# PRO Act



## BluejacketBob (Nov 26, 2020)

What ever happened to the employee free choice act? Does old king Joe remember that?


----------



## oldsparky52 (Feb 25, 2020)

BluejacketBob said:


> What ever happened to the employee free choice act? Does old king Joe remember that?


I didn't hear anything in that clip that suggested you can not choose. I didn't hear anything about restricting right to work laws.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

How do you think this


oldsparky52 said:


> I didn't hear anything in that clip that suggested you can not choose. I didn't hear anything about restricting right to work laws.


It would make right to work laws illegal




















PRO Act Will Harm, Not Help, Workers


The economy is going to look different once Covid-19 subsides. Both workers and businesses need to adapt in response. The provisions in the PRO Act will impede this adaptation and delay the economic recovery, harming workers in the process.




www.forbes.com


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Oh look, republicans telling working people that higher wages, better benefits, better working conditions and representation are bad for them.

How novel.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

I don't trust anybody who talks that fast when trying to explain something. It gives no time to evaluate what they are saying.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

kb1jb1 said:


> I don't trust anybody who talks that fast when trying to explain something. It gives no time to evaluate what they are saying.





https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/PRO%20Act%20Fact%20Sheet%202021%20-%20FINAL.pdf


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

TGGT said:


> Oh look, republicans telling working people that higher wages, better benefits, better working conditions and representation are bad for them.
> 
> How novel.


Do you believe investors will keep investing in the U.S. if you keep trying to strong arm them? It's a big world out there, look what unions did to the U.S. in recent history, look back from the 20s until now, no more made in USA. There are many countries like France that are moving away from socialist policies after seeing the ill effects, and investors are flocking to them leaving the U.S..

Capital is easy to move, easier than it is for workers.

I support bettering workers, I support bettering everyone, I don't believe your tact is effective though.

Just look for better employers or better yet work for yourself, I live in the rust belt that had a hay day up until about the late 50s with unions, I worked through the IBEW. My opinion, the labor unions in the U.S. are a burden and more to the workers than investors, slowing progress, the better jobs around here are non-union hands down, unions are pretty much dead around here now and no-one is looking back.

I don't believe in banning unions, if you want to be union I believe you should be able to, and the employer be allowed to not agree to a labor agreement, but I don't think they work long term.


----------



## BluejacketBob (Nov 26, 2020)

The employee free choice act was legalisation introduced in the Obama era, it made organization much easier. It didn't get any traction.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Wiresmith said:


> Do you believe investors will keep investing in the U.S. if you keep trying to strong arm them? It's a big world out there, look what unions did to the U.S. in recent history, look back from the 20s until now, no more made in USA. There are many countries like France that are moving away from socialist policies after seeing the ill effects, and investors are flocking to them leaving the U.S..
> 
> Capital is easy to move, easier than it is for workers.
> 
> ...


European countries have done a better job balancing capital with protections. Sectoral bargaining would cross state lines, and cover entire industries (sectors).

_Unions were most successful in now-stagnating or shrinking industries like manufacturing and transportation; investors are less willing to put money into firms where unions capture some of their profits; and unions increase labor costs for employers, who respond by hiring fewer workers. Western and Farber found that unionized firms’ slower growth accounted for most of the decline in union membership between the 1970s and ’90s.

But workers in most European countries, and some other rich countries outside the US, have figured out an ingenious way around this. Unions there bargain not at the company level but at the sector level — negotiating for all workers in an entire industry rather than just one company or workplace._









"Unions for all": the new plan to save the American labor movement


Sectoral bargaining is the future of American labor unions.




www.vox.com





Unions were only ever able to gain a foothold in the US because we legally protected their status. Before that many union members were prosecuted as criminal conspirators. Yes, the old way of collective bargaining in the US is outdated, so lets update the way the US organizes.

What's interesting is that many European countries do not have federal minimum wages, because the unions set the minimum wages for their industries.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

The truth is that our trade policies with China, negotiated by politicians taking legalized bribes from China, did more to hurt US unions in manufacturing the last 30 years than anything. The last four years, US manufacturing has made headway due to more reasonable tariffs, the only reversal in the trend since, well, ever. In time unions would gain ground in manufacturing. If our trade policies revert to those favored by China's bought and paid for, manufacturing is again ****ed. 

As for the industries that actually have employees - I don't think Amazon etc. are the least worried about organizing one distribution center at a time. 

The industry that needs unionization most urgently, in my opinion, is health care, and you can't blame this one on the Chinese. The rise of health care to the nation's number one industry - 18% of the US economy - is an unprecedented economic disaster and it's going to get worse as consolidation continues in that industry. With near monopoly status and those legalized bribes again, watch what happens. Now that health care has squeezed as much as possible out of you in costs / insurance, that industry's bean counters has started turning the screws on their care providers - nurses, therapists, and yes doctors. That squeeze will further deteriorate patient care. 

Legislation that gives organized health care labor some real bargaining power would be a real help. It's a difficult issue because without the option to strike, how do they get any leverage in bargaining?


----------



## gpop (May 14, 2018)

When you can destroy a company's reputation and add pressure to there customer base with a simple Facebook post going viral do we really still need union's.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

How does one organize the illegal immigrants working in construction? I have seen over the last three years more and more work going out to foreign workers. Out of state plates, sneakers or sandels, same clothes every day. Not just Spanish but all back grounds. They are not just the workers but the owners of the company. If the legitimate companies are forced to go union then the illegitimate companies will take over the residential market. Homeowners want cheap.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

gpop said:


> When you can destroy a company's reputation and add pressure to there customer base with a simple Facebook post going viral do we really still need union's.


Has that been working? 

Hospitals around here have like half the staff overnight that they had 10-15 years ago for the same or greater patient census. You can paste that on Facebook all day and night, and hospitas won't hire one more nurse. 

The Amazon warehouses pay order pickers / packers etc. jack, the conditions are fairly lousy, I don't think Amazon's worried about their worker's posts affecting sales.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

kb1jb1 said:


> How does one organize the illegal immigrants working in construction? I have seen over the last three years more and more work going out to foreign workers. Out of state plates, sneakers or sandels, same clothes every day. Not just Spanish but all back grounds. They are not just the workers but the owners of the company. If the legitimate companies are forced to go union then the illegitimate companies will take over the residential market. Homeowners want cheap.


I think a lot of people are in favor of loose enforcement of immigration laws not because they have big hearts and openly welcome immigrants, but because they like having an exploitable underclass they can underpay and who will hesitate to report their infractions for safety, labor laws, etc.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

If we could actually trust the government in states and at the federal level, people wouldn’t feel the need to unionize. The corruption still exists at all levels, everywhere. The union bosses are millionaires too, just like legislators.

The weirdest thing I’ve come across lately are the federal employee unions, and they are recruiting workers. I looked into it, and it seems like more of a scam than anything.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

The status quo for decades has been chipping away at collective bargaining power and the right to organize under Republicans, and lulls under Democratic administrations where not a whole lot happens.

Now here we are with an opportunity to do something different, and we're still hearing the same old songs from the bosses about how it's bad for workers.

Union membership was 35% in the 1950's. The country did not turn into Venezuela. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## oldsparky52 (Feb 25, 2020)

I have never belonged to a union, but from where I've viewed this, unions have done more good than harm.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

oldsparky52 said:


> I have never belonged to a union, but from where I've viewed this, unions have done more good than harm.


It's easy to say that when you haven't be part of one. There's no irony in conservatives being part of my local. They recognize they get better pay, working conditions and stability.

This is not to say unions are blameless, and it's not to say a person can't do better than what they have to offer, but overall for the majority of people it's a higher standard than many of the alternatives.

Nationally we are denied minimum wage increases, denied universal healthcare, denied universal college, our labor departments have been gutted and twisted by anti-union lawyers.

Our local provides cadillac insurance, higher minimum wages with frequent wage increases, our apprentices are just a few classes away from a 2 year degree when they turn out, and most of our contractors embrace a culture of safe efficient work habits, and we usually have a steward to smooth out conflicts.

Mass unionization could help alleviate the societal stresses we are experiencing and raise everyone's standard of living and it would still incentivize WORK.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

TGGT said:


> It's easy to say that when you haven't be part of one. There's no irony in conservatives being part of my local. They recognize they get better pay, working conditions and stability.


Reread 


oldsparky52 said:


> I have never belonged to a union, but from where I've viewed this, unions have done *more good than harm*.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

TGGT said:


> Nationally we are denied minimum wage increases, denied universal healthcare, denied universal college, our labor departments have been gutted and twisted by anti-union lawyers.


