socialism is a typical American right wing trait.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.

I'm a liberal. You are a libertarian, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Some liberterians are anarchists. Are you an anarchist just because some libertarians are?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

A lot of things. :)

[CutterJohn]

If unions were all that was holding employers back, why don't we see their membership growing to combat the evil employers? And why do we not see press coverage of the private sector and the non-union public sector employer injustices?

1. Not all corporations are evil. There are plenty with bosses that do actually care a lot about the welfare of their workers.

2. There is a HUGE risk involved in unionizing. Many/most states are at will employment states, meaning that they can fire you without cause. If you don't have overwhelming support and can't spring it on the company by surprise, you stand a very good chance of simply being fired. Its exactly like a revolt against a government.. you need a critical mass of people willing to risk everything.

3. Some people have spent a lot of money for decades painting unions in the worst possible light. Kinda like the anti socialist rhetoric.


But in the modern era I'm not seeing the necessity.

The threat of unionization undoubtedly keeps some of excesses in check, and even if you don't need a union because you have a great boss/owner/whatever, you still have no power. You depend on your bosses good will, and if he changes his mind, or gets replaced, it can all go to shit.

[Warborn]

If that were the case why are there many workers without unions getting along just fine?

The reason you in your non-union job aren't expected to work a 10 - 12 hour shift, 6 days a week, for far less than whatever you're making right now is because of unions and the standard they set for workforces in the developed world. It's unions and government regulation that gives you your vacations and your weekends and your 9 - 5. If capitalism had its way, it would work you to death for a pittance and then simply replace you when you died at 40, just like it did in the good ol' days.

Anyway, none of this shit is actually about unions or money or what's fair for workers. It's about the Republicans trying to gut one of the main sources of money and organization behind the Democratic party. The bullshit in Wisconsin and other places, where they're trying to castrate unions, is because Democrats traditionally receive a lot of money and votes from unions. No unions means an easier time winning elections for Republicans.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

I'm not questioning the role unions have had in shaping labor laws. There was a time when they were required. But that was a different time, not the modern era of mass media, well-established laws, and a culture for lawsuits. I'm more interested in the value they have now, which doesn't seem to be much.

How about massive paycuts/layoffs and the repealing of some workers rights laws (like the equal pay law in Wisconsin).

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

Unions arent stupid, they want to keep the business afloat just as much as the owners do. The majority of unions have accepted this and have taken pay cuts and layoffs the past few years. But when it comes, for example, to closing down a call center/factory and moving all the jobs to India/China when the business is healthy...

Also, businesses dont dont have much incentive to pay women equal wages to men when the average pay for women is 20+% below men's. Women cant really quit their job and move to another business and just get the same, unequal, pay.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Malorn, you say you don't think in black and whites, yet every topic you show you do think in absolutes and almost nothing but absolutes. Still, glad you see there's actual relevancy. The need for unions differs per region though, in well-fare states the need for unions (also from a worker pov) has degraded severely over time. So much that some are struggling to get members. That's a good thing as it indicates the system is healthy.

The easier it is for unions to acquire new members, the harsher the working conditions.

China? India? Could definitely use more union influence.

EDIT: In the case of your wife, if she had been layed off in some states in the US, her pay would have dropped to 0 within a day. This has lead to disastrous situations for a lot of US citizens, since they cannot pay their bills in an event like that. Especially not since pay wasn't that great to safe up a lot of money in the first place.

Look at how many people had to take multiple jobs, leaving no time for family and hence have a very stressful existence. That doesn't create a healthy society if it is completely dependend on good times.

If a company has to take into account lay offs well ahead, they plan and think ahead and they simply keep lay-offs in mind in their budget. If there's a transfer period, the household situation is more stable as there's time to find a new job or even to create your own initiative while you still have a bit of income left, change to a lower cost living, etc. It is not healthy to go from one extreme (full pay) to the other (no pay) at all. This leads to instant need of a new money source, meaning debts are almost unavoidable.

Does it cost money? Yes. Does it cost society more if people go into debt, lose their house and can't find a new job in time? Good question, not?

