'Right to work' makes ballot
Amendment to ban all-union shops goes to voters in fall
By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Monday, April 28, 2008
A "right-to-work" measure that would ban all-union workplaces got the go-ahead Monday to appear on this fall's statewide ballot.
A random sampling of 5 percent of the submitted signatures showed backers turned in more than enough acceptable entries to put the measure to a vote, according to Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman.
"A sufficient number of valid signatures have been submitted," Coffman wrote in a letter.
A Better Colorado, the group campaigning for the measure, issued a statement from one its key backers after learning the initiative had advanced to the November ballot.
"It will constitutionally guarantee the basic rights that all Coloradans deserve," said brewery descendant Jonathan Coors, who has been a key supporter of making Colorado the 23rd "right-to-work" state.
The measure would change the state's constitution by doing away with the current process allowing employees to vote on whether they want to set up an all-union shop. Such arrangements require all workers covered by collective-bargaining contracts to contribute financially in return for being represented by a union.
The campaign to get the "right-to-work" proposal on the ballot submitted 136,608 signatures.
The initiative will be known as "Amendment 47."
Despite the ruling, opponents vowed to comb through the petitions in an effort to disqualify more of the entries.
"With one-third of their signatures invalidated, the special interests behind Amendment 47 have a lot of questions to answer about whether they used fraudulent means to gather signatures," said Jess Knox, whose Protect Colorado's Future coalition has proposed some of the ballot measures aimed at countering the "right-to-work" proposal. "Now that their petitions are public, we intend to shine a light on this potential illegality."
"Right-to-work" campaign spokesman Kelley Harp responded: "It's clear the unions are as afraid of voters deciding the fate of Amendment 47 as they are of their members getting to decide whether or not to join a union."
The governor's office continued to express hope of avoiding a ballot showdown between "right-to-work" proponents and labor groups backing competing initiatives.
"Gov. Ritter remains fully committed to doing everything possible to ensure none of these measures end up on the November ballot," his spokesman Evan Dreyer said. "He continues to feel this type of battle would harm the state's economy at a time when we should be working together to strengthen our businesses and our work force."
kelleyj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5068
By the numbers
The campaign to get the "right-to-work" proposal on the ballot submitted 136,608 signatures. A random sample of 6,831 signatures showed:
4,728 entries were accepted
2,103 entries were rejected
76,047 valid signatures needed to place the measure on the ballot.
94,546 of the 136,608 submitted signatures were presumed to be valid based on the results from the random sample.
April 28, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 47 - GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
April 28, 2008
2:45 p.m.
jacka writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
April 28, 2008
8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
BadBobby writes:
It's plain to see that jacka and SASQUATCH are management and not for the working man because they have all day to sit around and bash unions on their computers at work. We already have free choice to work for a union or not. Pay the dues if you want the benefits. Athletes and movie stars have an agent to bargain a contract for them and pay well for this representation, unions are the same. The main reason people want to work for a union is great represetation and great benefits. We've seen where a big business, anti union, president will take us, all the jobs leave the country and the workers in those countries that should benefit are still coming to America illegally by the thousands. Where is all the money that these corporations are making going, right into their own pockets.
April 28, 2008
10:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
BadBobby,
People don't work for the union you whack job! Unless of course you're the (local, state or national) president, secretary, vp this, vp that, vp the other thing, business manager, organizer, political director, field rep, field director, shop steward, etc.... leeching your $100k++ paychecks off the average $10-40/hour worker.
Put the union talking points back in the envelope they handed you down at City Union Hall and take a deep breath you reluctant thinker.
You're a stonehead too. NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage his top priority in 1993. Our President even added enviromental and union components. Big viros and bigger labor got what they wanted.
I sure am sorry that your SEIU and AFL leaders could not force those Canadians/Mexicans to all become closed shop slaves for Stern and Sweeney.
And antoher thing, NAFTA worked so well that we now have 12M illegals here doing jobs that your unemployed UAW brothers can't be bothered to do becuase they live off the state dole in places like MI, IN, IL, NY, etc...
Get a clue union skull, people work for themselves .... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 47, GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
April 28, 2008
10:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
BadBobby,
People don't work for the union you whack job! Unless of course you're the (local, state or national) president, secretary, vp this, vp that, vp the other thing, business manager, organizer, political director, field rep, field director, shop steward, etc.... leeching your $100k++ paychecks off the average $10-40/hour worker.
Put the union talking points back in the envelope they handed you down at City Union Hall and take a deep breath; obviously you sir are a union skull, a real leech.
You stonehead, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage his top priority in 1993. Our President even added enviro and union components. Big viros and bigger labor got what they wanted too. I sure am sorry that SEIU and AFL could not force those Mexicans to all become closed shop slaves for Stern and Sweeney.
NAFTA worked so well that we now have 12M illegals here doing jobs that you unemployed UAW brothers can't be bothered to do becuase they live off the state dole.
Get a clue, people work for themselves .... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness my american freind.
VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 47, GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
April 29, 2008
3:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
Well I see that quite a few of the other writers are anti union.Well I have lived in a right to work state before.You are at the mercy of your employer and they will and do fire people for being black,gay,lesbian,hispanic,blue eyed,green eyed,blond hair curly hair,to fat,to skinny,or just to gosh darn ugly.So if you want to be at the boss's mercy vote right to work. Then watch your rights just disappear right in front of your eyes.In the meantime management laughs as you starve working minium wage. I know I worked for Wal Mart.No health care,No solid work schedule,No rights also don't forget no comp benefits when you get sick.So vote for this and watch all the things you do have vanish like a leaf in the wind.
April 29, 2008
6:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tom writes:
Workers in "right to work" states earn something like 4 to 6 percent LESS than those in states like Colorado where there is no "right to work" law in place.
Higher wages? Better benefits? They often come about from union negotiations. Let's not forget that.
Don't want to join the union? Nobody is forcing you to work there. But let those "shops" that want to be all-union BE all-union.
April 29, 2008
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
I've worked in union shops twice in my life, and we had two basic types of people - 1) those who did a good job and took pride in their work, and likely would have no matter where they worked, and 2) those who sat in the comfort of their "you can't fire me" world and sucked the life out of the company while cheating their fellow union members at the same time. Unions had their time, and they may again if companies get back to treating employees unfairly as they did in the early 1900s - but if America hopes to compete on the global battlefield for market share, unions either must go, or be seriously revamped to productivity is maximized, and they aren't going to allow that. It's the wave of the future boys, better grab a board and find a curl.