In short 1. agree, 2. disagree and not a labor issue, 3.disagree and not a labor issue, 4. mostly agree 

Regarding the first: I think there should be a minimum wage and it should mostly track with cost of living, though it should probably should have some latitude, it's important that there be an out-of-bounds / bottom limit to wages. Minimum wage in 1981 was $3.35 an hour and it was nothing lavish, not even a living wage, surely we could keep up with that.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

splatz said:


> In short 1. agree, 2. disagree and not a labor issue, 3.disagree and not a labor issue, 4. mostly agree
> 
> Regarding the first: I think there should be a minimum wage and it should mostly track with cost of living, though it should probably should have some latitude, it's important that there be an out-of-bounds / bottom limit to wages. Minimum wage in 1981 was $3.35 an hour and it was nothing lavish, not even a living wage, surely we could keep up with that.
> 
> View attachment 153766


The points I made in the first paragraph were followed up with how my union addresses these shortcomings. I was making a case for market based solutions through union participation. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

TGGT said:


> The points I made in the first paragraph were followed up with how my union addresses these shortcomings. I was making a case for market based solutions through union participation.


Now I see, that I agree with 👍


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

gpop said:


> When you can destroy a company's reputation and add pressure to there customer base with a simple Facebook post going viral do we really still need union's.


Yes. Because when you in solidarity boycott Budweiser for unfair labor practices everyone switches to Miller. Also owned by the same parent corporation. Monopolization has gone too far unchecked - and the illusion of choice is just that. There isn't a chicken product you can buy in the USA, as well as other packaged or processed or prepared meat products, that isn't owned by Tyson. But only 1/5 of the products are branded as such.


----------



## gpop (May 14, 2018)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Yes. Because when you in solidarity boycott Budweiser for unfair labor practices everyone switches to Miller. Also owned by the same parent corporation. Monopolization has gone too far unchecked - and the illusion of choice is just that. There isn't a chicken product you can buy in the USA, as well as other packaged or processed or prepared meat products, that isn't owned by Tyson. But only 1/5 of the products are branded as such.


I have worked union and non-union. 
The last job was in a OJ factory non union. Every year a random group had to go to a interview with major customers to talk about work conditions. They wanted to know if there was any discrimination, Unpaid hours and a bunch of other things as there reputation could be affected by there suppliers reputation. 

The few union places i have work the shop stewards seem to be power hungry and cause more of a problem then what they are worth. (old boys network)

Union filled a grievance that new employees in the E&I department were offered free housing for 6 months (it was the only way the company could get new employees to move to the middle of a swamp). Company paid just over a 120k to compensate works that did not get the option of free housing when they started. (money was to be divided and shared to union members)
Union voted to keep the money to fight future grievances. Union rep's got new cars for union business that they could take home.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Wiresmith said:


> Do you believe investors will keep investing in the U.S. if you keep trying to strong arm them?


What happened to most Americans work for small local business?


> It's a big world out there, look what unions did to the U.S. in recent history, look back from the 20s until now, no more made in USA. There are many countries like France that are moving away from socialist policies after seeing the ill effects, and investors are flocking to them leaving the U.S..


Lies, lies, and damned lies. Yes - investors will continue to invest in the US because there exists this thing called a market. 330 million people wanting and needing food, clothing, shelter, and lots and lots of stuff to make it their own. Does Germany, Sweden, Iceland, Norway all other developed countries lack investments? No. 

There's no more made in USA because unlike other countries, the USA allows the free import of goods and allows services rendered from other countries like Microsoft customer service and your cable companies customer service to be outsourced with no penalties. Other countries don't allow that. 

When we have trade and corporate policies and tax laws that allow corporations to make greater profits, of course they take advantage of it - that does not mean that without those advantages that corporations will shun the USA and take their ball and go elsewhere. McDonalds pays an employee $16.85 an hour in Germany and must provide 4 weeks paid vacation and paid sick time and paid personal days and a YEAR paid maternity leave and the cost of a food item is only slightly higher than it is in the USA, and yet McDonalds still thrives there, and is profitable. Of course they're lobbying the government to allow lower wages, less time off, and for lower food standards, it's a corporation looking to increase profits. But not being successful in getting anything they want is not going to dissuade them from continuing to make what profits they can. Not to mention that a German corporation must have on it's board of directors more than 1/2 actually typical employees of that corporations. Not a board made up of only millionaire investors and friends and relatives in the top 1%. Because of this, when the financial crisis of 2008 lead German car companies to lower wages across the board and give more time off to workers rather than shut down entire factories and let the workers at the bottom suffer the fallout on their own.

You know... the "Christian" thing to do.



> Capital is easy to move, easier than it is for workers.


It is, but the market that is 330 million isn't moving anywhere. You're claims amount to "If we don't let corporations exploit us to their heart's content and let them exist tax-free they'll leave." No, they won't. Where are they going to go to, when they're anywhere they want to be now?


> I support bettering workers, I support bettering everyone, I don't believe your tact is effective though.


No. Actually you don't. You are pushing the concept that if we don't allow Walmart to increase earnings 1.2 billion through the Covid crisis (thus far) that if laws and regulations and union and worker friendly policies such as living wages and medical care and workplace rules that require their human worker bees to be treated like people with lives and families and pets and homes and needs and desires that the current corporate policies do not currently recognize, that Walmart will shutter and go take their business to some other country. And that is a lie. Walmart knows their business model does not work in foreign countries when they're required to up their standards. Even Target failed in Canada. A carpeted clean Walmart fooled nobody there. 3rd world foreign made junk is still 3rd world foreign made junk. 

Americans still fail to grasp the concept of value for the most part, and trend towards quantity over quality. When it comes to things that really matter - as evidenced in many threads right here about how Klein linesmans aren't worth it anymore since production was moved to China or Mexico - or Klein screwdrivers are failing left and right and they're simply profiting from their name and it's past reputation for quality. 



> Just look for better employers or better yet work for yourself, I live in the rust belt that had a hay day up until about the late 50s with unions, I worked through the IBEW. My opinion, the labor unions in the U.S. are a burden and more to the workers than investors, slowing progress, the better jobs around here are non-union hands down, unions are pretty much dead around here now and no-one is looking back.


Wonderful. Just look for better employers because I'm sure that contractor F isn't competing with contractors A,B,C,D, and E who are all running the same business model of "F the employees, the winner is the guy with the lowest paid workers and the highest billable hours??? " And the problem is just that everyone hasn't yet discovered that the unicorns and rainbows are all over there under contractor F's roof???

If you happen to be in a particularly depressed area then it's likely that economic forces are all in disarray in which case you gotta do what you gotta do - that doesn't mean that unions are the cause or the solution or even play into the issue. But you can't tell me unions don't have a positive impact in the grand scheme of things when nonunion electrician workers who are the top paid guys in their shops and don't make 1/2 what a union Journeyman makes and also have no medical benefits, fringes, or a pension. 



> I don't believe in banning unions, if you want to be union I believe you should be able to, and the employer be allowed to not agree to a labor agreement, but I don't think they work long term.


The choice to have union representation is the employees. Not the employer's.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

kb1jb1 said:


> How does one organize the illegal immigrants working in construction? I have seen over the last three years more and more work going out to foreign workers. Out of state plates, sneakers or sandels, same clothes every day. Not just Spanish but all back grounds. They are not just the workers but the owners of the company. If the legitimate companies are forced to go union then the illegitimate companies will take over the residential market. Homeowners want cheap.


Policing nonunion worksites isn't in a union's wheelhouse. Unions aren't the problem here, so unions not being able to solve this isn't any reflection on unions. Illegal workers are just that - and illegals working anywhere is a thing society needs to demand the government do something about. But, nonunion companies and those that hire them have many convinced that cheaper illegal labor = lower consumer prices, and this is the lie unions and Americans must combat. America has to start getting serious about real hard jail time for white collar crime - and we're not there yet. 

An example here is that everyone knows the landscapers who mow their lawns are illegals. They think, and quite possibly so, that the 40 bucks for weekly maintenance is the benefit, it would be 50 or 60 were they legal... and are fine with it. Massage parlors and Nail salons all over Long Island are constantly being busted for busing Asian women from Flushing Queens who are literally slaves working off their passage debt into the USA and their room and board in overcrowded houses in the city - and yet this is fine with 2 women working 1 hour each on their Mani-Pedi for 29.99 and don't care if their place hasn't been busted... yet. 

Americans don't seem to really care about other people's problems, be they countries, or religions, or workplaces or industries... we've disconnected from society at large, and don't really consider other people in our country their "fellow countrymen" and have bought into the "rugged self-made individualism" and "every man for himself" concept. There is most certainly a bunch of I's on this American team. But we're easy targets when we can be picked off one by one. Not when we play as a team. And that is_ exactly_ what business owners and corporations want - because when Americans pull together and work for a cause - such as preventing Hedge Funds from tanking GameStop - it scares the living crap out of them. Because as team, we always win.




splatz said:


> Has that been working?
> 
> Hospitals around here have like half the staff overnight that they had 10-15 years ago for the same or greater patient census. You can paste that on Facebook all day and night, and hospitas won't hire one more nurse.
> 
> The Amazon warehouses pay order pickers / packers etc. jack, the conditions are fairly lousy, I don't think Amazon's worried about their worker's posts affecting sales.