On the other hand, it can be too hard to fire someone. In which case they can become nothing but a drain of resources. There should always be a healthy balance. But tipping the scales too far either way in the end can cause severe problems in a crisis.

[Noivad]

What you describe is a guild, which tended to monopolise the trade of particular craftsman in a city as a form of job guarantee by controlling the competition.

Trade, worker or labour unions were founded to protect the worker's from exploitation.


Actually It was not a Guild it was a Union, one of the oldest types in fact it was A Construction Labor Union local 767 in south Florida. I was an apprentise, and learned how to be a laborer for a few different trades like Carpentry, Plumber, and Sheet Rock installers on High Rise buildings. I paid dues, went to the union hall for work, ect. We called non union people scabs. We only worked on Union Jobs. I got paid well, a lot more then scabs who did the same types of work on non union jobs. I received training in various construction work from the bottom up. If I had stayed with it I could have gotten into one of the Main Unions. :evil:

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Actually It was not a Guild it was a Union, one of the oldest types in fact it was A Construction Labor Union local 767 in south Florida. I was an apprentise, and learned how to be a laborer for a few different trades like Carpentry, Plumber, and Sheet Rock installers on High Rise buildings. I paid dues, went to the union hall for work, ect. We called non union people scabs. We only worked on Union Jobs. I got paid well, a lot more then scabs who did the same types of work on non union jobs. I received training in various construction work from the bottom up. If I had stayed with it I could have gotten into one of the Main Unions. :evil:

Perhaps it was called an union, but the way you described it is not quite a "normal" union. Unions are political organizations to back up workers, not organizations that train workers as apprentices. But you could be right.

Possibly that union was set up with the old guild system in mind though, especially if it was intended for carpenting, plumbing and smith works which were traditionally strong guilds. Guilds are interest groups of specific craftsmen and the attitude towards people from outside of the guild is also quite typical: only those within the local guild are accepted, others of the same trade but outside the union were typically shunned as 'illegal' rivals. In contrast to earlier forms of unions, it was obligated to join a guild in order to even practice a particular craft. The guilds were, beyond a form of union, a means to completely regulate the market.

Not sure if you're aware of the history of guilds, but in Europe these ran and dominated cities together. A lot of guilds had their own militias even up to the end of the 18th century.

Basically (and given Malorn's concerns with paranoia regarding market regulation, quite ironically), they were capitalist cartels motivated solely by self-interest. Governments in those days were very decentralised (cities ran the local area) and the ruling classes in the city and townships, meant basically the leaders of the wealthiest guilds. They dominated everything out of self-interest up to the point that new inventions were outlawed because not the entire guild could profit from it - if innovation was done outside of the guild a lot of pressure was enacted to get them into the guild or simply stop. Furthermore, people within a guild had to think alike.

Guilds existing well into the 19th century in Eastern Europe has been seen as one of the reasons that these areas were not industrialised as much as the west and therefore economically fell behind.


So one could argue that the smaller the central government and the more power to the local government and private owners, free trade is actually at risk. At least locally. Especially the western dutch shipping guilds profited immensily from the dutch international free trade doctrine, where a lot of other guilds were far more mercantile (examples of mercantile factions within Europe were The Hansa and Ligurian and Venetian trade leagues) and had trouble competing elsewhere.

Now that we got to the topic of free trade. Some funny things about free trade:

Economists that advocated free trade believed trade was the reason why certain civilizations prospered economically. Adam Smith, for example, pointed to increased trading as being the reason for the flourishing of not just Mediterranean cultures such as Egypt, Greece, and Rome, but also of Bengal (East India) and China. The great prosperity of the Netherlands after throwing off Spanish Imperial rule and pursuing a policy of free trade[9] made the free trade/mercantilist dispute the most important question in economics for centuries. Free trade policies have battled with mercantilist, protectionist, isolationist, communist, populist, and other policies over the centuries.