April 29, 2008
6:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
tjpatriot writes:
I lived in St. Louis for a while, and once heard that St. Louis and Baltimore were the most unionized cities in the country. Not exactly the pattern a reasonable person would want their city to follow. Do a search on "St. Louis" and "union" and you will find stories where vendors setting-up for conventions have to hire union workers to "help". These "workers" actually do nothing but stand there while company employees do the real setting-up. These are called "shadow" workers, and are typical of the situation you end-up with when unions rule the roost. Real efficient, and I'm sure everybody's chomping at the bit to have their next convention in St. Louis. I tried to start a wiring company there, with just myself and a couple friends when I needed them. We got a couple jobs. But when some union people follow-up to do some electrical wiring and realized the Data wiring had been done non-union, the business owner ended-up with some holes in his ceiling where the union workers had had some "accidents". What a bunch of idiots. But of course these are the same people that would do a "side-job" in someones residence in a heartbeat. At one point I even got a "cease and desist" letter from the City of St. Louis. One time when I first moved there, I was at a restaurant and ordered a Coors. From across the restaurant someone started yelling a bunch of "scab" comments. At first I didn't even realize I was the reason for his comments. WTF, I can't even order whatever kind of beer I want?? Is this the road Denver wants to going down? One final example. St. Louis has some of the most beautiful brickwork in the older houses that I've ever seen, from about the 1920's. Anyone who lays brick now in St. Louis is in the bricklayers union. This union dictates an EXTREMELY high wage, for workers who might not have even finished high school. I guess some will say "that's great", but in reality it has made fancy bricklaying a lost art because no one can afford it anymore. So, a great deal maybe for some bricklayers in the 50's, and maybe some of their offspring who lucked into those jobs, but for everyone else, worker and employer alike, you're screwed. And for all you who want to cry about China, a huge reason why China is so attractive to manufacturers is BECAUSE of the union situation here. When times are good, unions can have a purpose I suppose, but when times are hard they aren't worth squat. Ask the layed-off auto workers after they closed some plants in St. Louis. I'm sure they have some convoluted reason why it's Bush's fault.
April 29, 2008
6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
I worked for a company here that is ruled by union. I have no respect for union. They keep bad workers good jobs. happymike 44, if you didnt like the benifits package walmart offered then you shouldnt have agreed to work there. Its not like they told you you would get all of these things and duped you. everyone knows working for wal-mart sucks. The unions have lost thier power. Take the grocery stores for instance. They were on strike in calafornia for so long the union ended up setteling with Kroger, Safeway, and Albertsons for far less than was orginally offered! The teamsters even walked out in support and nothing happened. then colorado voted not to strike because they knew they would lose. King soopers drivers are now non-union, and a lot of the stores are non-union. The non-union stors are better! I dont like unions and I hope to see them all go away soon!
April 29, 2008
7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
40 hour work week
8 hour standard work day
Time and a half overtime pay
Health benefits
Pensions
Worker's compensation for injuries on the job
Occupational safety standards
Good pay
Paid vacations
These are just a few of the things that unions fought and bled for in America. Management didn't give you these things.
If you signed that petition and you are not a billionaire, you're saying that you like being abused and financially raped. Evidently the petition signers don't mind if someone who will screw them gets to enjoy all the wealth that their hard labor created.
If you signed that petition and you have a family then you owe your children an apology. You're willing the place them entirely at the mercy of your employer and eventually theirs. When they're sick and you cannot afford to take them to the doctor or buy them medicine, blame yourself.
If you signed that petition, don't think it will curry any significant favors from your employer. You won't be allowed to work one more minute on the job when they send your work to China. You won't earn an extra cent. You are letting your employer keep a big part of what you earned for the company.
Want to know what they're going to do with all that extra money? They're going to make sure that the politicians in the next election don't do anything that's going to make your life any better. They're going to make sure that the next round of tax cuts passes you over and goes directly to those who need it the least. They're going to bribe Congress to import more laborers just like you so that they can fire you at will, cut your pay, and make you work for next to nothing.
If you signed that petition, you belong on the auction block. You deserve to be sold like cattle because that's what you are. The women in your family should be sold to the highest bidder as sex slaves and their own brothers can oil them down for their masters. Might as well get it over with now. You have clearly been bred for such abject prostration to your lord and master.
April 29, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steve_In_Denver writes:
Colorado voters have already shot this measure down in the past. When will these out of state interests get it through their heads that the citizens of Colorado do not want this Right to Work for Less measure to affect our state's economy. It will get defeated again.
April 29, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
fcatalina writes:
It's incredible that you rabid anti-union morons think it is fair to receive the benefits of a union contract at your work place without paying for any of those benefits. You think it's ok to make your co-workers pay your share to bargain for those benefits.
Right-to-work is WELFARE for workers who get all the benefits (high pay, health care) of a union contract but want to be freeloaders. I thought you conservatives were against welfare. Yet you think these employees deserve something for nothing and call that the "right to choose?" I suppose it is the right to choose to have your co-workers pay for you. So much for personal responsibility.
If you could choose not to pay dues, but you would lose your benefits and take a pay cut (in other words, choose not to benefit from the union contract) I would be all for it. But right-to-work allows these people to get something for nothing.
People who benefit from institutions THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO CREATE ought to contribute to those organizations. It would be nice if I had the "right to choose" not to pay my property taxes, but that wouldn't be fair. My neighbors would have to pay extra to provide for my municipal services. SAME THING HERE. If you want the benefits of union employees, don't make someone else pay for it.
April 29, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
fcatalina,
I have no idea where this comes from. Who wants this? I want nothing to do with unions. If you want to work in a union then go for it. I wont. and HolierThanThou these rights are protected under law for most of us. (salaried and high paying jobs are not)pay, vacations, and Health benifits not being protected. check out what Kroger benifits are now for union employees. They suck under the new contract. The newer employees only get an extra $1 an hour for holiday pay, and sick time? for get about it, the new health benifits HA! I am not saying in the past unions have helped the worker, but they are not needed now and they have lost thier power to make things better.
April 29, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
I can't understand why the Colorado worker would continue to shoot himself in the foot. Voting for right to work is going to make it so any employer will be able to terminate you for any reason. The right wing has done a masterfull job of villifying unions for the past 30 to fourty years and unfortunately the American worker has bought into it hook, line and sinker. That being said as a former union employee I understand some of the frustrations with unions. Their reluctance to allow employers to fire/or temporarily suspend employees who are consistantly underperforming, late to work etc., etc., is a huge problem. Unions, or at least the one I worked for gauranteed us some basic protection from the employer, but they consistantly undermined their value by not monitoring the performance of its members and make them understand that you still have to work hard so the employer makes money and keeps you employed. I think unions are an absolute need in this country, but I think they need to revamp their rules to some degree to minimize those who will take advantage of the protection and fail to perform at a reasonable productive pace. I do not agree that pay should be equalized throughout the union for the same job. There needs to be a performance standard applied, so those who do work harder and perform better see it reflected in their pay and those who don't perform at a reasonable production level see that reflected in their pay. All of that being said the American worker has been flushed down the toilet to China and who knows where else by corporations. We do need Unions in some fassion to maintain some sort of descent treatmant for labor. There has got to be a compromize somewhere, but voting 'right to work' goes to far in the other direction.