Hospitals have been consolidating as well as medical groups, into huge conglomerates and focused regionally. All the efficiencies realized by such actions are taken as profits. This is another aspect of monopolization that the government needs to get involved in.



splatz said:


> I think a lot of people are in favor of loose enforcement of immigration laws not because they have big hearts and openly welcome immigrants, but because they like having an exploitable underclass they can underpay and who will hesitate to report their infractions for safety, labor laws, etc.


And a lot of the people actually in favor are the very people leading the anti-immigrant charge - to keep the new people and the displaced people fighting each other... so neither realize the proper direction they should be pointing their torches and pitchforks.

SImilarly, the antifas and the blm and the alt righter and wingnuts too bust fighting and protesting each other also have the same common enemy - I'm waiting for the day of reckoning when these groups finally figure that out.



gpop said:


> I have worked union and non-union.
> The last job was in a OJ factory non union. Every year a random group had to go to a interview with major customers to talk about work conditions. They wanted to know if there was any discrimination, Unpaid hours and a bunch of other things as there reputation could be affected by there suppliers reputation.
> 
> The few union places i have work the shop stewards seem to be power hungry and cause more of a problem then what they are worth. (old boys network)
> ...


I'll counter all that with without the union all the money would be in the boss's pocket and buys himself and his entire family Mercedes Benz's and vacation homes. Anecdotal examples of the greedy union boss are just that. Greedy company and corporate boss examples are not anecdotal.


----------



## Yankee77 (Oct 5, 2020)

gpop said:


> When you can destroy a company's reputation and add pressure to there customer base with a simple Facebook post going viral do we really still need union's.


Don’t compare a unions accomplishments to an episode of Jerry Springer. Unions help built this nation and definitely helped to form the framework of workers rights.


----------



## Yankee77 (Oct 5, 2020)




----------



## gpop (May 14, 2018)

Yankee77 said:


> View attachment 153777



If a state minimum wage is higher than federal then do federal worker in that state get state or federal minimum.


----------



## gpop (May 14, 2018)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I'll counter all that with without the union all the money would be in the boss's pocket and buys himself and his entire family Mercedes Benz's and vacation homes. Anecdotal examples of the greedy union boss are just that. Greedy company and corporate boss examples are not anecdotal.


Telling me that its ok to be screwed by a union as its better than being screwed by a boss is hardly a selling point because basically im probably going to get screwed either way except one will insist on being payed weekly for the pleasure. Next you will be telling me the union pension plans that turned out to be empty bank accounts was for my own good so i could carry on working and being a member of the brotherhood. 

Now we are back to social media. Unions do not have a great reputation so what have you got to offer me that will change my mind. Basically you are in the service sector so you must have some service to sell me. I work for a great company, I get paid above average for my job title, I get good benefits and i get treated with respect. 
The union in the UK offered free legal consultation, financial planning and a bunch of other services that made belonging to the Union a worthwhile investment. I do like the apprenticeship program that the union has over here and i believe that is one redeeming quality even if its a bit closed shop on who gets the apprenticeship.

I guess im just lucky as i have never worked for a bad company for more than 10 minutes.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

gpop said:


> Telling me that its ok to be screwed by a union as its better than being screwed by a boss is hardly a selling point because basically im probably going to get screwed either way except one will insist on being payed weekly for the pleasure. Next you will be telling me the union pension plans that turned out to be empty bank accounts was for my own good so i could carry on working and being a member of the brotherhood.
> 
> Now we are back to social media. Unions do not have a great reputation so what have you got to offer me that will change my mind. Basically you are in the service sector so you must have some service to sell me. I work for a great company, I get paid above average for my job title, I get good benefits and i get treated with respect.
> The union in the UK offered free legal consultation, financial planning and a bunch of other services that made belonging to the Union a worthwhile investment. I do like the apprenticeship program that the union has over here and i believe that is one redeeming quality even if its a bit closed shop on who gets the apprenticeship.
> ...


From my quick search the UK has almost 3x's the membership rate than we do. But you can't compare it apples to apples, european countries while not a monolith, generally have stronger labor protections and privileges. I recall reading about unions building houses for their members back in the day. There is an IBEW local in Nevada or Arizona that founded and staffs an exclusive health clinic for members and close family to cut down on costs.

It's not that these benefits aren't there, or some unions aren't thinking outside of the box, but it's incumbent upon each individual local or union to acquire the resources to do these. I know there's this caricature of the rich, crooked union bosses swindling from dues or retirement accounts, but most are honest and just trying to keep what few members they have, working.

I say tip things back in the favor of the majority of workers. We'll still be the richest nation in the world and we won't turn into a 3rd world country.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

gpop said:


> Telling me that its ok to be screwed by a union as its better than being screwed by a boss is hardly a selling point because basically im probably going to get screwed either way except one will insist on being payed weekly for the pleasure.


No - I'm telling you that an example of a "union done something wrong" is typical overly simplistic anti-union pro-company BS that is short, simple, seems to make sense sans any real analysis, and appeals to the less educated, non-critical thinkers amongst us. Which is why unions seem to have the hardest time getting through to people who hail from areas where education is the worst, and also a good indicator of why in some places education is at it's worst, underfunded, vilified, and always under the gun for budget cuts by the party of corporations and the rich. You know - the South. The ignorant inbred banjo strumming swill swigging duck-calling South where Carharts and Redman and 25 year old pickups held together with bubblegum and spit reign supreme.


> Next you will be telling me the union pension plans that turned out to be empty bank accounts was for my own good so i could carry on working and being a member of the brotherhood.


I'm sorry I must've missed that empty pension fund scandal... But I might point out that the nonunion construction worker has absolutely no pension fund at all, so... thanks for reminding us of that. There's also no jury duty pay, or vacation pay usually, just permission to take time off. Oh and how about the time worked past regular hours being overtime rate... and there's no such thing as a short week with an unpaid holiday off being "made up" with a few hours here and there at straight time, that union members get the overtime for all hours worked past 7 or 8, whatever is a normal work day in your local, even if you took the next day off.


> Now we are back to social media. Unions do not have a great reputation so what have you got to offer me that will change my mind. Basically you are in the service sector so you must have some service to sell me. *I* work for a great company, *I* get paid above average for my job title,* I *get good benefits and* i* get treated with respect.


That's funny because everyone I know not in a union wants to be in one. Not saying some people don't have a bug up their arse about unions - and some are not very good, and some are really fake "company unions" created for the express purpose of preventing a real union from representing their employees. But there's a lot of propaganda out there and some are going to believe it, just like some people believe Jewish space lasers caused California wildfires and vaccines cause autism or have microchips in them, or all of it.

As you might see in your quoted text which I did not change but highlighted, there were an awful lot of *I 's* in there. Which is revealing in that you don't seen to give a crap about other people, your fellow workers, as long as you got yours. You work for a "good company" because they're paying YOU a satisfactory wage. Perhaps they are, or not, but what matters to you seems to be you - so all's right with the world from your perspective. Including the company. Is everyone else there so content there as you seem to be? 

Union membership is for too many just a deduction from the paycheck and many who are members are there only by happenstance or habit, not because they sought it out or subscribe to such concepts such as solidarity and collectivism and standing together as one, or understand to power of collective bargaining. After a few years of paying dues and getting raises and tossing out union informational newsletters and meeting minutes they consider junk mail many, even teachers in colleges, think that it's just an unnecessary payroll deduction and those raises were company policy and going to happen with or without the union... and then decide to actively oust it to save a few bucks. 

But more people are getting wise.


> The union in the UK offered free legal consultation, financial planning and a bunch of other services that made belonging to the Union a worthwhile investment.


We have all that plus legal representation - house closings - and estate planning. But a union local needs to be strong enough and large enough to offer such things.


> I do like the apprenticeship program that the union has over here and i believe that is one redeeming quality even if its a bit closed shop on who gets the apprenticeship.
> 
> I guess im just lucky as i have never worked for a bad company for more than 10 minutes.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

I think with all this back and forth with union vs non-union we have to keep in mind we are all imperfect as the systems in place. Everybody has their own experience with a union. I use to think unions were good, and still do, but in my case I got screwed by them. I also see a lot of hypocrisy with them. UNION members can have an electrical license and have a shop on the side while working for a union shop, but I cannot work on a union job? 
I just heard that Amazon, one of the richest companies in the world, is fighting the union. Their employees have no benefits, low wages, and high pressure. There is a perfect example of where a union is needed. Ironically when it comes to voting for unionization, Amazon wants voter ID because of voter fraud.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

I am not absolving unions of all wrongdoing, I have seen some really over the top BS. One thing I see as a major problem, corporations probably conceded a little too much when things were booming and the rest of the developed world was rebuilding after WWII. They entered into contracts that would not be sustainable. Hindsight is 20/20, but if unions had made some concessions, and the federal regulators had put stronger incentives in place to keep production in the US, some of our hardest hit industries (steel, automotive, rail transport) would still be kicking ass today.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

TGGT said:


> ...
> Mass unionization could help alleviate the societal stresses we are experiencing and raise everyone's standard of living and it would still incentivize WORK.