Trade in colonial America was regulated by the British mercantile system through the Acts of Trade and Navigation. Until the 1760s, few colonists openly advocated for free trade, in part because regulations were not strictly enforced—New England was famous for smuggling—but also because colonial merchants did not want to compete with foreign goods and shipping. According to historian Oliver Dickerson, a desire for free trade was not one of the causes of the American Revolution. "The idea that the basic mercantile practices of the eighteenth century were wrong," wrote Dickerson, "was not a part of the thinking of the Revolutionary leaders".[16] Free trade came to what would become the United States as a result of American Revolutionary War, when the British Parliament issued the Prohibitory Act, blockading colonial ports. The Continental Congress responded by effectively declaring economic independence, opening American ports to foreign trade on April 6, 1776. According to historian John W. Tyler, "Free trade had been forced on the Americans, like it or not."[17]

It gets funnier here:

The fledgling Republican Party led by Abraham Lincoln, who called himself a "Henry Clay tariff Whig", strongly opposed free trade and implemented a 44-percent tariff during the Civil War—in part to pay for railroad subsidies and for the war effort, and to protect favored industries.[18] William McKinley (later to become President of the United States) stated the stance of the Republican Party (which won every election for President from 1868 until 1912, except the two non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland) as thus:


Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest'…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.[19]

On the other side:

The growing Free Trade Movement sought an end to the tariffs and corruption in state and federal governments by every means available to them, leading to several outcomes. The first and most important was the rise of the Democratic Party with Grover Cleveland at its helm. The next most important were the rise of the "Mugwumps" within the Republican party. For many Jeffersonian radicals, neither went far enough or sufficiently effective in their efforts and looked for alternatives. The first major movement of the radical Jeffersonians evolved from the insights of a young journalist and firebrand, Henry George.

[Sgt Shultz]

Unions arent stupid, they want to keep the business afloat just as much as the owners do. The majority of unions have accepted this and have taken pay cuts and layoffs the past few years. But when it comes, for example, to closing down a call center/factory and moving all the jobs to India/China when the business is healthy...

Also, businesses dont dont have much incentive to pay women equal wages to men when the average pay for women is 20+% below men's. Women cant really quit their job and move to another business and just get the same, unequal, pay.

Gonna have to disagree with you on this issue. I worked in a Allison Turbine Engine facility that was then sold to Rolls Royce. The word was spread that the Brits were not going to tolerate the 36% productivity ratio that the plant had been pushing for years. The GM of the site spent a good six months sending out emails, printing posters, discussing the issue in all hands meetings and we never saw the ratio creep over 40%. One year later they stripped out the manufacturing cells, turned the plant into an assembly/packing plant and reduced the hour workforce by 1500 which was about 2/3's.

After working with the UAW for several years, I am convinced that the long term viability of a company doesn't even work its way into their thinking. These clowns will run a company right into the ground even at the cost of their own jobs.

[Vash02]

Gonna have to disagree with you on this issue. I worked in a Allison Turbine Engine facility that was then sold to Rolls Royce. The word was spread that the Brits were not going to tolerate the 36% productivity ratio that the plant had been pushing for years. The GM of the site spent a good six months sending out emails, printing posters, discussing the issue in all hands meetings and we never saw the ratio creep over 40%. One year later they stripped out the manufacturing cells, turned the plant into an assembly/packing plant and reduced the hour workforce by 1500 which was about 2/3's.

After working with the UAW for several years, I am convinced that the long term viability of a company doesn't even work its way into their thinking. These clowns will run a company right into the ground even at the cost of their own jobs.
I dont think you're being very clear here.

Can't really comment on the issue without knowing the discussions between the owners and the union.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Unions are all knowing super geniuses. There will always be some morons finding their way to the top.

[Figment]

Loudmouths often do well in unions. Brains are not always a job requirement. Think we mentioned before that there are union actions that overexert themselves and shoot themselves in the foot out of greed. Then again, company greed is why they exist.

Some companies do anything to save money. Look at the recent Apple ordeal with their Asian manufacturing plants and under what stress and health conditions those workers live. Imagine if that had been in the US, where the response to a high suicide rate among workers living in worker flats was to simply install a safety next, literally.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/5015703968_09811d3e3c_o.jpg

Nice, huh?