April 29, 2008
8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lewlew writes:
It's really sad that those of you opposing the union have no clue as to how your job pay and hours are what they are today. A 40 hour work day, health benefits, fair treatment all came about with the backing of some type of union. You'll realize it to late when you loose these rights and you find yourself working longer hours, not getting fairly compensated for your work and being punished just because they don't have to answer for it. The economy is getting worse, we are about to go into a depression and peoples fears are high. This is not the way to fix a failing economy. I have no problem paying a $30 union fee per month to protect a $45k/year job. That's called job security. But maybe those of you are more privileged than myself and money isn't an issue.
April 29, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I just checked out an article about this initiative on the Denver Post. Some pretty interesting revelations, including the fact that Molson-Coors doesn't even support right to work, and are trying to distance themselves from Jonathon Coors' extreme rightwing agenda. Also, the Denver Chamber of Commerce isn't supporting the measure either, nor is the South Metro Chamber of Commerce.
By the way, Jonathon Coors' actual job is heading up the "government relations" department for CoorsTek, a private spin-off company. In other words, he spends his time wheeling and dealing with politicians to advance corporate rights over citizen rights. What a surprise.
Here's the article if anyone's interested in reading it: http://origin.denverpost.com/breaking...
April 29, 2008
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lewlew writes:
Thank you mytwosense the article is very informing. Too bad more people won't take the time to really see whats going on.
April 29, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
Since I left a Union My pay is higher my benifits are great and I do not have to worry about strikes. My job gets done I get great reviews and my pay goes up depending how I do not the union. And guess what I do not have to pay a 1/4 of my wages out. Unions are what drove the jobs overseas. They are why the Auto industry in in the tanks, Its why getting electrical work done is through the roof and people are hiring illegals to do the work. Unions had their place in the past now all that is protected under law the unions are no longer needed. No one should be forced to be part of a union or do not work.
April 29, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
There is no doubt that some, if not many, of the pro-union crowd likes their union - and that's great. And there is also no doubt that the unions did bring positive changes to the work scene as Holier points out. The entire workforce, union or not, has benefited from those efforts. But unions simply aren't for everyone, me included. And people who have the benefit of a college degree and who tend to be in more of the white collar job sector, can more readily understand how unions stifle an industry and begin to choke a company to death. History is replete with such stories, many of which can be found on the 'net if a person is willing to search and read objectively. There is nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING, that a union can provide, that couldn't be mandated and enforced via appropriate state and federal legislation. Unions came into existence because legislatures didn't do their jobs, and they still aren't today, or we wouldn't have the junk bond, worldcom, savings and loan, enron, sub-prime mortgage, type of debacles every ten or twenty years that Congress then jumps on. Tell your legislators to push for fair labor laws and then we won't need unions or right-to-work bills.
April 29, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
bjamin writes:
It always amazes me that the liberals always use the montra "Right to Choose", or "Freedom of Choice" up until the individual has a chance to make a choice for themselves. What they actually mean is the right to choose to be immoral, or allow a 12 yr old girl to have an abortion or a military personel to turn their back on their commitments. Otherwise they want you to be good citizens of the "State". They feel that the Government and organizations know whats best for the individual than we do for ourselves.
April 29, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
pegasus: "Tell your legislators to push for fair labor laws and then we won't need unions or right-to-work bills."
But that's exactly why the opposition to unions is trying to push them out. A union is a much more organized and powerful coalition in terms of pushing for fair labor laws than a scattered, disparate number of workers in different jobs with different companies in different geographical locations. It's the unions that keep an eye on what's going on in Washington, and when an anti-worker measure appears to be in the works, marshall the considerable power of their members to create opposition.
Anti-Labor knows that as long as workers are organized, they have much more bargaining power. So their strategy to destroy that power is age-old: Divide, isolate, and then conquer.
April 29, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
bjamin, as a liberal myself, I actually share your perplexity about the whole so-called "right to choose" issue so many on the left hold. But let us not drag that wedge issue into this discussion about unions, ok? Or else both issues will get diluted, and neither deserve that.
Anyway, you state: "They feel that the Government and organizations know whats best for the individual than we do for ourselves."
I disagree. Let me give you my personal perspective, as a liberal. First, remember that the US government was formed with the express purpose of serving the public, not the other way around. That's why our government is elected in and elected out by the citizens of this country.
But what is happening is that large business interests are gaining much more of a political say than your average citizen. And so we're seeing a transference of our government out of the hands of the people, and into the control of large corporations who actually have no real national allegiance.
Yes, our government has gotten too big, too centralized, too bureaucratic. But so has business in many industries, and to the point that your typical corporation now has far more legal rights than the average private citizen.
My point is that at least with an elected government, control remains, at least in theory, in the hands of you, me, all Americans. Do you really want to completely dismantle that system of checks and balances and let large corporations have free reign over America? I don't. As I have stated repeatedly and will continue to do so, I am first and foremost a CITIZEN of this country, NOT a consumer.
Unions, like our government, is also supposed to support and serve citizens, not big business. There are certainly problems about unions that need to be fixed, but if you completely do away with unions, you are taking away yet another "check" in our system that keeps the scales from tipping too far in the favor of other interests besides that of the citizens of this country.
April 29, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
mytwosense said, "A union is a much more organized and powerful coalition in terms of pushing for fair labor laws than a scattered, disparate number of workers....."
But is that really true nowadays? I realize it was in the past, when the AFL/CIO and Teamsters were powerful beyond reproach. But it really isn't so at this time from what I understand. The unions have all but given up in the home construction industry, letting what were high-paying jobs go to illegals. They've lost almost all their power in the steel industry. In textiles, sweatshops in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South America are completely non-union. In Information Technology, something that was lightly unionized in the US, jobs are being off-shored by the thousands. I just think we need legislation that offers protection for some of our jobs - and unions can't do that, the company can simply move all operations off-shore and leave current employees with nothing - there is no bargaining power there.
There seems to be a belief by the pro-union crowd here that a non-union shop is "out to get them", and I guess I just don't understand that. In 35+ years of working for many, many companies, I can say I have always been treated fairly and paid well by all of them. If I hadn't been I was always free to take my skills and move to someone who would. Why is the ability to do that a problem?