That's really close to Bolshevism. We can't incentivize work through force, especially when that comes from the government. Work does not make us free.

The indoctrination in upper level education is where most of these ideas really effect a country, and those people don't intend to work in the industrial base of old. They don't want to be industrial workers like their grandparents or older generations. They want the new world de-industrialized first. Their solutions would hopefully come later, but we don't really know what that would look like in order to maintain or even improve standards of living for the poor and middle classes.

If you lay the _working _classes from the past which benefitted the most from unions against the working class that the unions are trying to rope in today you will see a very different class structure.

The working class of old when the movement gained enough steam to basically overthrow an entire country's government were very poor industrial workers. The countries that really need unionizing for rights, even basic human rights, are the biggest industrial nations in the far east and even Africa, but they are already under Communist/Socialist/Fascist rule and may not put aside their caste systems.

I've seen unions work for some people and classes, but unionizing everything is just creating a Communist government.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

gpop said:


> If a state minimum wage is higher than federal then do federal worker in that state get state or federal minimum.


Federal workers are classed by wage grade (WG) and other civil servant grades (GS/GG). There are a few others, and depending on the series code may be eligible to join a bargaining group (union). OPM will delineate which classes of Federal workers get Federal minimum wage and which get wage grade, which is generally higher hourly for blue collar positions vs. hourly white collar positions. Federal contracts pay prevailing wages, whether union or not, but since trades are generally unionized nationwide, they get the jobs. It helps if the company falls under a JWOD group, as well.

Federal Wage System Overview


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

gpop said:


> If a state minimum wage is higher than federal then do federal worker in that state get state or federal minimum.


I believe that the employer will be required to comply with both federal and state minimum wage laws, so the effective minimum is the HIGHER of the two minimum wages. 

However, the federal government considers itself exempt from state minimum wage requirements (see attachment): 



> State and local government minimum wage laws are not binding on the Federal Government and its component agencies since, under the preemption doctrine which originates from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Federal law supersedes conflicting State law. (_See_ U.S. Const. Art. VI. cl. 2.) This is the case when Federal employee pay rates are specifically fixed under Federal law (e.g., GS employees) and when Federal agencies are given discretion in setting rates of pay under Federal law.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

Ah, yes. The good old Supremacy Clause. This is also why we are not bound by the NEC in any given state.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

kb1jb1 said:


> I think with all this back and forth with union vs non-union we have to keep in mind we are all imperfect as the systems in place. Everybody has their own experience with a union. I use to think unions were good, and still do, but in my case I got screwed by them. I also see a lot of hypocrisy with them. UNION members can have an electrical license and have a shop on the side while working for a union shop, but I cannot work on a union job?
> I just heard that Amazon, one of the richest companies in the world, is fighting the union. Their employees have no benefits, low wages, and high pressure. There is a perfect example of where a union is needed. Ironically when it comes to voting for unionization, Amazon wants voter ID because of voter fraud.


Own a nonunion electrical shop on the side and work as a union member? No. That would not be allowed unless the member was working hand in hand with the union to build a union shop, or cut into the market share of nonunion employers or some tactic or program. You cannot work on a union job as a nonunion worker unless the union cannot provide the shop with the labor it needs - but then you have to be represented by the union, get paid union scale, follow the contract, and enjoy the union benefits, without joining.

Yea, Amazon, in Alabama no less, is experiencing some labor strife as an entire distribution center is fed up with them. The NLRB just ruled the vote will happen, in Alabama no less. Who'da thunk it? And considering the state of this union it will be interesting to see how this plays out, because if Amazon pushes too hard it could be just the catalyst needed for this new trend of mass-organization being pushed lately... I suspect Amazon will just let it happen and then slowly divert orders shipped from that warehouse to others until it's closed.



splatz said:


> I am not absolving unions of all wrongdoing, I have seen some really over the top BS. One thing I see as a major problem, corporations probably conceded a little too much when things were booming and the rest of the developed world was rebuilding after WWII. They entered into contracts that would not be sustainable. Hindsight is 20/20, but if unions had made some concessions, and the federal regulators had put stronger incentives in place to keep production in the US, some of our hardest hit industries (steel, automotive, rail transport) would still be kicking ass today.


That's one way to look at it, but it's also the corporate fallacy that contracts were not sustainable or that contracts were too generous. Rail transport was not destroyed by unions. Rail workers didn't have gold toilet bowls. Concessions means workers shouldn't get decent wages, decent standards of living, medical coverage and pensions. Somehow though, CEOs could go from 7X the average worker pay to 70,000 times the average worker pay and nobody seems to have a problem with that.

The automotive industry in America was always profitable, save for some gaffs, attempts to really cheapen the costs of production and design to the point where premature failure was all but guaranteed - but that was an attempt to INCREASE profits. Moving to nonunion states was also an attempt to increase profits. Moving to Mexico was another. What's wrong with constant, consistant profits? It's not enough for psychopathic investors to make money, it always has to be more money. Why is it the American worker and family must suffer for the excesses of the 1%? Unions are greedy? Bad. Corporations are greedy? Good. How did that happen?



splatz said:


> I believe that the employer will be required to comply with both federal and state minimum wage laws, so the effective minimum is the HIGHER of the two minimum wages.
> 
> However, the federal government considers itself exempt from state minimum wage requirements (see attachment):





cuba_pete said:


> Ah, yes. The good old Supremacy Clause. This is also why we are not bound by the NEC in any given state.


Thing is, the Federal government doesn't employ minimum wage lever workers. The Fed employs geologists, annalists, researchers, scientists, medical and industry and trade experts... there's no Federal McDonald's or .99 cent stores.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

cuba_pete said:


> That's really close to Bolshevism. We can't incentivize work through force, especially when that comes from the government. Work does not make us free.
> 
> The indoctrination in upper level education is where most of these ideas really effect a country, and those people don't intend to work in the industrial base of old. They don't want to be industrial workers like their grandparents or older generations. They want the new world de-industrialized first. Their solutions would hopefully come later, but we don't really know what that would look like in order to maintain or even improve standards of living for the poor and middle classes.
> 
> ...


"They don't want industrial jobs?" No... the industrial and blue collar working class factory jobs left because our trade policies allowed it, and our tax policies allowed it and even encouraged it. This left us a glut of workers who had no choice but to shoot for higher education and higher skilled white collar jobs, for which there will never be enough - driving down the price of educated white collar workers and driving up the cost of college education.

Most of the problems in the USA can be tracked back to the free trade agreements, and the lack of employment opportunities. Free trade works when we make cars and dimensional lumber and wallpaper and computer chips, and they make sheetrock and have bananas and oil and clothing. We need some of their stuff, they need some of our stuff. Free trade does not work when they make everything and we pay them for it and they want nothing from us but a receipt.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Own a nonunion electrical shop on the side and work as a union member? No. That would not be allowed unless the member was working hand in hand with the union to build a union shop, or cut into the market share of nonunion employers or some tactic or program. You cannot work on a union job as a nonunion worker unless the union cannot provide the shop with the labor it needs - but then you have to be represented by the union, get paid union scale, follow the contract, and enjoy the union benefits, without joining.
> 
> Yea, Amazon, in Alabama no less, is experiencing some labor strife as an entire distribution center is fed up with them. The NLRB just ruled the vote will happen, in Alabama no less. Who'da thunk it? And considering the state of this union it will be interesting to see how this plays out, because if Amazon pushes too hard it could be just the catalyst needed for this new trend of mass-organization being pushed lately... I suspect Amazon will just let it happen and then slowly divert orders shipped from that warehouse to others until it's closed.
> 
> ...


 I take it you are from Long Island, NY. Last year I was trying to rent out a small office on a main road. We had 7 people inquire about it . One was a psychic. Two were used car dealers. Two local 3 electricians. One local 25 electrician. One retired local 3 electrician. I decided to put my shop in there and not rent it out.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

kb1jb1 said:


> I take it you are from Long Island, NY. Last year I was trying to rent out a small office on a main road. We had 7 people inquire about it . One was a psychic. Two were used car dealers. Two local 3 electricians. One local 25 electrician. One retired local 3 electrician. I decided to put my shop in there and not rent it out.


And this is your response to this?


> Own a nonunion electrical shop on the side and work as a union member? No. That would not be allowed unless the member was working hand in hand with the union to build a union shop, or cut into the market share of nonunion employers or some tactic or program.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Thing is, the Federal government doesn't employ minimum wage lever workers. The Fed employs geologists, annalists, researchers, scientists, medical and industry and trade experts... there's no Federal McDonald's or .99 cent stores.