[Sgt Shultz]

I dont think you're being very clear here.

Can't really comment on the issue without knowing the discussions between the owners and the union.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Unions are all knowing super geniuses. There will always be some morons finding their way to the top.

I will try to detail a bit more my point. From my interaction with the UAW, they didnt approach the relationship as getting an honest days pay for an honest days work. It was more like equal parts entitlement and a scam.

Several times I went down to the manufacturing floor with concepts that would the reduce the cost of an engine component by reducing machining hours, only to get no participation from the operators. They didn't get the concept of if we make our products less expensive via improvements, that we could sell more engines. All they saw was "Less hours to machine part A = less hours for me = less money in their paycheck". Basic business acumen is completely gone from their thinking.

Also they had a great scam going on that was friggen brilliant. Almost anytime we would be preparing a shipment of turbines for a customer, one of the skilled trades would need to perform maintenance on one of the milling machines. Usually on a Wednesday or Thursday an electrician would slap a lock-out-tag-out log on the powerbox and then would call in sick for the next 2-3 days. Meanwhile the operator can't perform the next milling operation on the part because only the person with the key to the lock-out-tag-out lock can remove it. Now we have missed 2-3 days worth of milling time. The electrician becomes unsick on Saturday so we bring him in to remove the LOTO, and the operator being the great guy that he is offers to work Saturday and Sunday. So we now end up paying 1.5 per hourly wage for the work on Saturday and 2.5 per hourly wage for Sunday.

I havent worked with other unions before but from what I have seen they have more in common with organized crime the organized labor.

[Vecha]

I havent worked with other unions before but from what I have seen they have more in common with organized crime the organized labor.

Well...you've seen Sopranos right?

I'm only slightly kidding. :D

[Figment]

@Shultz: that's not an union thing, that's a working ethics and discipline thing that's more to do with culture and adequately responding management than worker interest groups.

In that particular case, I also don't get why you don't give more people the ability to access the LOTO. Seems like a management issue that those workers exploit to me anyway.

[Vash02]

I will try to detail a bit more my point. From my interaction with the UAW, they didnt approach the relationship as getting an honest days pay for an honest days work. It was more like equal parts entitlement and a scam.

Several times I went down to the manufacturing floor with concepts that would the reduce the cost of an engine component by reducing machining hours, only to get no participation from the operators. They didn't get the concept of if we make our products less expensive via improvements, that we could sell more engines. All they saw was "Less hours to machine part A = less hours for me = less money in their paycheck". Basic business acumen is completely gone from their thinking.


Well, what did you do to convince them that the demand was there for more engines? And then what would happen when demand fell?

[Sgt Shultz]

In that particular case, I also don't get why you don't give more people the ability to access the LOTO. Seems like a management issue that those workers exploit to me anyway.

We generally avoid making access to LOTO to anyone but the person to who that lock belongs. With the size of the machines we use it's too easy to lose sight of a person thus you could potential kill someone by removing their locks.

@Vash - it's not my job to make a business case to an hourly operator. He doesn't own the machine, nor the parts. Furthermore what about demand? You think his pissing around is going to help him if demand falls?

[Vash02]

We generally avoid making access to LOTO to anyone but the person to who that lock belongs. With the size of the machines we use it's too easy to lose sight of a person thus you could potential kill someone by removing their locks.

@Vash - it's not my job to make a business case to an hourly operator. He doesn't own the machine, nor the parts. Furthermore what about demand? You think his pissing around is going to help him if demand falls?

You're putting all the risk on the workers while the business keeps all the advantages for itself.

Say for instance they make 3 engines a day (note: I dont know anything about making engines) and your idea increases that to 4 engines a day. if you can sell 4, thats fine and dandy. But if demand drops and you can only sell 3 a day and go "sorry lads, no ones buying you've got to go home", they are the ones out of pocket from the deal while the impact on the business is none.

