SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AlterNet reports:
Illinois governor Bruce Rauner watched his anti-union bill called, "Right-To-Work", die a swift, cruel death in the House [May 14]. [...] The the tally [PDF] was 0 yes votes, 72 no votes, and 37 voting present.
Fun with math: The Illinois House has 118 members.
A handful of Republicans went for a walk during the vote, not publicly falling on one side or another.
Source: Chicago Sun Times
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Illinois Governor Gets Zero Votes On His "Right To Work" Bill
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 124 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday May 18 2015, @12:46AM
Manipulative newspeak.
It's a right, if the CORPORATION wishes to extend it to you, without benefit of collective bargaining on your side.
It ceases to be a "right" when the CORPORATION lays you off, and transports labour cost to another location.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @01:13AM
I indexed the link to the Wikipedia page to the Free-Ride aspect.
In the dept. line, n1 used a similar phrase.
It's about the ownership class attempting to disempower the working class through dilution of resources for collective bargaining.
In Michigan and Wisconsin, for example, workers/voters have been convinced that they need to allow this sort of abuse or their jobs will all disappear.
It's a race-to-the-bottom tactic and they have swallowed it.
Apparently, the workers in Illinois have more backbone and their legislators know they can be easily replaced with someone less heinous.
The strolling GOPers seem to have recognized there was a quorum without their presence and they took a powder.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:01AM
You have a very one-sided view.
Face it, the economy is global now, and has been for some time. How is an American company supposed to survive if it has to pay its unionized workers $80/hour, while somebody in Mexico or China doing the same job will do it for $3/hour, or some Japanese robots will do it at an even lower cost than that? It won't be able to make products that anyone, anywhere in the world, will be able to afford.
Unions killed the Big Three American automakers. Unions killed most other industry in the US, too. When American workers are overpaid thanks to unionization, then the companies have to cut back on the quality of the product in order to keep the price at what the market will bear. This will always drive consumers away, over time. Then when the Japanese (and later the Chinese) come in and create products that aren't just cheaper, but are of a higher quality, then the American companies have no choice but to fail.
Yeah, it is a race to the bottom. Everybody is winning except the unionized folks, and they're losing because they didn't deserve what they had in the first place.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 18 2015, @02:28AM
You know - you almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about for a short bit there. But - when you claim that the Chinese make higher quality product, you've lost it. The Chinese produce junk, almost exclusively. There is little that they produce that has any claim to quality. But, their shit is cheap! And, uneducated lackwits who are incapable of judging quality will always buy the cheapest item on the shelf.
Have you had any good melamine flavored milk lately?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:33AM
You never drove an American-made auto in the 1970s or 1980s, I see. The lack of quality then was of a degree that even the Chinese couldn't hope to match.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:26AM
During that time, the USA manufacturers were competing with Japanese manufacturers for various components, such as bolts and other fasteners.
The Japanese companies undercut US manufacturers on price. What no one knew (at the time) was that the Japanese parts, adopted by US manufacturers, supposedly built to the "standards", were sub-standard. Thus, US autos began to fall apart, and were perceived to be (and, in fact, WERE) of a lower quality than Japanese products.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:04AM
The thing is *currently* most Chinese stuff is crap. Roll back 40 years and you would have said the exact same words about Japan and South Korea. The mexicans basically make all of our textiles now. All of the factories were moved to Mexico over the past 15 years. The *whole* factory. All that is left in SC and NC is miles and miles of empty buildings that used to house huge machines. They moved them to mexico. All 'cheap' manufacturing is now elsewhere. All the farmers outsource the work to under the table paid 'undocumented workers'. All that is left is 'intellectual jobs' which is being given to H1Bs.
At all levels we took our jobs and sold them to the lowest bidder. It is only a matter of time before the lowest bidder actually becomes good at the job. It only takes time to practice your art.
Think about the iPhone. It is pretty much entirely made in China with a few parts made elsewhere. Do you consider that cheap crap? That expertise does not 'go away' if Apple moves somewhere else.
