Why Aren't We Talking About Union Busting?

Oh? Would you look at that? Looks like Walker's finally willing to start negotiating so long as there's no talk about that teensy weensy little energy clause.

What was this all about again? How the middle class is evil or something, right?
 
Link please?

Sorry to be lazy, I'm just hella busy tonight and would like to read the article, even if I don't have time to search for it. Danke schoen.
 
Yeah Republicans and Walker pretty much admitted they're gigantic bullshit liars. They kept claiming it was a fiscal issue, but that requires a supermajority.

By passing it without the supermajority it's a clear admission that restricting collective bargaining is unrelated to fiscal issues.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Wisconsin's Republican senators better watch their backs. People are *pissed* here.[/QUOTE]
Violent political speech much?
 
Go see what's going on in the capital.

If you want to hold a post on CAG responsible, that's your prerogative. Your willful ignorance is consistent like Tom Brady.
 
Like someone else pointed out before, cons have admitted to this being about anything but the stated reasons it was supposed to be about.

My prediction about any cons that choose to post in this thread, they will talk about anything but the above.
 
[quote name='Clak']Was there ever any doubt about what the real point of all this was? Alright all you fiscal conservatives, you chest pounded that this was all about the budget, yet here it is out in the open, now defend it.[/QUOTE]

Did anyone of the fiscal conservatives on this forum ever chest-pound that this was solely about the budget?
 
I wasn't necessarily speaking about this forum. At the same time, if it wasn't for the budget, then there was no legitimate reason for doing it in the first place, so in what way could you defend this at all? A way that doesn't boil down to "unions are aligned with liberals and liberals=bad".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
how do you see union busting improving the lives of americans, bob?

you seem to be a supporter of the idea. so fess up: how will this benefit individuals and society at large?
 
Well at least Koch Industries can now operate the public utilities for their own profit. Anybody want to post an over/under on that one? I say August 2011.

Double D - if you like stout, see if you can find Sheaf Stout from Australia. Very good, just had my first a couple hours ago.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']how do you see union busting improving the lives of americans, bob?

you seem to be a supporter of the idea. so fess up: how will this benefit individuals and society at large?[/QUOTE]

Not to stamd for anything in the bill, but it is only public workers that aren't un dangerous jobs... It isn't like United Steel Workers is now outlawed in WI or something like that...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']how do you see union busting improving the lives of americans, bob?

you seem to be a supporter of the idea. so fess up: how will this benefit individuals and society at large?[/QUOTE]

As opposed to all those Unions who helped improve the lives of Americans by sending their jobs to Mexico? Think of all that free time those union employees have now. :D
 
[quote name='nasum']Not to stamd for anything in the bill, but it is only public workers that aren't un dangerous jobs... It isn't like United Steel Workers is now outlawed in WI or something like that...[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you're saying here. Rephrase, please.

[quote name='UncleBob']As opposed to all those Unions who helped improve the lives of Americans by sending their jobs to Mexico? Think of all that free time those union employees have now. :D[/QUOTE]

Unless you're arguing that we've outsourced education and first responders jobs out of the country, you should actually answer a question for a change.
 
You raise a good point, Myke... private sector union jobs have shrank so much in the recent years... but government union jobs (that can't be moved out of the country, as the government has no choice in that matter) have increased hand over fist. All we need to do is get everyone employed by the government. Thanks for bringing that up.
 
[quote name='Strell']You like to play Derailment: The Game at the highest difficulty level, eh?[/QUOTE]

UncleBob's troll skills are quite good, I will give him that. So what's the solution?

Take his bait? His answers to questions are either more questions, absolutely absurd comparisons or hit-and-run smear jobs. No substance whatsoever. When you do manage to pin him with something he either lies outright or rationalizes it away.

Ignore him? Chuhh. Hardly. His constant attempts into goading other posters to do so make his stance clear enough. No matter the topic, Bob finds some sensationalist headline from an op-ed page with no real credentials and goes for the 'shock-and-awe' job. Then after the thread has gone on for two pages discussing the smear he'll meekly clarify and the thread dies. Problem?

Cognitive reasoning? Uh...no. See above. It's ridiculously difficult to argue with turfers. They are called 'the pros' for a reason.

So now that he's universally recognized as a Troll how do we deal with him? My first instinct is to smear harder but that takes a lot of work, and I don't really have a cushy Wal-Mart job that gives me downtime to dedicate to politics. There's also the whole bit about lying down with pigs. I've sworn off playing internet detective; although that's probably the quickest way to end this I find the idea morally repugnant. Do we just talk over him? Will that effectively work out the same as ignoring him? I've also considered implementing a scorched earth policy of endless ridicule but the problem with going nuclear is that cockroaches always survive these sort of things.