[Figment]

We generally avoid making access to LOTO to anyone but the person to who that lock belongs. With the size of the machines we use it's too easy to lose sight of a person thus you could potential kill someone by removing their locks.

If they called in sick they're not in the building. Just make a rule where he has to leave the key in the building if he is not present? Obligate a mobile phone and call him to check where he is before unlocking the LOTO?

Or is that too simple? I understand the safety regulations (thank you unions), but safety regulation abuse due to inefficient application of those rules is something else entirely: that's a management inefficiency.

[Natir]

I will try to detail a bit more my point. From my interaction with the UAW, they didnt approach the relationship as getting an honest days pay for an honest days work. It was more like equal parts entitlement and a scam.

Several times I went down to the manufacturing floor with concepts that would the reduce the cost of an engine component by reducing machining hours, only to get no participation from the operators. They didn't get the concept of if we make our products less expensive via improvements, that we could sell more engines. All they saw was "Less hours to machine part A = less hours for me = less money in their paycheck". Basic business acumen is completely gone from their thinking.


What you just referenced has nothing to do with unions and everything to do with management. You cannot force your managers to do something they do not want to do, even if it is the best thing in the world. If they do not wish to listen, you just have to bite the bullet on that. Unless you are the one calling the shots, its tough luck but that is in no way a union issue.

I am going to comment on a few items I saw here. One thing about the women's pay issue, it is mostly their fault. When a woman does not get paid as much in today's market, it is because they are not being aggressive enough. Women who are more aggressive at the bargaining table get paid more, pretty simple. That also does not have anything to do with a union. Most of the time for different jobs, unions don't set pay like that. Like in higher education, the initial pay is set by the school, not the union. (Not like janitors or whatnot, but directors, support staff, etc). There is typically a pay grade and it has a range and the place hiring will always start at the bottom. The problem comes from confidence. Someone who is confident in their abilities will be more aggressive and want the higher pay.

Not all unions are bad. The union my dad belonged to was pretty good. They did the things unions were meant to do. He was a pipe-fitter and as such, pretty much every job was contracted out. When the one job was finished, there would be another waiting, something the union took care of. This wasn't no job placement place either, you had the apprenticeship, journeyman and so on that you had to go through. Pay was decent and benefits were pretty good.

When it comes to what workers are supposed to do, it's best to know what the union people can and cannot do. Like the union people being the ones picking up a can of soda off the ground, that is a line of BS, sorry. Most contracts are not that petty. A can of soda on the ground would not be in a contract as you wouldn't just leave that on the ground and wait for the custodian to pick it up... Now, something like vomit would be in their contract and your work would get pretty mad at you if you tried to clean it up. It is considered a bio-hazard and all...

Again, it all comes down to the industry you are working in. Also, don't talk about teachers, they get paid shit. The individuals who are working in the K-12 sector that get paid very well have gotten a master's/phd and have been working for a long time doing that type of work. They earned their wages. Starting out, you don't get paid that well. Also, are they working for a public or private school (for profit) or an alternative school?

I like this quote about why some, if not most, are bad.
The third and possibly the most important reason for the decline in unions is that they are victims of their own success. Unions raised their wages substantially above the wages paid to nonunion workers. Therefore, many union-made products have become so expensive that sales were lost to less expensive foreign competitors and nonunion producers. This resulted in companies having to cut back on production, which caused some workers to lose their jobs, and hence, unions some of their members. Also, the recent shift in this country towards technology and service has made our economy less reliant in the types of industrial jobs that tended to be union strongholds.
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Eco_Unionization.htm

[Noivad]

Perhaps it was called an union, but the way you described it is not quite a "normal" union. Unions are political organizations to back up workers, not organizations that train workers as apprentices. But you could be right.

Possibly that union was set up with the old guild system in mind though, especially if it was intended for carpenting, plumbing and smith works which were traditionally strong guilds. Guilds are interest groups of specific craftsmen and the attitude towards people from outside of the guild is also quite typical: only those within the local guild are accepted, others of the same trade but outside the union were typically shunned as 'illegal' rivals. In contrast to earlier forms of unions, it was obligated to join a guild in order to even practice a particular craft. The guilds were, beyond a form of union, a means to completely regulate the market.