They generally don't, but a quick search of USA Jobs (especially right before the summer season) will show a lot of openings for Youth Program workers which are at minimum wage for the states the jobs are located in. The commissary store workers all generally start out at the prevailing (minimum) wage as well. Those are indeed Federal jobs, but no, not at Federal minimum wage.

I don't even know what the purpose of a Federal minimum wage is.

Today's listing of minimum wage Federal jobs on USA Jobs.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> "They don't want industrial jobs?" No... the industrial and blue collar working class factory jobs left because our trade policies allowed it, and our tax policies allowed it and even encouraged it. This left us a glut of workers who had no choice but to shoot for higher education and higher skilled white collar jobs, for which there will never be enough - driving down the price of educated white collar workers and driving up the cost of college education.
> 
> Most of the problems in the USA can be tracked back to the free trade agreements, and the lack of employment opportunities. Free trade works when we make cars and dimensional lumber and wallpaper and computer chips, and they make sheetrock and have bananas and oil and clothing. We need some of their stuff, they need some of our stuff. Free trade does not work when they make everything and we pay them for it and they want nothing from us but a receipt.


You're right, I agree. We need to have jobs before we can hire people. We need people to _want _to work. We can unionize all we want but if the government policies keep screwing us as a whole, we're going to be highly qualified blue collar out of work(ers).

I don't think we're going to see a lot of headway on this over the next four years, either. Unless the Biden administration has figured out the solution to the Solyndra problem we really can't see a way forward. And, it's not just him and his staff. there are 535 other a$$holes in just the Federal Congress who need to get their acts together, literally.

People in the US are going to want to maintain their lifestyles, good or bad, while moving "forward". I don't see taking down the upper-middle class (which includes a lot of union workers) and regular upper class as a means to an end. I do wish that the super-rich would actually invest in American businesses again, but there's that government regulation thing again where the Socialists in government want to take, and we all know that Socialism works out until we run out of other people's money to spend. I don't want to tell Bill Gates how to spend his money...it's the same system I've been privileged enough to live in...I had my chance, he had his...he did it much better, good for him.

Do we _really _push for globalism? Do we _really _want all of the workers of the world to unite? Against who? Isn't that what governments wanted with free trade, in part...to unite all workers with no boundaries?

How do we _encourage _the lazy to _want _to work? We apparently failed at instilling the desire at a young age somewhere along the line for a lot of American youth.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

cuba_pete said:


> How do we _encourage _the lazy to _want _to work? We apparently failed at instilling the desire at a young age somewhere along the line for a lot of American youth.


Hard work isn't guaranteed to pay in the United States because we don't believe it should. You need to do more than just work hard. Young workers are capitalists just like you. It doesn't make sense for them to invest time and resources into jobs with weak returns.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

cuba_pete said:


> You're right, I agree. We need to have jobs before we can hire people. We need people to _want _to work. We can unionize all we want but if the government policies keep screwing us as a whole, we're going to be highly qualified blue collar out of work(ers).


Are you under the impression people don't want to work? 5000 apprentice hopefuls who want into our local disagree. Back in the day, I'd hit up a 7-11 or a Dunkin on the regular... and over the months and years a regular parade of clerks parading through these low wage "McJobs." And that was fine. Since the 90's, I've seen the same people making careers out of this. Same people there for years. Not by choice - it's a reflection of the jobs market.


> I don't think we're going to see a lot of headway on this over the next four years, either. Unless the Biden administration has figured out the solution to the Solyndra problem we really can't see a way forward. And, it's not just him and his staff. there are 535 other a$$holes in just the Federal Congress who need to get their acts together, literally.


Solyndra problem?


> People in the US are going to want to maintain their lifestyles, good or bad, while moving "forward". I don't see taking down the upper-middle class (which includes a lot of union workers) and regular upper class as a means to an end. I do wish that the super-rich would actually invest in American businesses again, but there's that government regulation thing again where the Socialists in government want to take, and we all know that Socialism works out until we run out of other people's money to spend. I don't want to tell Bill Gates how to spend his money...it's the same system I've been privileged enough to live in...I had my chance, he had his...he did it much better, good for him.


Maintain their lifestyles? No, the point is for Americans to better their lifestyles. You seem to be of the delusion the problem is people don't want to work for what they want - and want it handed to them - possibly by those in the class above them. That's not the solution being proposed. This isn't about robin-hooding by the government, it's about reversing the robber baron mentality and business model corporations follow these days. I could go on point by point but it's nothing you've never heard before. America must stop the import of goods from foreign countries. Not tariff. And not all goods.

Were we to produce our own durable goods - thousands of factories would have to start up in the US. We need to have the tenacity and fortitude and redirect our empathy within our own borders. Let Germany, Mexico, China, Japan, and the Philippines take care of themselves. The counter argument to this is that corporations would charge more because the increased cost of labor - but that assumes corporations would demand the same profits from products produced by 40 dollar an hour workers making the same products and the 2 dollar an hour workers. But the reality is that they're already charging the highest prices the market can bear, and the fact that an F-150 is 70,000.00 is proof of that. Made in Mexico. Other proof is the wildly excessive profits we're seeing in the market. Yes I said it, is that a bad word? It is to workers - Americans, because when corporations profit far and above it's because the workers did not get a share of the production gains. And the consumers sure as hell aren't seeing lower prices.



> Do we _really _push for globalism? Do we _really _want all of the workers of the world to unite? Against who? Isn't that what governments wanted with free trade, in part...to unite all workers with no boundaries?


Globalism? That is pushed by the the 1%. Globalism is the corporation buying low from Honduras and selling high to the USA. Governments didn't want free trade to unite workers. Where do you get this stuff? What do you have some bottomless ass you pull this crap out of?


> How do we _encourage _the lazy to _want _to work? We apparently failed at instilling the desire at a young age somewhere along the line for a lot of American youth.


The only lazy people presenting any problem are the ones sitting on gold toilets counting their dividends.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Are you under the impression people don't want to work? 5000 apprentice hopefuls who want into our local disagree. Back in the day, I'd hit up a 7-11 or a Dunkin on the regular... and over the months and years a regular parade of clerks parading through these low wage "McJobs." And that was fine. Since the 90's, I've seen the same people making careers out of this. Same people there for years. Not by choice - it's a reflection of the jobs market.


Nothing I say is an infinitive, except for the beginning of this sentence. Please understand that I am not 100% against what many on this forum are saying. Obviously everyone in the US needs to work together, better at least.

A _lot _of people don't want to work, as in, outdoors sweating, toiling, getting dirty and making minimum wage such as a field worker/picker or even outdoors working in the ice and snow. It might be indoors getting hot, sweaty, greasy...processing chicken or beef. I know I didn't like it when I was a kid, cleaning up meat processing areas at the end of the day! I knew I didn't want to do that for the any longer than I had to!

A lot might be 10% of the working population or it might be 50%...we don't really know. It depends on who one listens to. We might complain about 9% unemployment in Hawai'i while South Dakota complains about 3%. It's relative.

A _lot _of people want robots and people who are willing to work for very little pay to do their dirty work.



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Solyndra problem?


I'm using that as an example of what Biden hopes to accomplish with shutting down XL and saying solar and wind are where he is going to create jobs. Solyndra as in the failed solar energy plant/company. Biden was the VP under Obama..._come on_, man...you have to remember that! It's the type of new jobs that President Biden is saying that the XL would have provided for.



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Maintain their lifestyles? No, the point is for Americans to better their lifestyles. You seem to be of the delusion the problem is people don't want to work for what they want - and want it handed to them - possibly by those in the class above them. That's not the solution being proposed. This isn't about robin-hooding by the government, it's about reversing the robber baron mentality and business model corporations follow these days. I could go on point by point but it's nothing you've never heard before. America must stop the import of goods from foreign countries. Not tariff. And not all goods.


Yes...better their lifestyles...that is more accurate. But, if they can't even _maintain _their lifestyles, bettering is even _less _of an option.



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Were we to produce our own durable goods - thousands of factories would have to start up in the US. We need to have the tenacity and fortitude and redirect our empathy within our own borders. Let Germany, Mexico, China, Japan, and the Philippines take care of themselves. The counter argument to this is that corporations would charge more because the increased cost of labor - but that assumes corporations would demand the same profits from products produced by 40 dollar an hour workers making the same products and the 2 dollar an hour workers. But the reality is that they're already charging the highest prices the market can bear, and the fact that an F-150 is 70,000.00 is proof of that. Made in Mexico. Other proof is the wildly excessive profits we're seeing in the market. Yes I said it, is that a bad word? It is to workers - Americans, because when corporations profit far and above it's because the workers did not get a share of the production gains. And the consumers sure as hell aren't seeing lower prices.


That paragraph is pretty good. What you describe is part of what I was saying earlier about my own family. My cousin lost her job at the Ford plant in Michigan a few years ago, around the same time that American Axle closed up shop in Hamtramck. Those jobs went to Mexico as well. The UAW saw pay drop from $45 to $30 according to that article, and they still closed the entire factory and moved it.