April 29, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
bjammin. I suppose you have nothing to hide either. I mean you would probably allow your employer to search your home wouldn't you. You right wingers used to be the ultimate advocates of freedom, the constitution, and the bill of rights. What happened to you. Ever since George took office you have been willing to abdicate all kinds of rights for the sake of "Homeland Security". What a joke that is. I do agree in part with you about Unions. There needs to be a choice. We don't need unions having a death grip on any one sector of the work force, but we also don't need corporations trampleing the worker and making the work environment miserable and unsafe. There has to be a middle ground somewhere in this debate.
April 29, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
pegasus, I've never worked for a union shop either, but quite candidly, that's because my career path was centered on the "overhead" portion of business, not the actual production side. White collar jobs typically aren't unionized.
One reason unions lost a lot of their power was because of a fundamental shift in thinking and strategy within their leadership ranks, who decided to side much more with management than had been done in the past by other union leaders. Well, we've seen the results of giving a mile: you get left with an inch. Take it as a lesson learned.
As for all the offshore practices going on, I believe citizens as a whole need to mobilize against many of these efforts. Unions cannot take this on all by themselves, but they are an additional force to add to a coalition that would be missed if they were eliminated.
April 29, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Does anyone else see the irony that this measure is being put forth in the form of a VOTE, that, if passed will eliminate "the current process allowing employees to vote on whether they want to set up an all-union shop"?
April 29, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
You will stop seeing jobs go oversea when the guy sweeping the floor is not paid $17.50 an hour. Did anyone here take a Econ class in school?
The "expected" level of living in the Country is WAY out of control. If you make minimum wage, you do not need to spend your money on a LCD TV, try going back to school with your paycheck so you can afford the rent AND all the toys!!!
April 29, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
MarineGrunt: "You will stop seeing jobs go oversea when the guy sweeping the floor is not paid $17.50 an hour. Did anyone here take a Econ class in school?"
Yeah, did you?
By the way, why shouldn't janitors make a livable wage? It's hard work that a lot of people don't want to do, and janitors do a hell of a lot more than just "sweep the floor."
Anyway, I'd like to see you try and support a family off of $17.50 an hour.
MarineGrunt: "The "expected" level of living in the Country is WAY out of control."
No mention that the actual COST of living in this country is way out of control. Why is that, MarineGrunt? Is it that people are too greedy and want too much healthcare? That they're so greedy they actually want to own their own homes? Is all this greed of the people creating a selfish demand for healthcare and a roof over their heads?
You tell us, EconWiz.
April 29, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
We need to exam the playing fields of today, and not the historical implications of union vs non-union, management vs worker, as today most employees have some investiture in their companies portfolio, be it as share holders, owner-operators, or in some other way.
Todays union continues to pit an "us against them" mentality for it's workers, who sometimes forget that the employer pays the bills, not the union. But for more concrete evidence, let's examine apples to apples in the automotive industry.
We all know that, what has become known as "Detroit" when specifically speaking about American auto manufacturers, is in the pits. Michigan has been hammered with some tough manufacturing times lately. So, when observing data relating to the auto industry, we'll compare union vs. non-union AUTOMOTIVE companies.
Michigan, with a unionized automotive work force has these current statistics:
Unemployment 7.2%
Median Income $47,182 (2006)
Median Housing Price (Detroit) $14,600 (2008)
Kentucky, non-unionized Toyota facilities statistics:
Unemployment 5.5%
Median Income $40,150 (2007)
Median Housing Price (Georgetown, KY) $359,352 (2008)
Another example is to look specifically at the industry and what that has done.
GM - 15,500 laid off (contract stipulates 95% of salary still must be paid to workers NOT WORKING)
$722M quarterly loss
Toyota USA - $120.9B net revenue (an INCREASE of 15.9%)
4.7% employment growth (USA)
When looking at specific industries, it is CLEAR that the union has harmed the productivity and bottom line of "Detroit" while at the same time, a lean, non-union model employed by Toyota USA is the exact opposite. Growth in employment rate, and in bottom line.
Do we want to end up like Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, or would we prefer to have job growth and revenue growth? Seems to me the time of the union has long since past. We should offer a great eulogy for what they have done historically, but the time of the union has come and gone. It is now time to move on.
April 29, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Dan2: "When looking at specific industries, it is CLEAR that the union has harmed the productivity and bottom line of "Detroit" while at the same time, a lean, non-union model employed by Toyota USA is the exact opposite. Growth in employment rate, and in bottom line."
Look, Japan is what happened to Detroit, not unions. Yet you assign zero blame to management decisions that seriously weakened US automakers' competitive position against more creative product lines put out by foreign automakers.
Also, "job growth" and "revenue" ARE NOT indicators of per capita financial wellbeing. Sure, unemployment rates can be low, but what if an increasing portion of the employed are making lower and lower wages? The overall economic effect is the same.
Job growth of low-wage jobs is not a goal to shoot for. In fact, we should be alarmed as a country if we see that this is becoming a pervading trend.
April 29, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
mts,
I am specifically referencing Toyota USA, and therefore appropriate to compare apples to apples.
The median salary for Toyota USA line employees (hourly) is $24.12, according to their white pages.
The median salary for GM, according to their white pages is $18.30.
It is in the benefits that the difference is made up (or was until the pension funds defaulted because of the high cost).
But, let's live in a fantasy world for just a little while. What would you prefer in your neighborhood, 100 people making a non-union wage of $20/hr, or 30 people making $35/hr, 30 people making $25/hr - working part time because of lack of seniority, 20 people making $12/hr because they are apprentice level, and 20 people on unemployment? That is the reality of the union environment.
Why do you think the unions blame NAFTA for jobs leaving to "lower wage countries?" Wouldn't it make sense, ESPECIALLY for a union environment and the brotherhood mentality of the "working class" to have your neighbors employed, even if at a $1 or 2 lower per hour, vs the very real problem of lay-offs?
April 29, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
mytwosense,
From what I read in dan 2's post you automatically blame japan. Well if detroit would put out a vehicle that people wanted .....but no. Why is there no vehicle that really competes because we cant trim the fat, they cant get rid of bad workers, and monies that toyota and the such put torward new vehicle devolopment the detroit union shops have to pay the workers that do nothing. Lets bais wages upon productivity and I bet we can start competing.
Also, "job growth" and "revenue" ARE NOT indicators of per capita financial wellbeing
Well what is? I thought that was why people hired more workers, to make the company money then they can hire more and then the unemployment goes down. I thought that was why people were mad about jobs going overseas is it leaves people without jobs.