Do not think a union will save the jobs either. I have seen union after union 'win'. Then within 10 years that factor was just straight up closed and moved to mexico/china/india. My friends dad used to work at goodyear. The plant he worked at? Closed and moved then magically reopened in mexico with no union. My neighbor worked at a textile plant here in NC. Closed. Reopened in mexico. His 'management job' moved to india.
In 30 years we will be talking about the quality goods from China/Mexico/India.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:48AM
No. In 30 years the factories will move back to the U.S. to save fuel money. All the jobs will be done by machines.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jcm on Monday May 18 2015, @12:30PM
I agree with you about unions, unions only serve themselves, more than unionists.
But you are wrong about China, and I'll take Japan's example.
In Japan's culture, the companies do not lay off their employees, so people are faithful to their company.
Some people even die for their company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kar%C5%8Dshi [wikipedia.org]
It is hilarious to discover that Japan's economy has been heavily influenced by W. Edwards Demming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming [wikipedia.org] who has been completely ignored by US companies.
China doesn't have a similar culture.
On the contrary, companies always try to find cheaper employees, like prisoners or students.
There is a race to the bottom salaries.
It has been more than 20 years that China took the jobs from US, but I have yet to see any increase of quality.
Chinese are too focused about short-term profits, and this goes against quality.
And please, don't use the example of IPhones.
They have the technology to build them, but do they have the means or desire to improve it ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:44AM
Not like those high-quality American-manufactured Apple devices, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @09:14PM
The Chinese produce junk, almost exclusively.
You have that almost right. The Chinese produce. Period.
They produce a lot of junk, but that's because the majority of the market asks for it. They also produce higher quality items when asked to and paid to (such as iPhones). They are merely the factory, and willing to produce whatever to whatever specification the buyer wants. There are numerous places where stronger IP laws, history and tradition, or whatever reason have resulted in high-quality (or low-quality) things are produced as well. But it is as naïve to say that China can only produce junk as it is to say that you can only get things produced in China.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:40AM
How is an American company supposed to survive
It worked quite well for 5 decades.
...then the working class was convinced through the Right-Wing media (it's NEVER been Left-Wing) to accept the swill called Reaganomics.
Had every union member (and all of his family, friends, and neighbors) told every politician that trade deals like CAFTA, NAFTA, and SHAFTA are not acceptable, we'd still have tariffs and a vibrant manufacturing sector and lots of good-paying jobs.
The Fascists [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [thomhartmann.com] were very effective at manipulating Joe Average to vote against himself.
Everybody is winning except the unionized folks
You, for example, are still spouting the 0.01 percent's bullshit.
The wealth of non-elites is slipping away and the farther you are away from the gentry, the faster it is evaporating.
We haven't seen the bottom yet (and the govt's numbers are fraudulent).
the unionized folks [are] losing because they didn't deserve what they had in the first place
Working class people who hate the working class are mentally defective.
Thinking that dragging people down to your level is noble and right--rather looking for a way that everyone can get the kind of union wage that folks had for decades is just pathetic.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:47AM
Unionization only "worked" in America because it was the only major industrial power left after WWII that hadn't suffered near-total destruction of all of its infrastructure.
As we all know, this union house of cards came crashing down the moment Japan had recovered enough to offer some economic competition. It was collapsing in the 1970s, 15 to 20 years before NAFTA and other trade agreements came into effect.
Unions caused their own downfall, and the downfall of American industry, thanks to their greed and unwillingness to face the realities of economics.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:20AM
You should find a group of union electricians or plumbers and tell them your opinion.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @09:17PM
How do you explain how effective unions are in Germany, and how successful Germany's industry is?
This is meant both as a rhetorical argument and a legitimate question. How come unions are so good in Germany (and effectively in Japan as well, as I understand it) but don't have the same successes in the US?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:43AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:56AM
Like we saw in America in the 1970s, even well-paid unionized workers won't buy cars that are of a remarkably shitty quality, yet still quite costly, all thanks to the price being driven up by undeserved and unjustifiable union benefits (like wages several times the true value that the worker provides).
