The realities of Labor Unions

[Mac1958]

Then, for you, there are money market funds required in each 401K that would grow as well as the money you have in your mattress. Well, better, actually.

Plus matching funds from your employer. Free money!

See? Easy.

I know. Still not good enough.

And by the way, pension funds are invested in -- wait for it -- the stock market. Often in hedge funds, alternatives and other securities which are riskier than traditional mutual funds. Why? Because the funds in the negotiated pensions have to earn enough money to keep up with promises made to unions and have to take higher risks.

Point is, making good is on the hedge fund manager, not the retiree. ANd that's how it should be.

So now it's the responsibility of some hedge fund manager to take care your personal finances?

Holy crap Joe, seriously, will there ever come a day in which you think that you are responsible for your own happiness?

.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Fascinating how, of the four issues I address in my plan for unions, 401K plans are the big problem, and with lefties only.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Unions have been on the decline for 50 years, so you anti-union conservatives have actually been WINNING that battle for half a century.

Now tell us:

What have you won for the American working class as a result?

Be specific.

Jobs from europe and the world due to right to work laws

Where are non-union American jobs paying better for comparable work now, in the US?

And not anecdotally...

all i can speak for is myself, but i am a high skilled blue collar industrial maintenace man i am in demand all over the country, the answer is no. I know i could of been a straight union pipe fitter, electrician or say rigger and make 125k a year , i like the verity of my job i was never after the money, i was after knowledge and trying to be the best. P.s. I make the same in red states as i did in chicago

 

[Iceweasel]

Whoa, union boy blew a gasket! Lots of businesses do very well and produce fine products without a union. Gosh, how is it even possible? Airline work is shifting to right to work states in the south, thanks to the heavy handedness of unions. Hate didn't make them move and hate isn't what motivates the opposition. Failure to agree with you isn't equivalent to not caring about working folks.

The fact that you think so is a big part of the problem, arrogance and intolerance is par for the course. So much so, unions screw their workers out of an job, so who really has the workers' best interest in mind?

Airlines are doing nothing more than attempting to increase profits on the backs of their employees.

Boeing union thugs are running them off.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yea everyone knows what the Boeing thugs tried to do to south Carolinas boieng plant, what little bitchs

 

[zeke]

i like the verity of my job i was never after the money, i was after knowledge and trying to be the best.

Are you really going to claim that IF you had joined a union and were making 125k a year that you would have been stopped from acquiring knowledge and trying to be the best?

I call bullshit.

And is "verity" supposed to be "variety"?

 

[zeke]

Boeing union thugs are running them off.

Oh horse shit. You were just educated yesterday about what happened with Boeing and SC.
Why the fuck are you back here with the same lousy bullshit? You just like to lie? Think you are good at it or what?

 

[Iceweasel]

Boeing union thugs are running them off.

Oh horse shit. You were just educated yesterday about what happened with Boeing and SC.
Why the fuck are you back here with the same lousy bullshit? You just like to lie? Think you are good at it or what?

I've lived here since '82. First they moved their headquarters then started moving production over to friendlier states. It isn't just the greedy unions, WA State plays a role too. If they keep milking the cow dry they'll be left looking for federal handouts while people will be moving to those right to work states.

 

[Wyatt earp]

i like the verity of my job i was never after the money, i was after knowledge and trying to be the best.

Yup money don't mean shit to me I make enough


Are you really going to claim that IF you had joined a union and were making 125k a year that you would have been stopped from acquiring knowledge and trying to be the best?

I call bullshit.

And is "verity" supposed to be "variety"?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Again yup money don't mean shit to me I make enough

 

[Wyatt earp]

If I make to much I will die, from my own deamons

 

[zeke]

If I make to much I will die, from my own deamons

Dude, you are just slapping bullshit up on a screen. Quit it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Boeing union thugs are running them off.

Oh horse shit. You were just educated yesterday about what happened with Boeing and SC.
Why the fuck are you back here with the same lousy bullshit? You just like to lie? Think you are good at it or what?

I must have fucked you up bad cock sucker, i have been down here for years and know all about boieng

 

[Wyatt earp]

I must have fucked you up bad to remember me

Funny I don't remember you?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Wonder why that is

 

[BULLDOG]

.

It's a 10% IRS penalty, as with all retirement plans (pensions too!) and the 20% figure would be money kept by the custodian for taxes if you don't follow the law and roll it over.

There are also "lifestyle" mutual funds in 401K plans that essentially do the investing for you, lowering risk as you age. These are for the people who freak out at the notion of personal finance and would rather have someone else take care of it for them, because they buy into the notion that someone else is responsible for their money.

Yes, there are all sorts of schemes for Wall Street to separate you from your hard earned money, i'm sure.

I've had quite enough of that, thank you.

Then, for you, there are money market funds required in each 401K that would grow as well as the money you have in your mattress. Well, better, actually.

Plus matching funds from your employer. Free money!

See? Easy.

I know. Still not good enough.

And by the way, pension funds are invested in -- wait for it -- the stock market. Often in hedge funds, alternatives and other securities which are riskier than traditional mutual funds. Why? Because the funds in the negotiated pensions have to earn enough money to keep up with promises made to unions and have to take higher risks.