April 29, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
tjpatriot writes:
Here's an interesting article which illustrates the situation you end-up in when unions take over everything. Maybe it's my upbringing or family background, I don't know, but the way things are done in St. Louis repulses me at the core. Having grown-up in the Rocky Mountain west, I have to believe most people around here think like me on this. When taken to the extreme (as in St. Louis), unions share some characteristics with the mafia. If you don't believe me, read the article.
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2007-0...
April 29, 2008
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
fcatalina writes:
Right-to-work = My co-workers pay my share for my benefits.
April 29, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
fcatalina= I need somebody else to stand up for my rights because im scared.
April 29, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
tjpatriot writes:
More of the same... a comment posted from the STL article:
Can someone please tell my why the Union's in St.louis are allowed to EXTORT money from hard working people like me.
I was working the Hispanic festival this last weekend in downtown Stl. This event was on the street, not in some Convention Center, not in a Hotel, but on the FN street's of STL. right next to The Soldiers Memorial ( A NON-UNION Building) Local 6 ( The Stagehand Union ) showed up and asks where the Union Stagehands were. We didn't have or need any stagehands to help set up our equipment since we set it up every weekend without them.
Well this is where the extortion began, the head of Local 6 said that this was UNION jurisdiction and that if we didn't hire his people he was going to put up a picket line and that's what he did. With that the event was shut down for the time being because the other Union's didn't want to cross there line. I'm talking about the drivers that were delivering beer trailer's, the coke trailer's and so on. But the Union cameraman that was filming the whole thing was still there getting the story. Also the Union electrician's that were hooking up all the power were still working right next to us at this time. Well the Head of Local 6 called the Head of the Electrical Union and made the two guys leave the event until Local 6 got there Extortion money.
The Head's of the Hispanic festival had no choice but to payoff Local 6 and the picket line was gone and the show went on. Oh by the way Local 6 still did no work at all, they just got money. Did i mention this was the fourth year for this event with no problems like this at all.
So, I guess what I'm asking for is why is this allowed to happen in STL.? This is the same Union that you all read about in the RFT a few mouths ago about all the problems at the America Center. Why does the Mayor and the Police Force allow this EXTORION to go on?
I would love for ONE person to explain this to me because i must be missing something.
WHY DO UNION'S HAVE THIS ATHORITY?
WHY DO HARD WORKING, NON-UNION ,PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY UNION'S EXTORTION?
Greg Jackson
Non-Union And Proud
PLEASE RE-POST IF YOU FEEL THE SAME
April 29, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
tjpatriot
I agree with you and I hate the unions! You are going to get shat upon for the next 2 hours or so by the craizies in here but you have my support!
April 29, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Dan2: "But, let's live in a fantasy world for just a little while. What would you prefer in your neighborhood, 100 people making a non-union wage of $20/hr, or 30 people making $35/hr, 30 people making $25/hr - working part time because of lack of seniority, 20 people making $12/hr because they are apprentice level, and 20 people on unemployment? That is the reality of the union environment."
Dan2, I do not believe this accurately portrays the union environment, because you are either overlooking or not realizing that with seniority comes experience, i.e., being better skilled at what you do. So being in a union encourages skills, not the opposite.
Now, in today's "market economy" of cheap outsourced goods, maybe skills aren't as important anymore. Is that really a good thing? I suggest comparing the quality of many manufactured products then and now before you answer that question. But to me, it seems most products are built these days to wear out very soon, and thus, require the increased buying of more products. This may guarantee more jobs, but not well-paying ones, since skills to produce higher quality goods are less and less needed.
"Wouldn't it make sense, ESPECIALLY for a union environment and the brotherhood mentality of the "working class" to have your neighbors employed, even if at a $1 or 2 lower per hour, vs the very real problem of lay-offs?"
But it's not a matter of a dollar or two lower per hour, and you know it. It's far less and while I would like to see all of my neighbors gainfully employed, if they most of them are employed at dead-end, low-paying jobs, they'd almost be better off living on unemployment subsidies.
Of course, that's a rather depressing choice, isn't it? So I believe there must be an answer closer to the middle. At least, I hope there is, or this country is going to continue to decline.
April 29, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
holekeeper (in reference to my comment that job growth and revenue are not indicators of per capita financial wellbeing): "Well what is? I thought that was why people hired more workers, to make the company money then they can hire more and then the unemployment goes down. I thought that was why people were mad about jobs going overseas is it leaves people without jobs.
First of all, let's be clear on the fact that companies don't strive to make more profits with an eye towards hiring more workers. They want to make more money to increase shareholder wealth, including that of executives who hold stock in the company. Additional profits don't necessarily go towards hiring more people, although if they expand their businesses, that typically happens. Or, they can expand their businesses overseas while reducing their business domestically.
People were mad about their jobs going overseas because they were reasonably well-paid jobs that went to workers who were paid substantially less. If you were a software engineer making $50K a year and suddenly saw your job outsourced to someone in India content to make $500 a month, you'd be pretty pissed off too.
April 29, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Correction & repost - I didn't put a closing quotation mark after holekeeper's post, and want to distinguish what he/she said and my response...
holekeeper (in reference to my comment that job growth and revenue are not indicators of per capita financial wellbeing): "Well what is? I thought that was why people hired more workers, to make the company money then they can hire more and then the unemployment goes down. I thought that was why people were mad about jobs going overseas is it leaves people without jobs."
First of all, let's be clear on the fact that companies don't strive to make more profits with an eye towards hiring more workers. They want to make more money to increase shareholder wealth, including that of executives who hold stock in the company. Additional profits don't necessarily go towards hiring more people, although if they expand their businesses, that typically happens. Or, they can expand their businesses overseas while reducing their business domestically.
People were mad about their jobs going overseas because they were reasonably well-paid jobs that went to workers who were paid substantially less. If you were a software engineer making $50K a year and suddenly saw your job outsourced to someone in India content to make $500 a month, you'd be pretty pissed off too.
April 29, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
Let's update the numbers a bit here; software engineers average $80k per year in the US. An Indian software engineer averages about $35k per year and they have little to no benefits. In Argentina and Mexico, software engineers average about $28k and $24k respectively, again with little to no benefits.
Now, to address increasing shareholder wealth; you're going to have to get over it. That's our system. That's exactly what companies are supposed to do here. Almost anyone can be a shareholder of a company, including you. Now, let's say you own 100 shares of WalMart - do you want the company to make money, or lose it? Of course, you want the company to make it. Do you care how? Yes - to a point you do. You're not going to insist that they pay 50% more in wages and benefits to American workers so that it reduces your stock dividend to zero, and neither is anyone else.