Honestly, I'm just fresh out of ideas at this point.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']government union jobs...have increased hand over fist.[/QUOTE]

data. provide it. national portion of federal workforce that is unionized. none of this "lookit me maw, i kin google!" unscrutinized comment-on-a-blog-on-the-provo-utah-wheeler-dealer article that you'll defend to the end because it showed up in your google search, dangit.

Real. fuckin'. Data. Prove it.

Besides, the split between outsourced and local is independent from public versus private unions. You can outsource teachers for sure (you have children, you can homeschool them; you can send them to the "University of Phoenix Online." They can go from birth to undergrad degree without ever leaving the house. You can teach them google 101, Bob.). Can you outsource police? Maybe. Not entirely, but somewhat. Can you outsource fire departments? Not much. But can you outsource plumbers, and pipefitters? Can you run the United States without Stevedores? Hardly, yet those are public sector jobs.

It's a matter of jobs that we can move overseas, like the person who works the drive-through at McDonalds, to those we can not, like the person who fucked up my order. ;)

Can you stock Dr Thunder on the shelves in Carmi, Il., from Mexico, Bob?

Remember, we established weeks (months?) ago that unions provide you with better wages, working conditions, and benefits. You fell apart when trying to explain why you wouldn't work at Costco if one were available in your area; you insisted you would stick with Wal-Mart, but bumbled and fumbled over precisely why. Public versus private has zero to do with outsourcing, and everything to do with a soft, compliant class who have learned that UNION is a dirty word, but when pressed, don't really understand why. The runaway wealth of the power elite did not depress your wages, somehow unions did. At Wal-Mart, a store that never had them to begin with.

Now for some punk rock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czXXXK04bWg
 
Any outsourcing of jobs has to be blamed primarily on trade policy. Doesnt really matter what the taxes are or what people are being paid here or anywhere. The ability to tap into the American consumer base while producing overseas starts and ends with trade policy.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']UncleBob's troll skills are quite good, I will give him that. So what's the solution?[/QUOTE]

The majority of Strell's posts on vs. in the past few weeks have been nothing but smut, flamebait, and dirty bombs. At the very least, I foster discussion.

[quote name='mykevermin']data. provide it.[/quote]
You won't like the source. You'll ignore the data. You aren't actually interested in finding out the truth.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-of-union-members-now-work-for-the-government
wm2773_chart1.ashx

I tell you what, Myke. Since whatever I manage to Google up won't meet your standards, why don't you prove me wrong. Show me where the percentage of unionized jobs isn't greater from the government sector than the private sector. Teach me.

Remember, we established weeks (months?) ago that unions provide you with better wages, working conditions, and benefits.
Click to expand...

Teach me again. Unions were started to protect the working class from evil taskmasters and money gubbers who are more interested in getting the job done and making money than the safety and welfare of the employees. Who are government employees seeking protection from?

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Any outsourcing of jobs has to be blamed primarily on trade policy. Doesnt really matter what the taxes are or what people are being paid here or anywhere. The ability to tap into the American consumer base while producing overseas starts and ends with trade policy.[/QUOTE]

Trade policy is just one of the reasons - and be honest. It's a combination of many things that boils down to "cost to build here vs. cost to build there". Let's say you're Uncle Sam - and Snap On Tools wants to close their plant in Southern Illinois and open up a new plant in Mexico. How would you suggest changing "Trade Policy" to prevent this?
 
The difference between cost to build here and cost to build there is completely nullified because to import those products back into the US, the trade tariff imposed would give the advantage to the company that stayed in the US, whether it be Snap On Tools or a competitor of Snap On Tools. Either one is fine, so whether the company leaves or not is somewhat inconsequential. If they want to sell to the US, they pay the price of entry. If not, that company probably has competitors.

Now, Snap On Tools can also import their products into Europe or Asia, but they're going to encounter the same thing, since most of the rest of the world (excluding the US) protects its domestic industry. Now, it may indeed benefit them to produce in Mexico and sell to China or India or Bangledesh, despite that they also protect their domestic trade, because the tariffs may be lower than in the US for a number of reasons. Maybe they dont make those particular tools there and so they arent highly tariffed. Maybe some safety standard is lower there which allows them to cut additional costs that they wouldnt have to if they were importing into America.

The price of entry of goods into the country can completely offset whatever the domestic tax rates are and whatever the employee benefits are.

Bottom line is, someone is going to want to sell to the American consumer. If a particular company doesnt, there are others tripping over themselves to pay the price of entry.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The difference between cost to build here and cost to build there is completely nullified because to import those products back into the US, the trade tariff imposed would give the advantage to the company that stayed in the US, whether it be Snap On Tools or a competitor of Snap On Tools.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Doesnt really matter what the taxes are or what people are being paid here or anywhere.[/QUOTE]

tariff (ˈtærɪf) — n
1. a. a tax levied by a government on imports or occasionally exports for purposes of protection, support of the balance of payments, or the raising of revenue
Click to expand...