.

Obviously, you don't understand the place of pensions or 401K hold in union negotiations. They are just another form of compensation to the workers. The workers could have the money being directed to either of those places, or added to their paycheck, but they forego that to put it up for their retirement. There are advantages to pooling those funds for a better return at retirement. The point is that pensions are the workers money to start with, that the companies agree to invest in a suitable way for the workers. The amount is negotiated each time a new contrast is signed, and the company is never surprised by the amount they are responsible for, or will be responsible for in the future. It is agreed to before the first penny is put back for the first worker. You and many others act as if pensions are some sort of surprise that the unions spring on the companies when ever thy want to. It's not. It was agreed to by all parties long before the first payout. You probably wouldn't encourage a business to unilaterally break a contract and not pay money owed to another business, so why would it be OK to do the same thing to their workers?

As a financial professional who runs both 401K's and pensions for business clients, I can tell you unequivocally that you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, obviously the specifics and benefits of a pension are agreed to in a contract. But "it's the workers' money to start with?" Huh? No it's not. You even say it: "The company is never surprised by the amount they are responsible for." And the business is often held liable if the pension goes in the shitter, see below.

And, in order to comply with the demands of the unions in negotiations, pensions often have to make ridiculous promises of returns in the fund just to keep it afloat, and we're seeing the predictable results across the country, as pension funds are either in trouble, having to make adjustments or both. Look at Colorado's PERA disaster for a textbook case. They had to hit 8.5% annualized growth to make ends meet. So much for THAT.

And "there are advantages to pooling those funds for a better return at retirement". Uh, no. There is zero guarantee a pension fund is going to out-perform a 401K, and 401K plans are getting significantly better in providing options that are simpler and easier to understand while providing good growth and lifetime income guarantees, and often fees are significantly lower.

I'd keep going, but I suspect I'd be wasting my time.

My plan for unions is balanced, reasonable, workable.

.

As a person who is pretty good at recognizing bullshit on the internet,, I can tell you unequivocally that you are full of bullshit.

Pensions are compensation to the employee, so yes, it is the employees money the same way their paycheck is their money. Of course the company is never surprised, in the same way they are never surprised by what is owed for an hour of work.

It's not the workers responsibility or fault if the company can't properly fund pensions any more that it would be a vendors fault if the company couldn't pay for supplies. The company agreed to the terms just like the terms for any other contract. If the pension goes into the shitter, the company should be held responsible.

You don't think the workers have to comply with ridiculous demands in negotiations? It's a two way street bubba. Workers protections and compensation has been raped severely in the last several years, and it's all because of the companies mismanagement and/or greed.

Exactly where did I say that pensions were guaranteed to outperform ANY 401K? However, pensions are more stable if the company doesn't mismanage them.

I have no doubt you could keep going. I've read some of your other your post. But companies which are largely doing better than they ever have before shouldn't be able to slash payments, that they agreed to, to workers, who worked and earned the money, just so the company can maintain their huge profit margins. It's just standard business practice.

 

[Mac1958]

.

It's a 10% IRS penalty, as with all retirement plans (pensions too!) and the 20% figure would be money kept by the custodian for taxes if you don't follow the law and roll it over.

There are also "lifestyle" mutual funds in 401K plans that essentially do the investing for you, lowering risk as you age. These are for the people who freak out at the notion of personal finance and would rather have someone else take care of it for them, because they buy into the notion that someone else is responsible for their money.

Yes, there are all sorts of schemes for Wall Street to separate you from your hard earned money, i'm sure.

I've had quite enough of that, thank you.

Then, for you, there are money market funds required in each 401K that would grow as well as the money you have in your mattress. Well, better, actually.

Plus matching funds from your employer. Free money!

See? Easy.

I know. Still not good enough.

And by the way, pension funds are invested in -- wait for it -- the stock market. Often in hedge funds, alternatives and other securities which are riskier than traditional mutual funds. Why? Because the funds in the negotiated pensions have to earn enough money to keep up with promises made to unions and have to take higher risks.



.

Obviously, you don't understand the place of pensions or 401K hold in union negotiations. They are just another form of compensation to the workers. The workers could have the money being directed to either of those places, or added to their paycheck, but they forego that to put it up for their retirement. There are advantages to pooling those funds for a better return at retirement. The point is that pensions are the workers money to start with, that the companies agree to invest in a suitable way for the workers. The amount is negotiated each time a new contrast is signed, and the company is never surprised by the amount they are responsible for, or will be responsible for in the future. It is agreed to before the first penny is put back for the first worker. You and many others act as if pensions are some sort of surprise that the unions spring on the companies when ever thy want to. It's not. It was agreed to by all parties long before the first payout. You probably wouldn't encourage a business to unilaterally break a contract and not pay money owed to another business, so why would it be OK to do the same thing to their workers?