But it's a double-edged sword because the jobs go away for less pay, and more people here can afford to buy things they need or want. So the government (you and me) pay unemployment to them until it runs out, and then maybe they go take a $7 an hour job and still can't afford to buy anything. And more and more jobs leave, more and more get on unemployment, and fewer can afford to buy, and there's only one way out - a better job. And how is a better job obtained? Higher education in a field that remains, such as banking, insurance, medical, software development, and management. Educators seem to be making a comeback as well.
This is all part of being in the "global economy" - and none of our elected officials is going to change it willingly. Unions, non-union, whatever - it doesn't matter - your education and subsequent opportunities do.
April 29, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
correction - third paragraph should say "and more people here can't...."
April 29, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
pegasus, you are dead on about the effects of a global economy. A subject I am increasingly interested in, by the way. One thing I'm discovering is that while this "global economy" is making some people quite well to do, it's make millions more poorer than ever. For one thing, with the increase of land used towards manufacturing plants, so goes the increase of people displaced from those lands. Ultimately, they have few choices other than moving to industrial locales and taking up low-paid jobs there. Sure, they may make wages they didn't before...but those wages are going towards paying rent in dismal slums and paying for good that previously they were able to grow for themselves.
As to "getting over" the fact that citizens have to conform to corporations instead of vice versa is our present system, I choose not to. More and more, I believe this is a system that can only displace more people, and making them less able to depend on themselves to sustain their families. And eventually, more and more middle class folks are going to find themselves in this demographic. It may not be an overnight process, but it will happen.
And all these fields requiring higher education that you mention can eventually be outsourced somewhere else, too. Banking is already a worldwide industry; if you have access to the Internet, a phone, and some grasp of the English language, it doesn't matter where you live. So watch for more white collar jobs to go out the window, too.
I would say businesses that can only be local are the ones that will survive, but even then those businesses will be divided into low-paying service workers and the higher paid execs/management. Except perhaps for healthcare...and of course, huge booms in healthcare generally indicate a less healthy populace, don't they? Kind of an unpleasant trade-off.
Personally, I hope the public gives more consideration to these likely outcomes, so they'll wake up and see this persistent pursuit of growth for the sake of growth is cannibalizing many of the best aspects of society and how we live.
April 29, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
oops, I made a typo too: should be "food" instead of "good" in this sentence: "Sure, they may make wages they didn't before...but those wages are going towards paying rent in dismal slums and paying for good that previously they were able to grow for themselves."
April 29, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
mytwosense,
I guess I dont understand your point. The point of a buisness is to make money I think we can all agree on that. If the company is
Successful it can afford to hire more workers. I think we are still in agreement at this point. The point of hiring workers is to make even more money, the CFO or whomever is in charge of figuring out how many workers to hire and make a profit off those workers. they dont want to lose money. If they start to lose money they lay people off then close down. in my opinion this hurt even more then never starting a job in the first place. due to people losing houses, cars, and the such
The companies that have shareholders have to try to make as much money right now for the shareholders and cannot look to the future because then people would sell those shares and the company is not getting that cash flow.
Now the union comes in to protect the employees from the big bad managment. Even though at this point most employees are protected under state and federal employment laws.
Now how do you blame the company? Thier job is to make money, just like you go to work to make money. If you feel the company you work for is not paying you enough, or somebody offered to pay you like $10 an hour more I would have to say about 90% of us would go.
Then trying to give the companies a way to stay here the government offers tax breaks to offset what the company feels it could make outside the US, but then the government is not doing enough to make the company to make them pay thier fair share.
So how do we fix this? By mandating that a worker must join a union that was voted in 30-40 years ago when the unions were helping the worker. I dont think so.
Tell me how a union is going to stop all of this.
If somebody could give me a straight simple anwser that auctally anwsers this question I pledge I will strongly consider changing how I plan to vote on this.
I am not asking to be ripped apart by the union lovers I am asking for a simple anwser with facts to back it up.
April 29, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
Let me offer an adjustment, and then I'll explain; you said, "... making some people quite well to do, it's make millions more poorer than ever."
It's making millions <of Americans> poorer than ever. To be sure, there are Americans who are improving their situation as well, but not nearly at the rate of those who are losing ground. I believe that this may be by design, unfortunately. The story goes that a number of councils in the UN grew tired of the US always being so prosperous.
Indeed, I'm sure you've heard the stories that the greedy lot of us in the US consumed 60% of the worlds resources (we'll just forget for awhile that we also fed the world and made products that quite of few of them enjoyed as well). But, as the story claims, our officials have been told that we will share the wealth, or else (much conjecture here as to what "else" is), and so our foray into the global economy began as an attempt to pull the rest of the world up to something resembling our standard of living, and in some manner, I suppose it is working to improve the lives of many. But there are many, many losers here - however, cries for help (to stop jobs from leaving, illegals from arriving, food and gas prices from going up, and a number of other things, are falling on deaf ears - because, the view is, that we are far more able to "help ourselves" - ostensibly a reference to further education - than the vast majority of those in central and south America, Africa, and developing Asia are. Our "pain" is relatively minor in the "powers that be" view.
Is all of that true? I don't know. But it does seem to have some elements that make sense and seem believable. And the rumors do seem pervasive. It's been my experience over the years that rumors often have some degree of truth as a basis, so who knows?
April 29, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
holekeeper, my original point was that "job growth" and "corporate revenue" are not indicators of individual workers' financial wellbeing. If I work a lowpaying job at, say, Walmart (sorry, I know that's an overused example), that doesn't pay enough for me to stay ahead of my bills, I do not have financial economic security. A job alone doesn't create that, but wages that at least keep up with the cost of living and preferably outpace it will. That is, as long as I'm not blowing my money on stupid crap.
Ok, to answer your question: "Then trying to give the companies a way to stay here the government offers tax breaks to offset what the company feels it could make outside the US, but then the government is not doing enough to make the company to make them pay thier fair share.
So how do we fix this? By mandating that a worker must join a union that was voted in 30-40 years ago when the unions were helping the worker. I dont think so.
Tell me how a union is going to stop all of this.
If somebody could give me a straight simple anwser that auctally anwsers this question I pledge I will strongly consider changing how I plan to vote on this."
Unions alone cannot stop companies from going overseas. They simply can't. However, lack of unions won't stop companies from going overseas, either. I guess government controls could do something, but I am not sure that is the way we should go, either. What I think would be most effective is for a mass public boycott of companies that ship jobs overseas and also a renewed movement to "Buy American."
Of course, that has little to do with unions, so this shouldn't be your primary consideration when deciding to vote on them being allowed in Colorado. And with that being said, I can only tell you the factors I am considering:
1) State and federal laws that protect labor rights were brought into being largely because of union efforts. As we have seen unions decline in the US, we have also seen some of these rights decline, or less stringently enforced. If you want to keep labor rights intact, it's a good idea to have unions around as they are an organized voice for labor who will keep an eye on Washington. Corporations do this through trade associations and lobbyists, so workers better have a means to do this, too.