I wonder if those workers want to move to Mexico to follow those jobs, like the XL workers are expected to pull up roots to move to wherever the work is.

And Ford made record profits before, during, and after the 2008 crunch and then killed jobs while doing it. There are your gold-plated toilets.

Trust me, I see what you are talking about.



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Globalism? That is pushed by the the 1%. Globalism is the corporation buying low from Honduras and selling high to the USA. Governments didn't want free trade to unite workers. Where do you get this stuff? What do you have some bottomless ass you pull this crap out of?


*I pull that crap out of the European Union* which the UK is hopefully extracting itself from. This isn't made up...it's happening all over the world, ergo: globalism.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Globalism? That is pushed by the the 1%. Globalism is the corporation buying low from Honduras and selling high to the USA. Governments didn't want free trade to unite workers. Where do you get this stuff? What do you have some bottomless ass you pull this crap out of?


Maybe you should join the EFBWW and tell them they're all a bunch of elitist snob 1%'rs. Show them what Marxism is all about. I'm sure the Europeans can learn from you.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

Solyndra, Isn't that the $750 million failed solar panel plant that was obsolete before the built it? What about the Buffalo Billion? The $980 million solar panel plant that NY State funded up in Buffalo, NY. It went belly up and Tesla took it over. A lot of the green energy stuff cannot be built in this country because of the pollution standards. Especially batteries.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

Yeah...we could do it in the US, it just wouldn't be financially viable. The projects would need huge government subsidies, giant unions, and a lot of other peoples' money (which would make other people multi-millionaires) and help people stay at minimum wage, just like the good old days. Be happy! You have a job...and owe your soul to the company store.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

cuba_pete said:


> Nothing I say is an infinitive, except for the beginning of this sentence. Please understand that I am not 100% against what many on this forum are saying. Obviously everyone in the US needs to work together, better at least.
> 
> A _lot _of people don't want to work, as in, outdoors sweating, toiling, getting dirty and making minimum wage such as a field worker/picker or even outdoors working in the ice and snow. It might be indoors getting hot, sweaty, greasy...processing chicken or beef. I know I didn't like it when I was a kid, cleaning up meat processing areas at the end of the day! I knew I didn't want to do that for the any longer than I had to!


No no no... a lot of people don't want to work in shitty jobs under shitty conditions with fast moving conveyors and production quotas in stinky unsafe environments, or... outdoors in the blazing sun tarring roofs or... swinging hammers on newly framed houses or... mowing lawns and raking leaves or... repointing buildings... (drumroll please) FOR PEANUTS.

Every man has his price and any American will do any work that is available they are physically capable of doing - but not for **** wages and no benefits and all while being treated like a bastard readheaded stepchild. Back in the day a butcher was in every grocery store - who cut the meat and packaged it - and for other stores there were the meatpackers union - those were not great jobs, but you could earn a living and raise a family and pay the mortgage... There was no shortage of applicants for those good paying union jobs. Now it's the immigrants where Tyson put ads in Mexican newspapers for poultry, beef and pork process workers. Owning 85% of the packaged and distributed meat market in the US.

Just like there's a growing income gap between the top mamagement and the middle working class, there's an ever widening income gap between the middle class and the blue collar class. Time was Bert the cop, Ernie the cab driver, and George the banker were birds of a feather... now the wages on blue collar skilled and unskilled work has remained flat since the 70's, has fallen well behind the inflation curve, and the conditions of more production demanded, and the "internalize profits, externalize liabilities" edict has making working in those positions even less attractive as people take those jobs simply because they have to. Oftentimes, because their worker status is "sketchy" and requires a degree of "plausible deniability."

Why do you think all these posters here are proudly showing off their collection of battery powered sawzalls, porta-bands, and hammer drills, threaders and grinders and impact guns? When the hell did the nonunion sector go from hiring employees with hand tools to requiring them to provide the power tools as well? When did roofers go from wearing company issued jumpsuits to wearing throwaway clothes purchases at the Goodwill?

If we as a country are to "globalize" exactly what is that supposed to mean? That all workers become disposable chattle owning nothing, entitled to nothing but the bare minimum in order to go home, wake up the next day ready to do it all again, with zero hope or chance of bettering themselves and their families lives, and no extra for eating out, a vacation or two, a nice car, sending a kid to college, proper medical care... while the company owners and corporate investors live like kings? Because that's where we are headed.



> A lot might be 10% of the working population or it might be 50%...we don't really know. It depends on who one listens to. We might complain about 9% unemployment in Hawai'i while South Dakota complains about 3%. It's relative.
> 
> A _lot _of people want robots and people who are willing to work for very little pay to do their dirty work.


What makes you think unemployment is the result of worker laziness? A lot of people want to save a buck - and have to, they've no choice. People hire handymen from Craigslist to fix the receptacle because calling a real contractor is out of the question, financially. But a lot of people want to pay very little to do the dirty work because they can get away with it. It's a business model. And when you're competing with others following that model, it's almost impossible not to whether you want to or not. This is known as the race to the bottom. Exploiting labor is going to happen when the conditions are set for it to happen, and it's never off the table when a corporation legally cares about one thing only- the bottom line.

What makes it possible in the USA? Lax labor laws and standards and lack of funding the ones you do have. Who pushes for these things? Lack of worker education in our schools and education on labor law and employees rights - who pushes for that? Laws that stop or prevent of make unions financially possible or viable- who is out there advocating for that under the guise of "protecting workers rights to not have to pay union dues?"

What else make exploitation possible? Having a glut of workers in the USA. A shortage of jobs drives down wages. Who demands a raise when the overall feeling is you're lucky to even have a job? Open 500 factories in the US employing 1000 each and suddenly Target, the trucking company, the roofing company, and Starbucks and McDonalds isn't the primary employer in town... and competition for labor goes up - employees are seen as a much needed asset instead of a disposable, devalued commodity.


> I'm using that as an example of what Biden hopes to accomplish with shutting down XL and saying solar and wind are where he is going to create jobs. Solyndra as in the failed solar energy plant/company. Biden was the VP under Obama..._come on_, man...you have to remember that! It's the type of new jobs that President Biden is saying that the XL would have provided for.


OK I see what you're referring to, but not what point you're trying to make. Solyndra was but one small failure of a program that was implemented which the right wouldn't stop crowing about and it was used to paint the entire green movement as an abject failure. Green energy isn't a question of if, it is a question of when. And subsidizing the oil industry and allowing for the construction of pipelines to further the reach of the oil industry is the antithesis of the direction we should be headed.


> Yes...better their lifestyles...that is more accurate. But, if they can't even _maintain _their lifestyles, bettering is even _less _of an option.


True, and the banking industry was right there to cash in on the dysfunction and lend for college and lend for houses demanding the government drop those pesky regulations like proving income and ability to pay and no more of that 25% of gross income to house payment garbage... so that Americans could fool themselves into their lifestyle by getting into perpetual debt. And then fool American investors into purchasing commodities like safe AAA rated bonds of mortgage debt that the mortgagees proved their value and stability by making all of 3 on-time payments... until that came crashing down.

Now who pushed for easing all those different banking ans investment regulations to make all that possible? Where did all the money go?


> That paragraph is pretty good. What you describe is part of what I was saying earlier about my own family. My cousin lost her job at the Ford plant in Michigan a few years ago, around the same time that American Axle closed up shop in Hamtramck. Those jobs went to Mexico as well. The UAW saw pay drop from $45 to $30 according to that article, and they still closed the entire factory and moved it.
> 
> I wonder if those workers want to move to Mexico to follow those jobs, like the XL workers are expected to pull up roots to move to wherever the work is.


Sorry for the XL workers but, if you want to make an omlet you have to crack some eggs. If we stop importing and make our own durable goods, there's going to be a lot of job losses at the ports and in trucking too... But you are taking a tiny bit of bad news and using it to decry the overall betterment of everyone in the country - a typical right wing tactic. Nobody has a solution that will have no bad effects on somebody, if that's what you need to go along with a national policy I'm afraid you are never going to be satisfied with anything the government ever does. And maybe that's the position you want to be in.


> And Ford made record profits before, during, and after the 2008 crunch and then killed jobs while doing it. There are your gold-plated toilets.
> 
> Trust me, I see what you are talking about.


Just because a company makes record profits doesn't mean they're satisfied. Joe and the dems are going to have to get on the ball on a lot of different issues, monopolization is another one. And it's clear neither he nor the current dem party is interested in too much progress, too radical of an idea, or making too many waves. It's typical the dems want to stop the right wing carnage against the non-1%, but I don't see them pushing for fixing any of the damage already done, or reversing course.




> *I pull that crap out of the European Union* which the UK is hopefully extracting itself from. This isn't made up...it's happening all over the world, ergo: globalism.