Not sure if you're aware of the history of guilds, but in Europe these ran and dominated cities together. A lot of guilds had their own militias even up to the end of the 18th century.

Basically (and given Malorn's concerns with paranoia regarding market regulation, quite ironically), they were capitalist cartels motivated solely by self-interest. Governments in those days were very decentralised (cities ran the local area) and the ruling classes in the city and townships, meant basically the leaders of the wealthiest guilds. They dominated everything out of self-interest up to the point that new inventions were outlawed because not the entire guild could profit from it - if innovation was done outside of the guild a lot of pressure was enacted to get them into the guild or simply stop. Furthermore, people within a guild had to think alike.

Guilds existing well into the 19th century in Eastern Europe has been seen as one of the reasons that these areas were not industrialised as much as the west and therefore economically fell behind.


So one could argue that the smaller the central government and the more power to the local government and private owners, free trade is actually at risk. At least locally. Especially the western dutch shipping guilds profited immensily from the dutch international free trade doctrine, where a lot of other guilds were far more mercantile (examples of mercantile factions within Europe were The Hansa and Ligurian and Venetian trade leagues) and had trouble competing elsewhere.

Now that we got to the topic of free trade. Some funny things about free trade:





It gets funnier here:

I am not familiar with the Euro Guild System, only the the USA one. So perhaps there are some differences. I can tell you only of my experience with the labor union, and my friends experience with Police, Fire, and Teacher Unions. They are all currupt. They are all political, and they all do more harm them good.

The link below is the history of Unions, and yes it does mention Euros Uniondom. In fact it shows Unions in several countries.

The bigest Union is called Communisim - You know when Government gets into controlling the business of a country completely.

And workers, have, you know, all equal rights. They get to do whatever jobs that are selected for them. They all get the same pay - Equal pay for equal work. They are all commrades.

All Unions start with Labor. The act of work. The Laborer. He who does work.

Because the worker must have rights. An we the Union will give it to them. Of course some where along the way those in control get more rights, and the laborers get less. They start off making more money and in time make less. who knew?

Some where along the way Unions, turn form organizations that want to help the worker to organizations that dictate to the worker.

And before you talk about the power of the Strike - against companies - know this. You the worker do not even have the right to strike. If the Union says no you don't.

Unions control workers, no matter what job they do. In return they promise, but mostly do not deliver, better rights for the worker, higher pay, and protection from companies who would abuse them. Better skilled , better trained workers. lol. And then, there are the unskilled unions starting in 1936.

The first real " MAY DAY" that happened in the United States was about the Unions back then too.

History always repeats itself.

These links will show the link to Labor Organization, or Unions. When you get to the basis all of these terms are interchangable.

They are all forms of control on production. They all start with labor. They all do what they do in the name of the poor worker. And Ultimately they all fail. If any worked at all, and they were so great, don't you think we would all be in them by now.

Thes links should help clarify my statements.

MAY Day History - http://www.marxists.org/subject/mayday/index.htm


Unions

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/friedman.unions.us

About Trade Unions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union

About Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

About Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

:evil:

[Noivad]

I am going to comment on a few items I saw here. One thing about the women's pay issue, it is mostly their fault. When a woman does not get paid as much in today's market, it is because they are not being aggressive enough. Women who are more aggressive at the bargaining table get paid more, pretty simple. That also does not have anything to do with a union. Most of the time for different jobs, unions don't set pay like that. Like in higher education, the initial pay is set by the school, not the union. (Not like janitors or whatnot, but directors, support staff, etc). There is typically a pay grade and it has a range and the place hiring will always start at the bottom. The problem comes from confidence. Someone who is confident in their abilities will be more aggressive and want the higher pay.