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @01:51PM
Those filthy workers, scheming to negotiate a fair wage while those poor executives that add nothing to the value of the company take well over 10x their salary! If only free market values were in force, where the executives could take 100x the salary of their subsistence wage employees. Dammed unions!
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Monday May 18 2015, @02:57AM
But I note that they don't sell those products here in the U.S. at those 3rd world prices. So I'll turn that around, how are workers here supposed to work at $3/hr when it takes more than twice that just to be above the poverty line?
The big 3 weren't killed by unions, they were killed by crooked CEOs raiding the pension fund. Note that the Japanese car companies build cars HERE and pay better than the big 3.
(Score: 1) by albert on Monday May 18 2015, @03:20AM
Japanese cars are built more to the south, where right-to-work laws make manufacturing viable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Monday May 18 2015, @03:56AM
And yet they pay more than the big 3 pay the union workers up north. Perhaps they understand that trying to screw their employees is a losing deal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by albert on Monday May 18 2015, @04:59AM
Sure. Without the uncertainty and overhead of dealing with a union, those workers are worth more.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday May 18 2015, @07:34AM
Perhaps if the big three would try treating workers like the foreign companies do, they wouldn't be so interested in being in a union.
Funny how it's apparently OK for a large corporation to throw it's weight around against individual employees but god forbid the employees should band together for collective bargaining.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @10:04AM
There is a Volkswagen plant in Tennessee.
VW **wanted** a union there.
The local gov't used scare tactics and got the rank and file to vote against the union.
Life in the USA is weird.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Monday May 18 2015, @03:11AM
How is an American company supposed to survive if it has to pay its unionized workers $80/hour, while somebody in Mexico or China doing the same job will do it for $3/hour, or some Japanese robots will do it at an even lower cost than that?
The same way companies always survive. By providing a superior product through innovation. Believe it or not there's a difference between a $5 Big Mac and a $35 cheeseburger at a fancy restaurant. And believe it or not there are people willing to pay $35 for a burger. Price is not the only variable in the products you make. What are German cars famous for? Being expensive. What else are they famous for? Being well made. You can't compete with China/India/Africa on price. So don't. Hell if you're paying your employees $80 an hour then they can afford the $35 burger. The problem arises when some bright spark in management wants to charge people $35 for a burger, offer less quality than a Big Mac, and pay its employees $3 an hour.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:14AM
Absolutely. One takes $5 out of your wallet and becomes shit a day later. The other takes $35 out of your wallet and becomes shit a day later.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Monday May 18 2015, @03:25AM
Which is why you deserve the race to the bottom you are currently experiencing. I mean there's no difference between flying to Europe coach or business class. The miles traveled are the same, the destination is the same, the flight leaves and arrives at exactly the same time for the passenger seated in 3A or seated in 37E. The fact that one is three to five times more expensive than the other is just a shameless money grab by the airlines.
But why do I never feel tired, angry or jet lagged when I fly business?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:52AM
But why do I never feel tired, angry or jet lagged when I fly business?
It's because you're playing Microsoft Flight Simulator X, you never left your mother's basement, and you spent the previous 12 hours sleeping in until the middle of the afternoon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:10AM
Oh, you lose. You can't construct a factual argument to support your assumptions so you get angry and resort to rather pathetic insults, nothing more than juvenile name calling, to try and reinforce your own self-esteem, hoping you'll prove your manliness to yourself.
Deep down, you know you're nothing more than a giant spanner.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday May 18 2015, @04:02PM
Some people are angry all the time and they don't even know why. Anyway, Flight Simulator X is pretty much the equivalent to flying coach nowadays - there are better sims on the market :P
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Monday May 18 2015, @03:35AM
Absolutely. One takes $5 out of your wallet and becomes shit a day later. The other takes $35 out of your wallet and becomes shit a day later.
