Freedom wins...big government loses...Boeing Bill passes

[bripat9643]

That's pure union propaganda.

No, it's entirely true and a documented fact. Strong unions raise the pay of everyone across the board, including those who don't belong to unions. The reason this happens is that the owner of a non-union company in an industry with a strong union presence has to pay his people something in the range of union scale, or he risks both losing people to union companies and increasing his own employees' incentive to organize.

Wrong. that's self-serving union horseshit. Unions can't change the laws of supply and demand. The only way unions can increase the wages of their members is by reducing the supply of labor. That means fewer jobs in the unionized industry. It means a lot of people are locked out of good paying jobs. Non-union workers do not benefit from the presence of a union. they are some of the victims of the unions.

When union thugs can't use extortion to impose higher wages on a business, then the pay offered will depend on your skill level and performance.

Companies never pay employees what they deserve based on skill level and performance. Companies pay the wages that they must, just as they pay the cost that they must for all expenses of doing business. The only way to increase wages paid is to make companies pay more, in one way or another.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

That has got to be in the top 10 list of dumbest claims ever posted in this forum. The law of supply and demand is what makes companies pay higher wages. There is more demand and less supply of workers with high skill levels and who perform well. Any claims to the contrary are based on ignorance.

EDIT: Oh, and as already noted, this isn't going anywhere, it will die in the Senate. And as for the Democrats being punished for supporting unions:

New poll numbers show support for unions over union-busting governors

"Denial" is not a river in Egypt. The public is tired of union thuggery. The game is over.

 

[bripat9643]

I just love all the subtle euphemisms organized labor has developed to explain their "services." They are so similar to the language the Mafia uses that it's hilarious.

A better set of terms might perhaps be borrowed from the military. You know, arming ourselves so that we can fight with business as equals instead of being slaughtered without any ability to fight back, that sort of thing. Because that's really what it is.

I never realized that weapons and lethal force were used in business negotiations. On the other hand, when we are discussing unions, we are talking about an organized gang of thugs.

 

[Full-Auto]

I just love all the subtle euphemisms organized labor has developed to explain their "services." They are so similar to the language the Mafia uses that it's hilarious.

A better set of terms might perhaps be borrowed from the military. You know, arming ourselves so that we can fight with business as equals instead of being slaughtered without any ability to fight back, that sort of thing. Because that's really what it is.

I never realized that weapons and lethal force were used in business negotiations. On the other hand, when we are discussing unions, we are talking about an organized gang of thugs.

The unions cant claim harm if employment rose. And it did.

 

[bripat9643]

The bill passed by the House is intended to remove the NLRB's ability to enforce the law.

So what? That's what Congress does: makes laws and then unmakes them.

 

[Dragon]

Wrong. that's self-serving union horseshit. Unions can't change the laws of supply and demand.

Supply and demand are only part of the causative factors behind price, especially the price of something like labor. Bargaining strength between buyer and seller also matters. Unions can increase the bargaining strength of labor, resulting in a higher base price for labor which is the point of departure for fluctuations based on supply and demand.

Also, as noted below high wages increase the demand for labor by increasing consumer demand for the products of labor. This more than compensates for any drag on hiring due to higher labor costs.

The only way unions can increase the wages of their members is by reducing the supply of labor.

Apparently not, since the time when unions were strongest in our economy were also the times when unemployment was consistently lowest.

I understand your reasoning but you are leaving out an important factor. Because unions raise wages, they increase consumer demand, which increases demand for the products of labor, which increases demand for labor. The net effect is an increase in hiring, not a decrease in it.

By the way, I'm going to snip any gratuitous insults, angry exclamations, or other examples of empty rhetoric because they don't deserve a reply. If you still have a psychological need for such crap for some reason, go ahead and continue to waste the bandwidth, but I'm going to reply only to things with actual cognitive content.

The law of supply and demand is what makes companies pay higher wages.