As a financial professional who runs both 401K's and pensions for business clients, I can tell you unequivocally that you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, obviously the specifics and benefits of a pension are agreed to in a contract. But "it's the workers' money to start with?" Huh? No it's not. You even say it: "The company is never surprised by the amount they are responsible for." And the business is often held liable if the pension goes in the shitter, see below.

And, in order to comply with the demands of the unions in negotiations, pensions often have to make ridiculous promises of returns in the fund just to keep it afloat, and we're seeing the predictable results across the country, as pension funds are either in trouble, having to make adjustments or both. Look at Colorado's PERA disaster for a textbook case. They had to hit 8.5% annualized growth to make ends meet. So much for THAT.

And "there are advantages to pooling those funds for a better return at retirement". Uh, no. There is zero guarantee a pension fund is going to out-perform a 401K, and 401K plans are getting significantly better in providing options that are simpler and easier to understand while providing good growth and lifetime income guarantees, and often fees are significantly lower.

I'd keep going, but I suspect I'd be wasting my time.

My plan for unions is balanced, reasonable, workable.

.

As a person who is pretty good at recognizing bullshit on the internet,, I can tell you unequivocally that you are full of bullshit.

Pensions are compensation to the employee, so yes, it is the employees money the same way their paycheck is their money. Of course the company is never surprised, in the same way they are never surprised by what is owed for an hour of work.

It's not the workers responsibility or fault if the company can't properly fund pensions any more that it would be a vendors fault if the company couldn't pay for supplies. The company agreed to the terms just like the terms for any other contract. If the pension goes into the shitter, the company should be held responsible.

You don't think the workers have to comply with ridiculous demands in negotiations? It's a two way street bubba. Workers protections and compensation has been raped severely in the last several years, and it's all because of the companies mismanagement and/or greed.

Exactly where did I say that pensions were guaranteed to outperform ANY 401K? However, pensions are more stable if the company doesn't mismanage them.

I have no doubt you could keep going. I've read some of your other your post. But companies which are largely doing better than they ever have before shouldn't be able to slash payments, that they agreed to, to workers, who worked and earned the money, just so the company can maintain their huge profit margins. It's just standard business practice.

You want to stick it to the rich, evil, greedy employers.

Got it.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's not the workers responsibility or fault if the company can't properly fund pensions any more that it would be a vendors fault if the company couldn't pay for supplies. The company agreed to the terms just like the terms for any other contract. If the pension goes into the shitter, the company should be held responsible.

Yep. GM should have been left to fail. Instead, obama bailed them out with our money. Lot's of union guys would have been left without a pension but the company gave them what they wanted.

 

[zeke]

Yep. GM should have been left to fail.

Yea you tellem. And ALL the troubled banks and AIG should have ALL been allowed to fail. Right?

 

[boilermaker55]

This again?
Damn. You need to go live in some 3rd world country so you and the likes of you can exploit those less fortunate than you until you die.
Good Idea!

These are the facts about labor unions.

Labor Unions are unconstitutional.
It violates the Business owner's right to be safe and secure in his papers and effects regarding his business.

Labor unions are NOT professional associations, professional associations and labor unions are different, in that a labor union seeks to create a monopoly of labor available to the employer, a professional association boosts the reputability of the worker through setting codes and standards, and they offer information about the worker's profession, and offer resources, etc etc..

Labor Unions are often ran by criminals who engage in extortion, loan sharking, aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice, and fraud.


In the long run, labor unions cause poverty, by putting businesses out of business through bankruptcy.

The economic benefits are relatively short term, and even during their time as being an economic benefit, they create economic inequality in favor of the union workers, as opposed to non union workers, and they cause price increases further tipping the scales in favor of Union workers.

This pay increase is due to the fact that artificial labor monopolies have the exact same consequences as any other monopoly, amongst those are price hikes, by the demand of the monopoly.

Union workers create an artificial monopoly, which is STILL a monopoly, and monopolies have never worked for the consumer.
The consumer of labor is the employer and the customers or clients.

While monopolies are not unconstitutional for the consumer, they are against any standard that seeks to create reputability in business, and they ARE unconstitutional for the employer, because it violates the employers right to be secure in his papers and effects regarding his business.

Because the labor monopoly holds the employer hostage to the labor monopoly, it is very hard, if not impossible to fire the workers, or to take disciplinary action against the said worker or workers.

This means that the union worker can behave nearly any way that he so chooses and get away with it.
This inevitably turns the union workers into unruly scum with no discipline whatsoever.

Late check ins, early clock outs, rude and insulting behavior, and piss poor performance, frequent absences from work, dress that is only "moderately appropriate" and certainly not serious for the job, and excuse after excuse for it.

And even off the job... because the union workers have no discipline, their bad habits might roll over into their life away from work, and affect their behavior at home, and in public.

Labor Unions also cause discrimination, by making it mandatory to join the union.


So I would make it illegal under the current laws against extortion, and the Sherman anti trust laws against monopolies, to have labor unions.

You should check this out sometime:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

You don't have the right to extort business owners and employers, or hold business owners and employers hostage to you and/or your group.
You also don't have the right to require applicants to join your union...

And you also don't have the right to keep your job, after failing to do your job and calling a "strike".