I have to agree that it is womens fault that they get poor wages. A lot of women do make good wages, not taking away from that. They are usually more agressive and asertive types who get the money. I wish more women were like that cause they tend to buy smarter, but not always. Then prices for womens things that they buy would be cheaper. But women allow themselves to be controled by prices. If its cheap it can't be good enough. The more expensive it is the better it is. They call this idea fashion. They charge 300 dollars for jeans that have 10 dollars worth of material and a fashion name on them. How can a $1500 dollar pocketbook be better then a 10 dollar one. They hold the same amount of stuff, usually more in the cheaper one. So why do women in general get poor wages. Its because smart men who are in business know that women can't help themselves, generally speaking, and don't want their wives or girl friends wasting their money on crap. Pay them less - they spend less. I wonder if we pay them more will will prices between men and women equalize. Maybe there should be a seperate, womans only union for that. But then I remeber the Union Slogans - you know the ones - Union Strong, Union Made Union Quality. If the Union does the job its done better, its done with efficiency, It skilled labor. Maybe Union pocketbooks are Union Made that sell for $1500 dollars. Thats got to be it. Maybe the Unions have women just where they want them. Working for less money and spending more money on union stuff. Keep them poor. keep then under control. those evil working women. :evil:

[CutterJohn]

So why do women in general get poor wages. Its because smart men who are in business know that women can't help themselves, generally speaking, and don't want their wives or girl friends wasting their money on crap. Pay them less - they spend less.

Wow. Just... Wow.

Women tend to make less largely because they tend to take less physically demanding and physically dangerous work, both aspects of a job that add somewhat to pay. When comparing womens salaries to mens in similar jobs/fields/experience levels, pay gaps have for the most part disappeared.

[Noivad]

Wow. Just... Wow.

Women tend to make less largely because they tend to take less physically demanding and physically dangerous work, both aspects of a job that add somewhat to pay. When comparing womens salaries to mens in similar jobs/fields/experience levels, pay gaps have for the most part disappeared.

lol - now that prespective is from the male gender point of view. I have know women who have taken physically demanding and physically dangerous work, do it better then some men, and still get paid less because they are women and have not aserted themselves. , ask any firewomen, police officer, militay female in a Battle Zone, or construction worker 100 stories up welding steel, and they will laugh at your comment. And there are some women who make more money then men in none physically demanding or dangerous work.

Some women stand up for themselves and don't let men tell them what they can or can't do and what they want for pay. Most don't.

Men still dictate what a womens worth is, and how much they can make. And a lot of wome accept it or they would not be paying twice as much for the same items that men at half their price. Savey Business women know this and price hike the women too. Its a sad cycle. :evil:

[CutterJohn]

And a lot of wome accept it or they would not be paying twice as much for the same items that men at half their price.

Yes, because men never buy ridiculously overpriced toys because theres a brand name attached. :rolleyes:


Your logic is so flawed and sexist I'm not even mad or annoyed.. Just amazed that people like you exist.

[Warborn]

Wow. Just... Wow.

Women tend to make less largely because they tend to take less physically demanding and physically dangerous work, both aspects of a job that add somewhat to pay. When comparing womens salaries to mens in similar jobs/fields/experience levels, pay gaps have for the most part disappeared.

You have no idea what you're talking about. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/myth-pipeline-inequality-plagues-working-women-study-finds/story?id=9868961&page=2#.T6YNN8WDtN4)

[Natir]

Wow. Just... Wow.

Women tend to make less largely because they tend to take less physically demanding and physically dangerous work, both aspects of a job that add somewhat to pay.

Umm... what? I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry for you. That has absolutely nothing to do with pay gaps. What you described is a kind of job or an attribute to some job. Some jobs are dangerous and some are more physically demanding than others. In no way does that have anything to do with men getting paid more than women... A large part of why women make less money is because they are not forceful enough on the negotiating table where men tend to be more aggressive. Times have changed and the gaps are closing and the pay ranges are generally the same. Where they differ is when you can negotiate your pay. Women are more comfortable with just accepting the pay or being happy they got the job. Men tend to be more confident about their skills and generally want to get paid more for it. In no way does the "type" of work have anything to do with it. The only thing is that certain kinds of work attract certain kinds of people. Pay gaps after that would just come down to the negotiating table.