Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh whatthefuck ever. What about the right to work and not be forced to join a club, forced to pay for the privilege of being in that club and be told how to vote and think?
Obama's a fucking tool who is the lucky recipient of a gazillion union $$ confiscated from its brain-dead members... of course he's "pro-union".
Unions restrict job growth because they force employers to pay them out the nose to the point where hiring more workers is impossible.
I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.
Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?
I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.
Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?
I'm conflicted myself. Its not a coincidence that wages became stagnant about the same time unions began to lose membership.
Still, I think unions only have themselves to blame for their demise. Not from the side of the employers but from the side of the membership and their recruiting efforts that were and are weak.
Oh that. Gotcha.
Not true, actually. In fact, unions are often a vital resource for getting ones hands on skilled workers in a hurry, at construction sites, etc. Also union sheetmetal workers and such have skill sets companies need, and thus look to their unions as a source of qualified / skilled workers. Ditto in automotive manufacture, etc.
But that's merely the convenience aspect. The trick is higher wages, in pusuit of higher median household income, which grows the market at high monetary velocity points. And unions are one of the ways to raise wages, in excess of miimum wage, which itself os a tool for raising wages. In short, our value is not in what we do, but what we spend into the economy. So it's beneficial by default when workers organize, since we know on average, they're better paid.
Sorry for fucking with your wish to not learn, from me, or anywhere else, it seems.
Unions have long since outlived their usefulness... they, like every good cause before them, have become a racket whereby the select few extort a lot of money from their minions.
That's a bit old school. It was the bullshit many believed in 80s, which parallels the point at which unions become less influential, wages stopped pacing inflation, and median household incomes plummeted, adjusting for inflation.
But there's an upside: we proved the fucking opposite. Unions are highly useful in growing our middle class. Many now know better, while some, obviously are too fucking blind to see it. Ya feel me, blind man?
I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.
Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?
I'm conflicted myself. Its not a coincidence that wages became stagnant about the same time unions began to lose membership.
Still, I think unions only have themselves to blame for their demise. Not from the side of the employers but from the side of the membership and their recruiting efforts that were and are weak.
Not quite as simple as that. Much was done politically to alter public opinion, and create fear among workers with politics in economics drag (Supply Side / Trickle Down, for example).
And its impact is still significant: many fear higher wages will price them out their jobs, and make their Happy Meals $20. And it's bullshit, which relies solely on false, flat-cost psuedo-economics, that ignores the increased demand, economies of scale and competition that come into play, when median household incomes rise.
Unions have long since outlived their usefulness... they, like every good cause before them, have become a racket whereby the select few extort a lot of money from their minions.
That's a bit old school. It was the bullshit many believed in 80s, which parallels the point at which unions become less influential, wages stopped pacing inflation, and median household incomes plummeted, adjusting for inflation.
But there's an upside: we proved the fucking opposite. Unions are highly useful in growing our middle class. Many now know better, while some, obviously are too fucking blind to see it. Ya feel me, blind man?
Yeah, ok.... if it's so great, why is union density in the private sector around 7%? Why is one of the ONLY profitable airlines noticeably non-union? How are the sectors that unions dominate doing financially?
Unions have long since outlived their usefulness... they, like every good cause before them, have become a racket whereby the select few extort a lot of money from their minions.
That's a bit old school. It was the bullshit many believed in 80s, which parallels the point at which unions become less influential, wages stopped pacing inflation, and median household incomes plummeted, adjusting for inflation.
But there's an upside: we proved the fucking opposite. Unions are highly useful in growing our middle class. Many now know better, while some, obviously are too fucking blind to see it. Ya feel me, blind man?
Yeah, ok.... if it's so great, why is union density in the private sector around 7%? Why is one of the ONLY profitable airlines noticeably non-union? How are the sectors that unions dominate doing financially?
I'm conflicted myself. Its not a coincidence that wages became stagnant about the same time unions began to lose membership.
Still, I think unions only have themselves to blame for their demise. Not from the side of the employers but from the side of the membership and their recruiting efforts that were and are weak.
Not quite as simple as that. Much was done politically to alter public opinion, and create fear among workers with politics in economics drag (Supply Side / Trickle Down, for example).
And its impact is still significant: many fear higher wages will price them out their jobs, and make their Happy Meals $20. And it's bullshit, which relies solely on false, flat-cost psuedo-economics, that ignores the increased demand, economies of scale and competition that come into play, when median household incomes rise.
Whatthefuckever... you're nuts.
That's a bit old school. It was the bullshit many believed in 80s, which parallels the point at which unions become less influential, wages stopped pacing inflation, and median household incomes plummeted, adjusting for inflation.
But there's an upside: we proved the fucking opposite. Unions are highly useful in growing our middle class. Many now know better, while some, obviously are too fucking blind to see it. Ya feel me, blind man?
Yeah, ok.... if it's so great, why is union density in the private sector around 7%? Why is one of the ONLY profitable airlines noticeably non-union? How are the sectors that unions dominate doing financially?
Because of public fear of unions, which was exploited in the 80s and continues today.
Meanwhile, Jet Blue and Southwest benefit from being smaller and smarter. They reduced costs by limiting themselves to lucrative routes, and not being everywhere on earth. Southwest also taught the industry a lesson on how to seat passengers more efficiently, while making it fun for travelers. And the real brain gem was Southwest's all 737 fleet. Only one type of replacement parts. Only one type of mechanic. Saved them beaucoup bux, while making Southwest #3, behind Delta and United. JetBlue doesn't even come close.