Tries to sound witty, instead shows a lack of understanding of the topic.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:44AM
Tork, when you eat a $35 hamburger and then you shit out dicks, they didn't come from the $35 hamburger. They're the dicks you shoved up your ass at the Turkish baths.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Monday May 18 2015, @04:18AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @12:16PM
Not at all. It's not about homophobia. It's about explaining why the $35 hamburger you ate isn't responsible for the dicks coming out of your ass. There is no connection, as much as you think that there is.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 18 2015, @03:01PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @12:37PM
You've obviously never eaten at MacDonald's.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday May 18 2015, @03:14AM
FTFY
How that this didn't happen in other sides of the world?M
Ah, yes, another evidence of American exceptionalism. No, of course not, the American corporate executives had nothing to do with their corporation early demise - it was the exceptional hand of the free market fairy when 'twas forced by those pesky unions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 18 2015, @03:35AM
You have a very one-sided view. Here, let me show you the exact opposite one-sided view.
FTFY
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by dak664 on Monday May 18 2015, @05:42PM
Henry Ford could have paid his workers much less and sold his car for a little less. Paying more in wages made the cars more expensive, which would have the effect of increasing his profit per car. That works as long as there are there enough people who can afford the higher price. He famously said he wanted his workers to be able to buy his product, but their numbers were trivial compared to the large number of affluent (mostly rural) workers.
At that time there were no competitors willing or able to sell for less so he did not lose market share. As other American companies started up there was not much price competition, probably involving private deals between corporate and union board members. Later electronics manufacturers followed the same route of high wages and more costly radios and televisions.
When the cheaper imports began to arrive there was some attempt to stigmatize the product and the people who bought them (tinny japanese transistor radios, unpatriotic drivers of import cars), but by 1980 or so import tariffs began to disappear and there was a full race to the cheapest product.
Not sure how to get back to the former model, and not sure we would want to. I rather think the whole idea of workers with jobs is becoming obsolete.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday May 18 2015, @03:07AM
Public sector unions get a sweet deal. They increasingly get market-level wages and a pension on top of that, while the rest of us get market-level wages and a 401k match if we're lucky. It used to be that public sector workers got paid less than market-level considering the pension, but not anymore. This is not a sustainable situation.
Illinois has an enormous debt problem. [illinoispolicy.org] This isn't helped by the massive numbers of Chicago versus the rest of the state and the political duopoly putting the Chicagoland area against the rest.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @04:01AM
I do actuarial consulting for pensions and you're oversimplifying. Levels of pension benefits and levels of pay vary from place to place. Overall, changes in public sector payroll tend to lag corresponding changes in private sector payroll, which makes sense given that the public sector tends to keep doing the same thing it's been doing in mid recession and doesn't start sorting out the shortfalls until the recovery.
A lot of the most severe fundi problems for public sector pensions are for police and fire plans where the participants are not covered by social security. These plans tend to have generous early retirement provisions allowing unreducedretirement somewhere between 20 and 30 years of service. The reason for this is that it's a low turnover profession and if you don't offer these provisions, you end up with a fire department with an average age over 50 and you can't fire someone for being too old. The pensions are actually cheaper than the alternatives to this personnel management problem, although in some cases there may be ways to tone the benefits down and still get the same effect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @04:20AM
Maybe that is true at the State level, but at the Feds have been on the 401k track themselves. Congress moved the Federal workforce off of the pension model back in the 90s, but somehow exempted themselves and kept themselves on the pension system.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 18 2015, @03:33AM
In Michigan and Wisconsin, for example, workers/voters have been convinced that they need to allow this sort of abuse or their jobs will all disappear.
It's a race-to-the-bottom tactic and they have swallowed it.
Hey, be fair: only 52.3% [wikipedia.org] of the voting public is convinced.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:13AM
Why do you ignore the obvious differences here?
If non-unionized workers get laid off by the corporation they work for due to inefficiency and unjustifiably high wages, those workers are out of a job.
If unionized workers bankrupt the corporation they work for due to inefficiency and unjustifiably high wages, those workers are out of a job.