Pretty sure the UK is pulling out to implement even more vulture capitalism, If I'm wrong I hope so.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

Whew. I think I’m gonna have some wine and regroup. That’s some good convo today.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

TGGT said:


> European countries have done a better job balancing capital with protections. Sectoral bargaining would cross state lines, and cover entire industries (sectors).
> 
> _Unions were most successful in now-stagnating or shrinking industries like manufacturing and transportation; investors are less willing to put money into firms where unions capture some of their profits; and unions increase labor costs for employers, who respond by hiring fewer workers. Western and Farber found that unionized firms’ slower growth accounted for most of the decline in union membership between the 1970s and ’90s.
> 
> ...


I don't believe you read the entire article you posted, here is a huge highlight you left out



> a significant share of sectoral contracts in France specify minimum wages lower than France’s legal minimum, meaning they have no practical effect.


LOL









Which Countries Have The Highest Levels Of Labor Union Membership? [Infographic]


Across most developed nations, labor union membership is getting rarer. Back in 1985, 30 percent of workers in OECD countries were labor union members and that has now fallen to just 17 percent. Which countries have the highest and lowest levels of membership today?




www.forbes.com


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

If Amazon is such a terrible place to work then why do so many people willingly work there? Why did they leave their old job for Amazon, Amazon has not been around very long.
Why don't they start their own small business and pay themselves as much as they want hourly and with as great of benefits as they want? I mean by the way you all talk, business owners and investors wipe their a$$es with 100's so why don't they start a business or start investing? Why are they all on $1,000 phones, paying ridiculous monthly phone bills to play candy crush, paying for netflix or cable out the nose......

Why don't they just save some of that wasted money and invest it, I mean the way you all describe it business owners and investors just put money in a machine and get 2x back every time while they are just sitting on the beach in tahiti, why don't whining workers just do that if it is so easy for owners and investors?

I have a theory, because people like you lie to them and tell them that they are victims, that it doesn't matter how hard they try, the system is rigged against them, that their only hope is a politician or union boss.

ANY one, ANY person in the United States of America has the opportunity for a great life, without anyone coming to save them, all on their own.

But ANYONE that listens to this victim, zero sum mindset bull$hit you are spreading, will be miserable bums no matter what you give them. There's no shining knight, no one is coming to save you, just get off your ass and use your head.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Wiresmith said:


> I don't believe you read the entire article you posted, here is a huge highlight you left out
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That doesn't detract from my point. Sweden, Germany and Italy don't have federal minimum wages. We need a better deal for Americans.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

TGGT said:


> That doesn't detract from my point. Sweden, Germany and Italy don't have federal minimum wages. We need a better deal for Americans.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


We have the better deal already

Median annual wages
Sweden 60k minus 57% income tax and mandated union dues
Germany 70k minus mandated union dues and higher taxes
Italy 54k
U.S. 69k, no union dues, lower taxes and this includes far more immigrants coming from third world countries








Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019


This report presents data on income, earnings, income inequality & poverty in the United States based on information collected in the 2018 and earlier CPS ASEC.




www.census.gov





Do you really believe your grievance is anything more than "there are rich people in the U.S. and somehow that isn't fair because everyone isn't rich"?

Sincerely, that is all I see from your stance.

The U.S. isn't perfect, but it's the best system there is. Changes, no matter how well intentioned, don't always deliver what's desired. Check the bath water for the baby before you throw it out.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Wiresmith said:


> If Amazon is such a terrible place to work then why do so many people willingly work there? Why did they leave their old job for Amazon, Amazon has not been around very long.
> Why don't they start their own small business and pay themselves as much as they want hourly and with as great of benefits as they want? I mean by the way you all talk, business owners and investors wipe their a$$es with 100's so why don't they start a business or start investing? Why are they all on $1,000 phones, paying ridiculous monthly phone bills to play candy crush, paying for netflix or cable out the nose......
> 
> Why don't they just save some of that wasted money and invest it, I mean the way you all describe it business owners and investors just put money in a machine and get 2x back every time while they are just sitting on the beach in tahiti, why don't whining workers just do that if it is so easy for owners and investors?
> ...


We got trump because of that gaslighting mindset. America isn't better for it, the country is very sick and more right wing rugged individualism won't fix it. FDR didn't pass the new deal because he was a socialist, he passed it to cull the growing socialist movement in the US.

My wife started her business out of necessity. Quality childcare was too expensive, part time work was too low paying, social security will not be enough to survive on. We took the risk out of desperation, not some entrepreneurial spirit.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

TGGT said:


> We got trump because of that gaslighting mindset. America isn't better for it, the country is very sick and more right wing rugged individualism won't fix it. FDR didn't pass the new deal because he was a socialist, he passed it to cull the growing socialist movement in the US.
> 
> My wife started her business out of necessity. Quality childcare was too expensive, part time work was too low paying, social security is not enough to survive on. We took the risk out of desperation, not some entrepreneurial spirit.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Do you believe what investors and business people do is valuable? Do you believe it is in higher demand (compensation wise) than labor? Do you believe bureaucrats would be better at determining what we invest in?

We got the America we have today because of the get off your ass and use your head mindset, the risk and reward free market, not the play the victim and hold your hand out and just whine until someone else saves you, with that attitude no one does anything but sit around an whine, while the thinkers(investors and business people), the leaders, the type of people that have led us to the best time in the history of man find people that will follow them to a brighter future.

Before the term "employee" we called it servant or slave, you are a follower to a large extent of your employer, you are choosing to follow another man, you can lead yourself but you are choosing to follow another man. Where your system breaks down is you want to disenfranchise your leader(s), they are your leaders because they are better at it, otherwise why are you following them? Quit following them and lead yourself and others if you would be better than them.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Wiresmith said:


> Do you believe what investors and business people do is valuable? Do you believe it is in higher demand (compensation wise) than labor? Do you believe bureaucrats would be better at determining what we invest in?
> 
> We got the America we have today because of the get off your ass and use your head mindset, the risk and reward free market, not the play the victim and hold your hand out and just whine until someone else saves you, with that attitude no one does anything but sit around an whine, while the thinkers(investors and business people), the leaders, the type of people that have led us to the best time in the history of man find people that will follow them to a brighter future.
> 
> Before the term "employee" we called it servant or slave, you are a follower to a large extent of your employer, you are choosing to follow another man, you can lead yourself but you are choosing to follow another man. Where your system breaks down is you want to disenfranchise your leader(s), they are your leaders because they are better at it, otherwise why are you following them? Quit following them and lead yourself and others if you would be better than them.


I don't understand how you conflate stronger union protections with "leader" disenfranchisement. What I'm advocating for is the broadening and strengthening union protections and privileges closer to what they _used_ to be. In this scenario unions are still a market mechanism. People that sign up are literally _paying _to have somebody advocate and negotiate on their behalf. That's not holding your hand out (unless you're a free-rider in a right to work state) waiting for someone to save you. 

I've watched folks on here argue about the minimum wage, that's why I brought up the fact many of the countries with more union participation don't bother to have them. I see no irony in that despite how low union participation is in Florida, they just voted itself a $15 minimum wage.

Having stronger unions is not going to discourage entrepreneurship, or stop leaders from leading, it never has, and never will.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

TGGT said:


> I don't understand how you conflate stronger union protections with "leader" disenfranchisement. What I'm advocating for is the broadening and strengthening union protections and privileges closer to what they _used_ to be. In this scenario unions are still a market mechanism. People that sign up are literally _paying _to have somebody advocate and negotiate on their behalf. That's not holding your hand out (unless you're a free-rider in a right to work state) waiting for someone to save you.
> 
> I've watched folks on here argue about the minimum wage, that's why I brought up the fact many of the countries with more union participation don't bother to have them. I see no irony in that despite how low union participation is in Florida, they just voted itself a $15 minimum wage.
> 
> Having stronger unions is not going to discourage entrepreneurship, or stop leaders from leading, it never has, and never will.


Where do you want the money to come from to pay these union dues for national sectoral bargaining or national union membership, or for raising burger flipper wages?

Don't you want that money to come from investors and business people?

Reducing the monetary incentive to be an investor or business person does discourage entrepreneurship, most don't do it for fun.

post 58


TGGT said:


> America isn't better for it, the country is very sick and more right wing rugged individualism won't fix it.


Just for transparency to try to better understand each other, I disagree with your use of the term individualism, business and the free market is a team sport, not having unions doesn't make it individualism, even a one man business contains partnerships with customers and vendors. And obviously a multi employee company is not individualism, it is a "company" in the actual traditional use of the word.

company
[ˈkəmp(ə)nē]
NOUN
a number of individuals gathered together, especially for a particular purpose.


post 58


TGGT said:


> My wife started her business out of necessity. Quality childcare was too expensive, part time work was too low paying, social security will not be enough to survive on. We took the risk out of desperation, not some entrepreneurial spirit.


Don't you think expanding unionism would raise those "quality childcare" rates? Aren't you already a well paid union worker? Were those childcare providers union? If you are a well paid union worker and those childcare providers are "low" paid non-union workers, wouldn't the ratio be even less practical for you if they were unionized?