As noted above, there are aspects of supply and demand you aren't considering, but in any case this is simply repeating what I said: companies pay for labor what they must, not what it deserves. It's true that against any given baseline, which is set by other factors, companies will pay more for experienced and capable labor than they will for green and inexperienced labor, but it is possible to take actions that raise or lower the baseline and so mean that ALL labor, at ALL levels of experience, is paid more or less. And that's what unions are about: insuring that labor received a bigger slice of the pie.

"Denial" is not a river in Egypt. The public is tired of union thuggery. The game is over.

The difference here is that I actually offered evidence to support my claim of where the public stands, where you offered none whatsoever but merely exclaimed angrily. So who's in denial here? Not I.

 

[Dragon]

Harry Reid and Obama are more interested in keeping unions happy then they are in creating jobs.

It will never come to a vote in the Senate as long as the Dems control it.

If it did, it would be voted down in any case. I agree this will not pass the Senate. Even if it did, Obama would veto it.

However, where I disagree is with the implied conflict between "keeping unions happy" and "creating jobs." High wages, which arise from union strength, increase consumer demand which increases demand for labor which boosts employment. Unions result in lower, not higher unemployment, as is historically demonstrated, and logically inevitable if you understand who the real "job creators" are.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Wrong. He states the simple fact that union strikes cost Boeing billions of dollars and threaten it's ability to stay in business. That isn't "retaliation." That is stating the business reason for the move.

It's also retaliation. The law says that a business cannot end the jobs of union members in retaliation for any lawful union action, including a strike. As this relocation would end the jobs of union members and is being done in retaliation for the strike, it is unlawful.

When the company adds that the strike cost the company a lot of money, that's not adding anything pertinent. It's just whining. A strike is supposed to cost the company money, otherwise there's no point to striking at all. In any case, a company can no more relocate so as to break a union than it can fire people for trying to form one.

So, care to explain any laws broken by Boeing building a shop in a right to work state?

They have the right to do business anywhere they damn well please.......You communist union dupes just hate that shit.

 

[Dragon]

So, care to explain any laws broken by Boeing building a shop in a right to work state?

I already explained what laws they are alleged to have broken. Whether they actually did or not is in court, and I'm not in a position to say; the court will decide. The legislation before Congress would prevent the NRLB from filling the suit that it filed to uphold the law. It would not change the law itself at all, just remove the government's ability to enforce it.

You communist union dupes just hate that shit.

LOL you wouldn't know a communist if one bit you on the ass.

 

[daveman]

Harry Reid and Obama are more interested in keeping unions happy then they are in creating jobs.

It will never come to a vote in the Senate as long as the Dems control it.

If it did, it would be voted down in any case. I agree this will not pass the Senate. Even if it did, Obama would veto it.

However, where I disagree is with the implied conflict between "keeping unions happy" and "creating jobs." High wages, which arise from union strength, increase consumer demand which increases demand for labor which boosts employment. Unions result in lower, not higher unemployment, as is historically demonstrated, and logically inevitable if you understand who the real "job creators" are.

Looked at Detroit lately? How about the US steel industry?

Union pay and benefits are unsustainable.

 

[Ernie S.]

I didn't punt. It's a stupid question based on a false premise.

Translated: I got nothin'

What is there to have? He asked a question based on the premise that states without "right-to-work" laws have closed shops. Since that's not accurate (closed shops are already banned under federal law), what is there to answer?

If you mean that there's a law that says you can not be forced to join a union, yes, but if you think many people are going to take a job where they constantly have to look over their shoulder to see who's about to break their legs, you're crazier than I thought.
These incidents are fairly common. Here's a link to one.

And there's this:

For instance, while the Institute has recorded 8,799 incidents of union violence since 1975, only 1,963 arrests and 258 convictions have been found. It is difficult to believe that local news media who covered the violence resulting from a strike would not follow up on any subsequent legal action. Thus, it appears that of the violent incidents recorded in the Institute’s Data File, barely three percent of those incidents have led to an arrest and conviction.

 

[Dragon]

Looked at Detroit lately? How about the US steel industry?

Union pay and benefits are unsustainable.