The end result is actually better in the non-unionized case. At least the corporation survives in that case, and there's always the chance that the existing workers, or more likely newer, more efficient workers, will be hired.
In the unionized case, the workers are unemployed, and the corporation itself no longer exists, so the chance of it providing jobs in the future does not exist, either.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 18 2015, @02:41AM
However, there's a thing that you choose to ignore and push ahead a false dichotomy (a corporation going bankrupt because of inefficiency imposed by unionized workers vs no unions at all).
I haven't heard your "analysis" of corps doing it anyway (no matter unionized workers or not) in the chase for higher profit (H1B and outsourcing in IT anyone?), or of unions working together with the management to find solutions to difficult situations (maybe it doesn't happen in US, but in other parts of the world is not unheard of [ch-aviation.com]).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:46AM
And, what if the BOD and upper level execs take their 100X (or more?) renumeration (in comparison to the people who actually produce the "product") and bail out, or drive the "company" into the dirt? Corporate 'merica is going to fall, and unfortunately, it's gonna be the "little people" who will pay the price.
I believe that many unions are corrupt, but, ALL "big business" and "governments" are, too. Unionism is a good thing, but only when practised well.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday May 18 2015, @01:36PM
Why does no one ever question the unstated assumption that corporations get to live forever? Why do people, flesh-and-blood people, accept that corporations have a right to more freedom, influence, and power than flesh-and-blood people? Are they the new Spirits of the Ancestors that Must Be Honored? Are they avatars in worldy guise, come to walk among us and dispense heavenly wisdom and guidance?
Anyone who thinks so has never spoken to a CEO or sat in on a Board Meeting...
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @06:45PM
Who gives a fuck about the corporation besides the owner? And why should anyone else give a fuck about it when there's nothing in it for them (the only thing that matters to USAians, whether or not there's something for them to personally gain)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:20AM
It's an appropriate term, contrary to your misleading claims.
Unions are the ones preventing people from working, by forcing these victims into submitting to collective bargaining, especially when it is not in the best interest of these victims.
"Right to work" is very appropriate term to use, because it is about defending these eager workers from the tyrannical abuses that unions have been known to engage in.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday May 18 2015, @02:38AM
Use the _full_ name of such legislation: "The Right to Work for Less". Someone has a very tenuous grasp of economics:
Unions are the ones preventing people from working, by forcing these victims into submitting to collective bargaining, especially when it is not in the best interest of these victims.
Post previous to this, most likely by the same economic-theory-challenged AC, pointed out the choices for American labor were to unionize and demand fair pay for fair work, and somehow thereby driving corporations out of business and ending up unemployed, or to not form unions and have their jobs out-sourced to third-world workers and ending up unemployed. Now I must ask, how is being forced to join a union against the best interests of the workers? Some workers, in America, have been brainwashed by ALEC and corporate campaigns to demonize organized labor enough to think that unions are not in their interests, but that is because they have no idea what their interests are. If the false dilemma posed is accepted, it would be better for American labor to take the bloodthirsty corporations down with them. But since it is a false dichotomy, that is not likely to happen. It is not corporations that are the problem, it is capital. Capital does not actually know what is in it's interests, either. The unequal accumulation of capital is going to lower its value, and if the workers are unemployed, there will be no market for product, and thus no profit. Outsourcing relies are what are very transient disequilibriums in the global capitalist system, and it is sowing the seeds of its own demise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:42AM
Economic theory is fucking useless. It doesn't matter what your beloved Herr Marx wrote so many decades ago. Economic reality is what matters. Anyone with even the smallest comprehension of the history of American industry will know that unionization destroyed it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:34AM
Uh-huh. And what's your take on the destruction of the housing market? All those people signing contracts that they didn't understand and/or couldn't afford?
Industry destroyed itself. Signing union contracts it couldn't afford, but knew that it could get out of through perpetual reorganization, which is why everyone shit themselves when Obama put an end to it for GM.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday May 18 2015, @04:56AM
Anyone with even the smallest comprehension of the history of American industry will know that unionization destroyed it.