So, your trade policy would be to tax imports at a higher rate than domestic goods - which isn't something I'm necessarily against... but in order for that to be effective, the formula would have to be:
cost of tariff > savings from not paying US taxes or the US workforce. If the tariff for a widget made in Mexico is fifty cents, but I can save 55 cents/widget by moving my widget plant to Mexico, then it'd make business sense to do so, right?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You won't like the source. You'll ignore the data. You aren't actually interested in finding out the truth.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-of-union-members-now-work-for-the-government
wm2773_chart1.ashx
[/QUOTE]

You aren't showing that "union jobs have increased...hand over fist," which is the claim I asked. These data show that, of all unionized jobs, public sector unions are a growing *proportion* of them. Which could be accomplished by a growth in public sector unions, but also by a decline in private sector jobs that are unionized.

Now, between the two explanations (growth in public, decline in private), we *know for a fact* that the latter happened. I'm asking you to prove the former, since you made the initial claim. You're taking a ratio measure (proportion of private union jobs: public union jobs) and using that to make a claim about an absolute number, or a rate (% of gov't employees that are unionized). Either of the latter two measures can be used to show that unionized jobs have increased "hand over fist" (the latter more than the former)...but not the information you've given. That provides no support for your claim, because it's immaterial to it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You aren't showing that "union jobs have increased...hand over fist," which is the claim I asked. These data show that, of all unionized jobs, public sector unions are a growing *proportion* of them. Which could be accomplished by a growth in public sector unions, but also by a decline in private sector jobs that are unionized.

Now, between the two explanations (growth in public, decline in private), we *know for a fact* that the latter happened. I'm asking you to prove the former, since you made the initial claim. You're taking a ratio measure (proportion of private union jobs: public union jobs) and using that to make a claim about an absolute number, or a rate (% of gov't employees that are unionized). Either of the latter two measures can be used to show that unionized jobs have increased "hand over fist" (the latter more than the former)...but not the information you've given. That provides no support for your claim, because it's immaterial to it.[/QUOTE]
Back off man, he tutored stats remember? :roll:
 
Yes, a tariff is a tax. I was referring to taxes incurred by businesses domestically which people often complain about, such as income taxes and whatnot. I usually use the word tariffs specifically for import taxes.

Labor is only a small part of the cost of production. Even in something labor intensive like cars, its like 10%. A major source of savings that is talked about less is that certain countries' governments dont mind picking up the negative externality cost of environmental damage (pollution).

If you can undercut American prices by 55 cents in Mexico, then the 50 cent tariff needs to be a lot higher.

We had a highly unionized workforce with a top marginal tax rate of between 71-91% between the 1940s and the 1980s. This period is sometimes called the Golden Age of the Middle Class. The great exodus was a result of a lapse in the trade policy that had existed from the founding of our country until the 80's-90's. Thats what I mean when I say that trade barriers can completely null any factors that people cite when they talk about outsourcing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The majority of Strell's posts on vs. in the past few weeks have been nothing but smut, flamebait, and dirty bombs. At the very least, I foster discussion.[/QUOTE]

Tut, tut, tut. Shameful.

Yes, it is true that both your posts and Strell's posts are absurd to the point of hilarity yet this is the only connection that bears scrutiny. The difference is that Strell's posts are clearly attempted comedy whereas yours contain naught more than pseudo-intellectualism masking your blatant attempts at furthering a party-line agenda. The results of your posts are flamewars and not honest discussion and you know it.

I've said my piece and now I'll let you attempt to back up your claims against myke. Adieu.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nasum
Not to stamd for anything in the bill, but it is only public workers that aren't un dangerous jobs... It isn't like United Steel Workers is now outlawed in WI or something like that...

Not sure what you're saying here. Rephrase, please.


Sorry, my phone typing skills eat shit.

I think part of the problem here is that the news on both sides failed to really push the PUBLIC union side of the story, instead it was just UNION. So the myth of this whole thing is that Gov Walker got rid of any and all unions all together. The reality is that we're talking about the A/P clerks working for the City of Bayport or whatever. I wasn't aware that teachers were even involved in whatever unions that Walker was trying to deny CB, honestly I'm still a bit muddy on that part it's just that teachers showed up for the protest and that became the headline.

Better?
 
But ti's already been shown that his aim is to striek the first blow to eliminating unions in the U.S.. Not just public, but all of them, period. It's been the republican M.O. for a while, but this is the biggest push they've made for it.
 