2) Unions encourage living wages, benefits, and pensions in this country. That is good for the US economy, which I personally am more concerned with than the global economy.
But again, unions alone can't fix all our problems. That will require public attention and citizen efforts, so if you're depending on unions to keep your jobs in the US, you're looking for a solution to do the work for you. That is a responsibility that is up to the citizens, and we have to live up to it somehow, some way. Once we achieve that, though, unions are a powerful tool to make sure that labor rights aren't further eroded in Washington and at the bargaining table with big business.
April 29, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
pegasus, what does that road paved with good intentions lead to again...? :)
Yeah, I can think of several policies that were meant for the good of all that have maybe backfired. For example, making loans easier for everyone to get, despite their creditworthiness. And to an extent, even taxes, which I don't think by and of themselves are a liberal invention. But maybe the progressive nature of some taxes can backfire. Not necessarily income taxes, but I'm on another thread right now where the subject of property taxes came up. It occurred to me that since only wealthy people can afford higher property taxes, this can end up segregating more neighborhoods.
But I digress from the topic at hand...you think globalization may have been "started" to make Americans less prosperous? That's definitely an interesting thought to consider.
April 29, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
Not necessarily with the objective of reducing American's worth, but of improving the lot of the world's impoverished. See, on the surface it sounds good because it's helping others. But the people who institute this type of thing obviously believe that life and prosperity are a zero-sum game, and I don't agree with that.
Here's a lesson I learned many years ago about helping others; the only way I can help others is if I have the financial means to do so. For example, we can't go door-to-door in a ghetto and collect very much that is going to help other poor people, but we can go door-to-door in a wealthy suburb and collect plenty - people can only share materials that they have.
Hence, the best way to improve the lot of those who have less is to educate them and help them to be part of the "haves" - taking from those who already have, and redistributing it to those who have-not, whether via regressive taxes, the shift of jobs, etc, usually seems to have the effect of raising the poor up only slightly, while reducing the ability of the haves to the point of not making it themselves, and thereby, removing them from those who can help the poor in the future, much less take care of their own family and themselves.
April 29, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-1...
Please read this artical. Unions dont have the power they once had.
How about this statment from another
It takes a lot to be the most hypocritical labor union but the UFCW always seems to lead the way. Of course everyone knows that UFCW represents some of the lowest paid workers in the United States but their officers still take the dues to fund some of the highest salaries and lavish lifestyles of any union.
http://employerreport.blogspot.com/20...
But we are to beleive that unions are for the people. While the workers in calafornia were receiving $150 a week for staying out of work all union employees were receiving full pay, same for health benifits.
Then after a 4 and 1/2 month strike all union members had to pay back dues before they got a paycheck for themselvs.
Unions are looking out for themselves!
April 29, 2008
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
holekeeper, like I said before, there are problems with unions that could stand to be fixed. Nothing works by itself without constant vigilance and commitment from those who are part of it. Early unions were formed by people who actually died for the cause. You might research the history of labor in this country, it's quite a bloody one, more so than any other country, I believe. Americans tend to fight for what they believe in...or at least they used to.
Today's union members should have at least a modicum of that commitment, and expect their leaders to work for them, not against them. Obviously, that is an area that is being neglected.
I just don't think you should throw the baby out with the bathwater, and outlawing the existence of unions does just that.
April 29, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 47 - GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
AVOID PAYING FOR UNION CORRUPTION
April 29, 2008
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Jacka, how can this amendment give workers the right to choose when it takes one of the two choices away?
April 29, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
mytwosense,
you have taken me out of context. I have posted several times that the unions did a lot of good for the workers. Yes I know about the blood bath the companies caused. I beleive they did good until the mid to late 80's. I also dont want to force people to feel how I feel. I dont want unions outlawed as you put it. I just want everyone to be able to choose for themselves. If you are pro union I respect that I may not like union but I have several friends that are proud union members and I love them like brothers and sisters, we disagree on a few things in life but we are still close.
I think you have stated the main problim. No one will stand up for themselves. The reason that unions were strong was because they would be with the workers picketing, fighting, and sometimes dying. They did not look at the union position they held as a good paying job but as a movement for the american people and now they will not give up thier comforts to step in and fight.
If thge union got back to the point that they would stand with the workers, forgo thier salaries, and fight like they used to I would be all for them, But its not like that anymore so I feel thay are not needed. Scrub them and lets start over with people willing to fight. Mr. Obama says he fights for the people, if he loses his bid for top guy why dosent he take a job as head of a union without a salary and show me. Or the old Wal-mart corporate lawyer Mrs. Clinton? She should know how to help and says she is willing to fight.
April 29, 2008
2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
mts,
I have to ask you, what have unions done since 1962, that makes working conditions better? Manufacturing jobs have left the US, in part because labor is cheaper elsewhere, materials are cheaper, and corporate tax structure is more relaxed. Smart business. From a purely business aspect, the company is held responsible by it's shareholders to actually produce a profit. If the business conditions are better elsewhere, then the company is doing what is necessary to satisfy it's shareholders.
And, today, what protections do unions actually provide it's members? Ask all those UAW members how wonderful the union is now that their pensions have been renegotiated, and they have lost 15,500 members in the last YEAR. And, take a tour through Pennsylvania and ask the Teamsters that belong to the Stealworkers Union how happy they are. The unions are in BUSINESS to make money, off the dues of their members. Why else would the Union be so inclined to penetrate Wal*Mart? For it's 55,000+ members and the dues that they would collect.
Unions HAVE had a place in American Labor History. They did a fantastic job, when working conditions were terrible. They really have. But, they have also passed their prime (which is what has allowed a ballot initiative such as this to come about). Their numbers continue to dwindle.
The reporter on this story also is doing a TERRIBLE disservice to what a "right to work" amendment actually means. The definition of "right to work" is as follows:
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the "open shop" rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.
Essentially that means, that if an INDIVIDUAL chooses not to join a union, they may not be forced to pay dues, or forced to choose between continuing employment or joining a union. Those that still wish representation by a union may do so, they just may not compel every employee to join the union.
It is pretty simple actually. The individual has a "right to work," union environment or not. The union still has the ability to recruit and attract members should they CHOOSE to join that organization. The question really is, why would anyone oppose the individual liberty of the employee to do what is best for him/her?
April 29, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
mts,
You stated "2) Unions encourage living wages, benefits, and pensions in this country. That is good for the US economy, which I personally am more concerned with than the global economy."