No, you imbecile, you are wrong!!! Do you know why? Let me explain it to you, and I will be sure to use small words so you can understand..
The idea that Unionization lead to the downfall of American Industry is a Theory. I am not sure I would call it an "economic theory", and evidently you are leary of doing the same. But we will take that as read. The period of the greatest economic prosperity in America correspond to the highest levels of union membership, in, of course, the industrial period. This would suggest that your theory may be wrong!! It was the concerted anti-union efforts of American industry that destroyed it, which again makes my point that capitalists have no idea where their true interests lie.
And now let me refute your bone-headed, no-nothing, anti-intellectualism: Theory is not useless, theory is ubiquitous, there are no facts without theory. This may be difficult for someone as "grounded" in "reality" as you no doubt think you are. But just think, a little, how could it be that capitalists know where, and when, to invest? Is it random? Or instinctual like a dog turning three times before laying down? No, it is all done on theory, a view of how the world works. So theory is not useless, but wrong theory is indeed worse than useless, it leads to situations like this where the working class can almost be persuaded to vote for their own elimination.
(And an aside: you know, we have lots of interesting debates here on Soylent News. This is what makes the site what it is, as opposed to, um, theoretical alternatives. So just a gentle suggestion that when we are engaged in arguments of substance and not just calling each other names (you melon-headed AC!), it would be nice if you had a user name to attach you views, as wrong as they may be, to a particular disputant. Just a thought. If you are anti_gewg_, you can disregard this addendum.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @12:18PM
It's not a theory. The unionization of American industry did lead to its downfall. That's a fact.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @12:44PM
Bring back the Robber Barons!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @06:53PM
[Citation Needed]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 18 2015, @07:10PM
The unionization of American industry did lead to its downfall. That's a fact.
Not too bright, eh? Alright, I will repeat. It is not a fact, it is a theory. You might be able to say that American industry "fell" (what are your definitions and data on this, anyway? Did not actually "fall", you know!) some time after America reached its highest level of unionization (which was still pretty pathetic, for a civilized first-world economy). Now thinking that some thing happens because of something that happened before it is not a fact, it is a theory, a possible explanation. And if you leap to a conclusion by asserting your theory is a fact, you are making an assumption of causality. There is a name for this, it is called the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, or "after this, therefore because of this."
Now that we are aware that you are one of the ACs whose intellect is truly dizzying, perhaps you could explain again the mechanism by which unionization brought about the downfall of American industry? I know, I know, since you maintain it is just a brute fact, it does not need explaining. But humor the rest of us. How did this actually work?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:15PM
Ah, you finally got to +5.
Well deserved. A very important comment.
Maybe if you had put The Right to Work for Less in bold, that would have happened a bit earlier.
...and you need to use the word "hypothesis" more.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday May 18 2015, @05:38AM
Oh I don't know. I knew a guy who stocked shelves for more than I was making as a SQL/C#/Java dev. I'm not sure what to think about it. I still shop there, because their selection is excellent and their store branded stuff is great (not Wegeman's; I have an internet friend who goes there frequently, but this is a different chain). Granted, I make more these days.
The union is what enabled him to make that much, and I'm not sure I disagree with a union's bargaining power. It hasn't affected my selection, and the union shop that I go to for food often has better selection than the established Spartan stores.
Let me tangent. We're all bitching about H1-B labor, right? Why don't we (who aren't already Engineers—I may be on track to be an Engineer soon, got my eye on Engineers without Borders) devs have some kind of professional association. I mean, lawyers need to be a member of the Bar. Accountants can become CPAs. Doctors can't practice without being certified in their state. Why shouldn't devs have some professional certification we need to obtain? I'm not even really talking about unions here, but I'm addressing your point about preventing somebody from working and saying maybe that's a good thing from time to time.