Not quite as simple as that. Much was done politically to alter public opinion, and create fear among workers with politics in economics drag (Supply Side / Trickle Down, for example).
And its impact is still significant: many fear higher wages will price them out their jobs, and make their Happy Meals $20. And it's bullshit, which relies solely on false, flat-cost psuedo-economics, that ignores the increased demand, economies of scale and competition that come into play, when median household incomes rise.
Whatthefuckever... you're nuts.
How so?
1) Read
2) Weep
'Since Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, signed the legislation making his state the nations 23rd right-to-work state in early February, Indiana has added about 43,000 jobs, while Michigan has lost about 7,300, said Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich.'
Indiana's move pushed Michigan on right-to-work - Washington Times
The genie is very much out of the bottle now.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Didn't read the article did you?
So your answer is: nothing. Okie doke. Stay stupid. Makes it easier for the rest of us to get the big bux jobs. Maybe division on labor is not a mere myth. It's working like fucking charm, in your case.
What do I want to know from you? Of course the answer is nothing. You are clearly unintelligent. No one with a brain would argue this much in favor of unions when what we know is they protect only the least skilled among us and enable and encourage those same people to remain unskilled.
You also don't know jack about me though I do make a decent living, excellent beneftis, non-union of course.
Oh that. Gotcha.
Not true, actually. In fact, unions are often a vital resource for getting ones hands on skilled workers in a hurry, at construction sites, etc. Also union sheetmetal workers and such have skill sets companies need, and thus look to their unions as a source of qualified / skilled workers. Ditto in automotive manufacture, etc.
But that's merely the convenience aspect. The trick is higher wages, in pusuit of higher median household income, which grows the market at high monetary velocity points. And unions are one of the ways to raise wages, in excess of miimum wage, which itself os a tool for raising wages. In short, our value is not in what we do, but what we spend into the economy. So it's beneficial by default when workers organize, since we know on average, they're better paid.
Sorry for fucking with your wish to not learn, from me, or anywhere else, it seems.
So your answer is: nothing. Okie doke. Stay stupid. Makes it easier for the rest of us to get the big bux jobs. Maybe division on labor is not a mere myth. It's working like fucking charm, in your case.
What do I want to know from you? Of course the answer is nothing. You are clearly unintelligent. No one with a brain would argue this much in favor of unions when what we know is they protect only the least skilled among us and enable and encourage those same people to remain unskilled.
You also don't know jack about me though I do make a decent living, excellent beneftis, non-union of course.
Oh that. Gotcha.
Not true, actually. In fact, unions are often a vital resource for getting ones hands on skilled workers in a hurry, at construction sites, etc. Also union sheetmetal workers and such have skill sets companies need, and thus look to their unions as a source of qualified / skilled workers. Ditto in automotive manufacture, etc.
But that's merely the convenience aspect. The trick is higher wages, in pusuit of higher median household income, which grows the market at high monetary velocity points. And unions are one of the ways to raise wages, in excess of miimum wage, which itself os a tool for raising wages. In short, our value is not in what we do, but what we spend into the economy. So it's beneficial by default when workers organize, since we know on average, they're better paid.
Sorry for fucking with your wish to not learn, from me, or anywhere else, it seems.
Yeah, ok.... if it's so great, why is union density in the private sector around 7%? Why is one of the ONLY profitable airlines noticeably non-union? How are the sectors that unions dominate doing financially?
Because of public fear of unions, which was exploited in the 80s and continues today.
Meanwhile, Jet Blue and Southwest benefit from being smaller and smarter. They reduced costs by limiting themselves to lucrative routes, and not being everywhere on earth. Southwest also taught the industry a lesson on how to seat passengers more efficiently, while making it fun for travelers. And the real brain gem was Southwest's all 737 fleet. Only one type of replacement parts. Only one type of mechanic. Saved them beaucoup bux, while making Southwest #3, behind Delta and United. JetBlue doesn't even come close.
Fear? What fear? What on Earth are you talking about? Is this the "Reagan fired the ATC's and ruined it for everybody" speech?
Whatthefuckever... you're nuts.
How so?
Simply put... if it were so great... union membership would be prevalent.. hell, it'd be in our self-interest. But it's not... and it is dropping as more and more states move away from it.
It's today's brontosaurus.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Didn't read the article did you?
The article doesn't provide any support beyond circumstantial evidence.
Most hi-tech jobs are non-union jobs and they pay extremely well.
.
No one is saying an industry has to be unionized to pay well. The technology sector requires a special skill set very few people have, so those people are able to command a wage premium (although, many of those jobs are being outsourced to China and India, so it may not be the boon it appears to be on the surface).
More to the point very few are willing to do what it takes to acquire this skill set. The solution to making more money, to the point where being in a union is irrelevent is exceedingly simple. You find out what jobs are in demand, that pay what you want and you go out and acquire the skill set necessary to do that job. It is not the high skill jobs that are going overseas. It is the low skill jobs, like manufacturing. If you want people's income to rise and the economy to improve you have to teach people these skills, instead of getting the american peopel to focus on this class warefare thing where people who are dependent on government think they should earn more without requiring more of themselves to do something that pretty much anyone else can do.
Okay, confession. I'm confused.
I thought the whole idea behind RTW was to outlaw businesses that require union membership as a condition of employment. Now you're saying no business in any state can make that requirement?
I need to do more research. I'm hearing conflicting messages.
It outlaws 'union security agreements' - deals which are tucked into collective bargaining agreements which require all employees to pay union dues.
But Polk stated "...no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years."
That sounds contradictory. If these union security agreements require employees to pay union dues, how is that not requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment?
What am I missing?