[quote name='Clak']But ti's already been shown that his aim is to striek the first blow to eliminating unions in the U.S.. Not just public, but all of them, period. It's been the republican M.O. for a while, but this is the biggest push they've made for it.[/QUOTE]

the democrat m.o. isn't any better, which is the reason most of the country pretends they are on one side or the other, but are really moderate.
 
pimps up, hos down?

I'd say it's "hi, we're from the govt and we're here to help" when in actuallity it's more like "Hi, we're still beholden to special interests but at least we can put on a laughable front of caring for the little guy, here have a campaign button!"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You aren't showing that "union jobs have increased...hand over fist," which is the claim I asked. These data show that, of all unionized jobs, public sector unions are a growing *proportion* of them. Which could be accomplished by a growth in public sector unions, but also by a decline in private sector jobs that are unionized.[/QUOTE]

While "hand over fist" is probably pushing it a bit, that same report I linked to shows you the data. It even discusses the decline of private unions increasing the percentage of union members which are government employees.

As far as actual numbers, again, from that same report:
Private-sector unions lost 834,000 members in 2009 while public-sector unions actually gained 64,000 members.
Click to expand...

When you consider the private sector losing 800,000+ union jobs (or jobs de-unionized), the fact that the Government actually gained union members (let alone 60,000+) does speak volumes.

Your entire rant about stocking Dr Thunder from Mexico is amusing - how hard have unions worked to organize Walmart? Because these are jobs they know can't be moved overseas. Any union leader would explode in their own pants if they thought they could organize a company like Walmart or McDonald's. Just like organizing government employees. They can't be moved *and* you've got the added bonus that if Walmart employees organize a strike or sick-day, 'meh... let's go to Target.. but the power of Government employees organizing a strike or sick-day (or taking weeks off to go parade around the capital of WI)... you can grind parts of the country to a halt.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Labor is only a small part of the cost of production.[/quote]
Partially true - but on any P&L statement (well, any well-ran business), it's divided into two categories, "Controllable" and "Uncontrollable". I can't control, say, the price I have to pay for the patented springs in my widgets that I can only source from Magic Springs Inc.. I can't control the standard deprecation of my Widget Machine. Therefore, when attempting to cut costs and make my widgets cheaper, I'm not going to be able to focus on those aspects. I'm going to look at the controllable L's - and near the top of that list is going to be Payroll (including wages, benefits, etc.).

If you can undercut American prices by 55 cents in Mexico, then the 50 cent tariff needs to be a lot higher.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, is going to cause Mexico (and other countries) to raise their tariffs in retaliation of what we've raised our tariffs to. If the company is only looking to sell to America (or mostly to Americans), then, yeah, they'll be looking at the tariff very closely. If they're a global company, they're going to focus on what everyone's respective tariffs are.

[quote name='Clak']But ti's already been shown that his aim is to striek the first blow to eliminating unions in the U.S..[/QUOTE]
Slippery slope is slippery.

If someone said "Obamacare is the first step towards total government takeover of our entire health care system.", they'd (rightfully) be given a Tea Party hat and shown the door.

[quote name='cochesecochese']Tut, tut, tut. Shameful.

Yes, it is true that both your posts and Strell's posts are absurd to the point of hilarity yet this is the only connection that bears scrutiny. The difference is that Strell's posts are clearly attempted comedy whereas yours contain naught more than pseudo-intellectualism masking your blatant attempts at furthering a party-line agenda. The results of your posts are flamewars and not honest discussion and you know it.

I've said my piece and now I'll let you attempt to back up your claims against myke. Adieu.[/QUOTE]

It's interesting that you claim the results of my posts isn't discussion, then end you post by saying that Myke and I can continue our discussion.

It's also interesting that you're concerned with the results of my posts being flamewars, yet happily encourage - and to some extent, partake in - the actual flaming.
 
Adding 64K jobs *isn't* very much. Although, when you consider the economy and the unemployment rate, it's nothing to sneeze at.

Yes, Walmart has worked exceptionally hard to keep unions out of stores. That's not really something up for debate, is it?
 
Well it stand to reason that if unions haven't tried very hard to unionize wal-mart, then wal-mart wouldn't have to try very hard to prevent it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yes, Walmart has worked exceptionally hard to keep unions out of stores. That's not really something up for debate, is it?[/QUOTE]

You brought it up.

Also, I thought unions were "thugs" and stuff, always getting their way, never giving an inch and taking no quarter. I thought our economy was being ruined by a combination of teachers and police making $55,000 per year* and the very act of collective bargaining.

What kind of magical dark powers does Wal-Mart possess that assists their power to defeat unions like they have? It must be metaphysical, since unions are the unstoppable force. Right?

* this number is higher than most teachers or police make on average.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top