Sure, there are corrupt unions. Anything can become corrupt. Take the Siberian Amazons about 2,000 years ago for example.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:21AM
Reminds me of my workplace. We all work for minimum wage because our employer, a multimillionaire, deserves more money. We work for free for a few hours a week each for just the same reason. We're not allowed to join a union, because that's just not fair on him. He works hard for that money, by not doing anything. At all.
Our wages are paid through public funding, but the employer steals the public funding which he guarantees is for our wages, but he then banks, and lies to the funding agencies.
If we join a union, he'll have to shut the business down because it'd cost him too much to run, even though my wages are paid for by the taxpayer. He wouldn't be able to steal my wages, and that's just not fair.
So yeah, unions, horrible things. Never did an honest thing ever.
In the eyes of cunts like you, anyway.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday May 18 2015, @03:20AM
The right to work is the right to not associate with a union one may disagree with in order to work. In much of the country the unions are an arm of the Democratic Party, and donate to their campaigns. Without the right to work, this means you must be in the union to do certain jobs, and your money will be automatically collected for the union right out of your paycheck. Your dues are then used for or against politicians you may or may not like. That's inherently unfair.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @05:12AM
The right to work is the right to not associate with a union one may disagree with in order to work.
This is it, right here. If you are such a class traitor that you cannot belong to an association of your fellow professionals, I can only assume that you are an ass-kissing asshole! It really is that simple. Unions do exert political influence, for the benefit of the working class. Now if you disagree with that, perhaps you are not a worker at all, and are only slumming? Well then you can bloody well afford to quit and live off your investments. If not, you are a freeloader, getting the benefits of an organized workforce, and not wanting to pay your fair share? Freeloading. Ass-kissing. David Spade's character in Coneheads. Bashar in Battlestar Galactica. The Company dude in Aliens. You are the company you keep, even if all your friends are fictional
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday May 18 2015, @05:57AM
All of my friends are fictional, you insensitive clod!
More seriously, you bring up good points. Why would one want to devalue one's profession? One must draw a line: I am not willing to create some kind of software Rube Goldberg machine just to support your proprietary closed-source buggy rotten piece of shit softare. If every other dev says the same, then I have some kind of voice. If not, I have no voice, and an entrenched tellecommunications giant gets to continue to profit off its own fail. Since every other dev has actually said, “I don't care lol,” I have no leg to stand on.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday May 18 2015, @03:21PM
If it's so straightforward, why the Orwellian double-speak?
Your own cognitive dissonance is so firmly entrenched, that you argue actively against logic, altruism, and your own self-interest.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1) by albert on Monday May 18 2015, @05:08AM
If workers can gang up on companies, forming a monopoly on labor, then how is it not right for companies to do likewise? Example: how Steve Jobs got other companies to push down wages.
If it is OK to force workers to join a union, then shouldn't it be OK to force a company to join a group of companies that is trying to push wages down? Seems fair, no?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:25AM
You've got that backwards.
The employer holds all the power, because they have all the money and all the lawyers. They can hire other people at will, they can have people beat the crap out of you if they think you're holding out on them. No, you can't go to court, because the employer will just stop paying you and your lawyer bills will bankrupt you, so you just have to take whatever shit they give you. That's how it works at my workplace at the moment, where we're not allowed to join a union on penalty of dismissal.
Unions, however, are there to provide a balance of power. They give the employee somewhere to go when the employer refuses to pay for public holidays or time worked, and to provide a lawyer to stand up for the individual when they need someone to.
Somebody has to stand up for the little guy, and the rich cunts who steal my wages sure aren't doing it. The only thing they're doing is stealing my wages. They've stolen more than $2500 in a year.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday May 18 2015, @03:15PM
Two words "Citizens United".
Third word: "Orwellian".
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday May 18 2015, @03:18PM
Jesus, but aren't you low-wattage!
Those POOR VICTIMIZED corporations! Where will they be, without your lone voice of sanity - crying from the wilderness - for their defense!
Without you? They might be huddled under a bridge for warmth and shelter - while fat cat union bosses eat caviar off the gold plates they stole from Bank of America and General Motors.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...