I appreciate the conversation by the way, thank you. If I didn't respect you I wouldn't be talking to you, I just see things differently and am curious as to how you come to your conclusions.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Wiresmith said:


> Where do you want the money to come from to pay these union dues for national sectoral bargaining or national union membership, or for raising burger flipper wages?
> 
> Don't you want that money to come from investors and business people?
> 
> ...


I'm not like Hack, I don't want to get into the weeds and break down your post and respond to each question. I'll say this, speaking broadly. Our country has seen 3 times the rate of union participation and wasn't worse for it. That participation shrank due to hostile conservative governments, complacent liberal governments, offshoring, technologies, changing demographics, relic union business models and effective anti-union marketing and well compensated professional union busters. You can't tell me with a straight face that unionization has not been under attack for decades. It's not a cure all, it's just one way to address some of the ills the nation faces. It doesn't stop people from investing, it doesn't disenfranchise business owners.

As far as your other questions, if you really want to delve into the other topics further I'll participate in another thread.

*



Perhaps most importantly, the PRO Act would treat labor rights as civil rights and provide workers access to courts when their rights are violated and the NLRB fails to act.

Click to expand...

*


> Currently, unlike in discrimination cases, wage and hour cases, and most other workplace rights violations, workers cannot bring a case alleging violation of labor rights to court: they can only bring a charge before the NLRB. The NLRB then chooses whether to bring a complaint to court on the workers’ behalf, and if a complaint does not issue, the workers are then left without a route to vindicating their claims.











The PRO Act Is the Labor Reform That Workers Need and Deserve


When the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also known as the Wagner Act, was passed in 1935, it was intended to broadly promote workers’ rights to




tcf.org


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

TGGT said:


> I'm not like Hack, I don't want to get into the weeds and break down your post and respond to each question. I'll say this, speaking broadly. Our country has seen 3 times the rate of union participation and wasn't worse for it. That participation shrank due to hostile conservative governments, complacent liberal governments, offshoring, technologies, changing demographics, relic union business models and effective anti-union marketing and well compensated professional union busters. You can't tell me with a straight face that unionization has not been under attack for decades. It's not a cure all, it's just one way to address some of the ills the nation faces. It doesn't stop people from investing, it doesn't disenfranchise business owners.
> 
> As far as your other questions, if you really want to delve into the other topics further I'll participate in another thread.
> 
> ...


Please respond however best you see fit, I think by just me asking those questions it gives you a better idea of how I am thinking on this issue, I'm not grilling you on a witness stand.

I agree unionization has been under attack, I attack it.



TGGT said:


> Our country has seen 3 times the rate of union participation and wasn't worse for it. That participation shrank due to hostile conservative governments, complacent liberal governments, offshoring, technologies, changing demographics, relic union business models and effective anti-union marketing and well compensated professional union busters. You can't tell me with a straight face that unionization has not been under attack for decades. It's not a cure all, it's just one way to address some of the ills the nation faces. It doesn't stop people from investing, it doesn't disenfranchise business owners.


what hostile government actions do you believe drove unions out?
Business or government can not stop unions if the workers walk off the job(strike), when has the U.S. government forced union members back on the job? Just to be transparent, I support a workers right to walk off the job(strike), collectively or alone, you don't need a labor organization with a billion dollar building in D.C. like IBEW paying Union Bosses 500k a year and insider trading their workers pensions to do, I honestly don't even know what.

offshoring, do you not believe this is because unions fought against the free market and lost? capital moves easier than workers can, muscle jobs go where muscle costs less.

So when you have a grievance or you think you're not being compensated enough what do you do? Don't you have to speak with someone about that? So you are not ridding that element when you change from non-union to union.

Do you believe non-union business operators are not incentivized already to pay their employees as well as they possibly think they can, and treat them as well as they think they possibly can? Their business only continues and grows if they retain and gain employees, which means being a better employer than the other guy.



TGGT said:


> It doesn't stop people from investing, it doesn't disenfranchise business owners.


In a sense your statement is true, but not the way you mean it, it does stop people form investing here and it does disenfranchise business owners that stay here. It also stops new investors and entrepreneurs from coming in and replacing the ones that die, take your wife's business for example, I know you said it was out of necessity but that is what most people work because of (I know you know this, I am just stating it to show my line of thinking).

So your wife started her own business, she is an entrepreneur, which I believe and I think you at least somewhat share this belief, I believe entrepreneurship is critical for real social progress, if you as a couple were compensated more which I believe is your intention with widespread unionizing, would she have started her business?


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Wiresmith said:


> Please respond however best you see fit, I think by just me asking those questions it gives you a better idea of how I am thinking on this issue, I'm not grilling you on a witness stand.
> 
> I agree unionization has been under attack, I attack it.
> 
> ...


So you're not grilling me, but your responses are riddled with questions that are topics in their own right. The history of union and anti-union legislation is long. I don't think you're asking these questions because you actually care to know, you are perfectly capable of googling it yourself. I've worked non-union and I've worked union. Even with its flaws, union is still hands down better.

In theory only good employers would exists because nobody would work for bad employers. Empirical evidence proves this isn't true for a multitude of reasons. The larger the number of employees a company employees the greater their responsibility to fair compensation because their influence on society also increases which is why there's so much focus on walmart, amazon, fast food etc. That goes for anything at scale.

No, I don't think she would have started her business if I made more. Her business is not critical for social progress and she knows this. It's a frivolous service wealthy housewives are willing to spend money heavily based on models and theories found in e-myth, profit first, and scaling up.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

TGGT said:


> So you're not grilling me, but your responses are riddled with questions that are topics in their own right. The history of union and anti-union legislation is long. I don't think you're asking these questions because you actually care to know, you are perfectly capable of googling it yourself. I've worked non-union and I've worked union. Even with its flaws, union is still hands down better.
> 
> In theory only good employers would exists because nobody would work for bad employers. Empirical evidence proves this isn't true for a multitude of reasons. The larger the number of employees a company employees the greater their responsibility to fair compensation because their influence on society also increases which is why there's so much focus on walmart, amazon, fast food etc. That goes for anything at scale.
> 
> No, I don't think she would have started her business if I made more. Her business is not critical for social progress and she knows this. It's a frivolous service wealthy housewives are willing to spend money heavily based on models and theories found in e-myth, profit first, and scaling up.


I meant more emphasis on the witness stand part, I'm not going to attack you for not answering a question I ask, I understand if you don't answer all of them and just respond the way you think is best for the conversation, it would be a waste of time and energy if you think they are not significant.

Theory of good employers, good is relative, my point was progress, continual progress, not always linear or even forward but in general forward progress.

Larger employers responsibility, I think they have the most to lose (or gain) by not attracting or retaining not only their minimal requirement of labor but also good quality workers, I think unionizing them could actually mask a problem that could later manifest into some very mischievous maneuvers by the owners if they are unwillingly unionized, I'm thinking politically would be at least one avenue. Also, Robots.

I also think, Jeff Bezos and the Waltons at least in their own little niches, are brilliant that bettered society in the grand scheme of things, did some things if you look narrowly at them that were harmful, but I think these types of people and behavior should not be hindered but celebrated and admired, when they do something bad they should be rebuked but I think you know what I mean. And if they're not doing something bad then they should be let to run wild, I think more capital in the hands of a mind like Bezos is a safe bet, I would like to see what he does next, take a look at Musk, most of these types of people are not one hit wonders and the more capital they have to play with the more society benefits.

Small entrepreneurs, you might not think her business is critical for social progress, and it might be hard to argue that specific business is *critical*, but I imagine you see my line of thinking of how that plays in other types of start ups. It's not important to this conversation but I actually think her business does contribute to progress, maybe in a bit of a convoluted way, but why else are people buying from her? At least in those peoples eyes she is offering something of value that wasn't otherwise there, something they wanted or even thought they needed (i don't mean the product, she may be selling products but she provides a service, Walmart does as well even though they get paid purely for products).

I completely believe you about your experience and how you are bettered by being union, I think I am viewing things on a bit more macro and longer term basis and bettering society as a whole, in my opinion you personally are in a better position being a union electrician while most the rest of the country is non union, it keeps costs down while your wages higher (the ratio I referred to before).


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

I know this is getting a little dull and I expect you are losing interest in the conversation, if so, thanks for sharing your thoughts and actually hearing me out.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

PRO Act passed the house.

Some of the things that the PRO Act would do include:



Creating monetary penalties against employers who try to illegally bust unions
Strengthening protections for workers who are wrongly fired during union organizing campaigns
Allowing workers to take employers to court when they’ve broken collective bargaining laws
Making it easier for newly formed unions to secure their first contracts
Bolstering workers’ rights related to strikes and boycotts
Overriding anti-union “right to work” laws that have now spread to a majority of states
Making it harder for companies like Uber to avoid unions by using “independent contractors”


----------