They are as long as we encourage our companies to move operations to foreign countries where oppressed, exploited labor forces are available costing pennies on the dollar to NON-union labor in this country. The idea that labor unions are what made our workers uncompetitive does not take into consideration what prevailing wages in third-world countries actually are. Union versus non-union makes no difference here.

 

[Full-Auto]

Harry Reid and Obama are more interested in keeping unions happy then they are in creating jobs.

It will never come to a vote in the Senate as long as the Dems control it.

If it did, it would be voted down in any case. I agree this will not pass the Senate. Even if it did, Obama would veto it.

However, where I disagree is with the implied conflict between "keeping unions happy" and "creating jobs." High wages, which arise from union strength, increase consumer demand which increases demand for labor which boosts employment. Unions result in lower, not higher unemployment, as is historically demonstrated, and logically inevitable if you understand who the real "job creators" are.

It is a doubled edge sword as it also increases inflation...................................

 

[Ernie S.]

yes people like to do this..Its not a union only problem...

Damn son! give the turntable a smack I think your needle is stuck

on stupid!

what

Yup! Stupid. How many times are you going to say "Its not a union only problem"?
How many times do a mob of non union workers beat up union members?

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, care to explain any laws broken by Boeing building a shop in a right to work state?

I already explained what laws they are alleged to have broken. Whether they actually did or not is in court, and I'm not in a position to say; the court will decide. The legislation before Congress would prevent the NRLB from filling the suit that it filed to uphold the law. It would not change the law itself at all, just remove the government's ability to enforce it.

You communist union dupes just hate that shit.

LOL you wouldn't know a communist if one bit you on the ass.

They haven't broken any laws.

Ya see, the unions and their dupe members want government to dictate how and where a business does business.......That's communism 101......And you deny having communist leanings?

Give me a fuckin' break!

 

[Dragon]

How many times do a mob of non union workers beat up union members?

Every time they're hired by the company to do so. And that doesn't include the cops or the National Guard.

 

[Dragon]

It is a doubled edge sword as it also increases inflation...................................

The same period of time that saw maximum union strength and lowest unemployment and highest real wages across the board also saw very low inflation.

 

[Full-Auto]

How many times do a mob of non union workers beat up union members?

Every time they're hired by the company to do so. And that doesn't include the cops or the National Guard.

When was the last time strike breakers were hired?

 

[Ernie S.]

They don't have to negotiate a contract they're happy with. "Right-to-work" gives them the ability to free-ride on the negotiations of the union.

Bullshit! Since taking several screwings from unions, I resolved never to work in a union shop again. I was paid considerably more than workers in union shops because I was worth it.

 

[Ernie S.]

Wrong. He states the simple fact that union strikes cost Boeing billions of dollars and threaten it's ability to stay in business. That isn't "retaliation." That is stating the business reason for the move.

It's also retaliation. The law says that a business cannot end the jobs of union members in retaliation for any lawful union action, including a strike. As this relocation would end the jobs of union members and is being done in retaliation for the strike, it is unlawful.

When the company adds that the strike cost the company a lot of money, that's not adding anything pertinent. It's just whining. A strike is supposed to cost the company money, otherwise there's no point to striking at all. In any case, a company can no more relocate so as to break a union than it can fire people for trying to form one.

They are not ending jobs of union workers. They are adding a plant to build a new product and staffing it with non-union employees. The unions seem to think that Boeing should want to reward laziness.

 

[daveman]

Looked at Detroit lately? How about the US steel industry?

Union pay and benefits are unsustainable.

They are as long as we encourage our companies to move operations to foreign countries where oppressed, exploited labor forces are available costing pennies on the dollar to NON-union labor in this country. The idea that labor unions are what made our workers uncompetitive does not take into consideration what prevailing wages in third-world countries actually are. Union versus non-union makes no difference here.

Nonsense. Rising costs make companies unprofitable. Labor and their pay and benefits are rising costs.

Unions demand more, forcing companies to raise prices. At some point, those costs are unsustainable because consumers won't pay more for the goods and services produced.

Thank you, American unions. You have driven companies out of business or offshore.