But at what cost? The term "living wage" implies that there are wages that are not livable in the US. It really all depends on the individuals circumstances and lifestyle. At my lifestyle, I don't know that $60,000/yr would be a "livable wage" for me and my family anymore. So, you should clarify your meaning.
Now, let's get to the core of the issue here. Instead of looking at corporations as some charity in which they, out of the goodness of their heart, should raise the standard of living for every single person, regardless of skill, by paying "living wages" seems naive, don't you think? What determines wages, at least in the US, is market value. Does someone pushing a broom, or digging a ditch in a union environment deserve a $60,000/yr salary? Or even a $45,000/yr salary? If so, HOW and WHY? What then would be the incentive to any worker to achieve greater knowledge if "everyone is paid the same," regardless of skill set?
If a machine can do the job an individual used to do, at a decreased cost, is that skill set a "marketable skill set" anymore? If it is, as an example, why do we not have town blacksmiths anymore? Or individual cobblers? Because the times have changed. Each individual has a choice in their careers, when the winds of change blow. Get on the train, get off the train, or stand there and get run over. The train is pulling out of the station, and the union environment is standing squarely in the middle of the tracks.
April 29, 2008
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Dan2, as holekeeper and I are discussing, there is a great need for union reform. You admit they did a lot of good when working conditions were terrible, well, they aren't doing such a good job during this time of, if not exactly terrible worker conditions, less than ideal ones. Ok, understood. My point is that this does not mean that the time for unions has come and gone. If anything, we need them more than ever, but in the form they used to be, not what they have evolved into.
The right-to-work law will hit unions hard financially, possibly even a death blow. Well, you can't reform something once it's dead, can you?
Dan2: "From a purely business aspect, the company is held responsible by it's shareholders to actually produce a profit. If the business conditions are better elsewhere, then the company is doing what is necessary to satisfy it's shareholders."
Quite candidly, I could really care less, and I don't mean that as an insult towards you. But as we have already discussed today, this rabid short-term focus on wealth for shareholders is doing some messed up things to greater proportions of the world's populace, which outweighs the benefits to "shareholders."
If that could possibly sink in somewhere with you, you might realize that the pursuit of profit should not be the guiding compass in every decision made in this world. It's a practice that systematically takes away citizen rights, while giving corporations increasing latitude to do whatever the hell they want.
Seriously Dan2, you cannot be a true Libertarian if you don't see this. A Corporate Libertarian, maybe, but not one in the traditional sense.
April 29, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
I think the statment I am about to make is true but if i am wrong I will say sorry in advance..
I beleive that a company that sells thier stock has to do all they can to make as much as thy can for the shareholders by law.
Again I may be wrong but I beleive I did read this somewhere while in college.
April 29, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Dan2: "What determines wages, at least in the US, is market value. Does someone pushing a broom, or digging a ditch in a union environment deserve a $60,000/yr salary? Or even a $45,000/yr salary? If so, HOW and WHY? What then would be the incentive to any worker to achieve greater knowledge if "everyone is paid the same," regardless of skill set?"
You know, your analogy about what determines "market value" says a lot about about today's market climate. Chiefly, market value is increasingly assigned to the people who hold jobs in the overhead side of business, rather than the actual production side. Using your example, I personally believe in a better world, both the person who designed a great irrigation system and then the worker who then goes on to actually construct it would be very well compensated. As the saying goes, we need fewer architects and more bricklayers. However, I'm willing to amend that a bit and say both should be amply rewarded.
I imagine you have a pretty easy job, from a physical standpoint. That kind of cushy environment keeps you from seeing the realities of just how hard physical labor is, especially if done from sun up to sun down.
Dan2: "If a machine can do the job an individual used to do, at a decreased cost, is that skill set a "marketable skill set" anymore? If it is, as an example, why do we not have town blacksmiths anymore? Or individual cobblers? Because the times have changed."
True, times have changed. So have the quality of the products we consume. Instead of using a pair of shoes for years and getting them repaired from time to time, we simply throw them away and buy another. Of course, this means our entire economy is based on constant and ever-increasing consumption. Which, in the short term, builds wealth for shareholders. Of course, it also results in more landfills for our trash, not to mention a population rendered utterly helpless when it comes to making what they consumer. If we can't buy it, we're SOL.
April 29, 2008
3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
I think it's great it's on the ballot. Let the voters determine which direction the state should go.
April 29, 2008
3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
mts,
The responsibility of a company is to it's shareholders. As individuals, we have the liberty to choose to acquire shares of company stock based on many criteria, but the company is RESPONSIBLE to it's shareholders. That is the way business functions.
What "right" are you referencing as far as citizens rights that companies are taking away? It would appear you are arguing against the right of an individual to work, simply by forcing association.
Unions, like any other business, should be held accountable to the environments in which they function. We all have the liberty to pursue what makes us happy, and what is best for us, individually, and collectively as a society, which is why this amendment process in Colorado is so wonderful. We as a collective society get to vote on what we feel is important. The irony is that we are doing this at a time when labors biggest allies will be in town to select (hopefully) their champion for President.
From what I can tell, you may have either grown up in a union environment, or currently work under it's controls, so that is what you know. I, on the other hand, studied the history of organized labor, the effects (positive and negative) in the American economy, in college, and along with my occupation, concluded that unions were (emphasize were) very good at bringing awareness to the treatment of the workforce, as the US industrialized. We are no longer a manufacturing environment in the US. That train, as I stated above, has left long ago.
And, OBVIOUSLY, companies can not solely motivate by profit AND continue success. Look at the backlash from "big oil" and their increased profit margin, or "big tobacco," or, on the flip side of the argument, the treatment the teachers union receives without accountability or measurement of success.
Again, the law will allow for the CHOICE of an individual to join the union or not, and the CHOICE of paying dues or not. What this initiative supports is the de-monopolization of union "shops" and the MANDATE that all must join, pay dues, or leave employment. Nothing more, nothing less. That is true liberty.
April 29, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
You are right mts, I do not perform physical labor any longer. I did that in the summer while I was in college, and with two degrees, am now working "smarter not harder," and have been rewarded for it. I wholly disagree with you on a fundamental level that those who create and design should be compensated the same as those who then "put together." Without the "design" level, the assemblers would have nothing to assemble. That is why, the "thinkers" make more than the "doers" and what allows us to continually improve, innovate, and expand. If all we had were "doers" in our society, then nothing new would ever come, because we would be stuck, doing it the same way forever.
You are arguing socialism, a philosophy that continually fails in the "real world" because we all, every single one of us, feels the need and desire to achieve bigger and better. That is the American Dream.
April 29, 2008
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Dan2, I've never held a union job nor do I come from a family that did. Like you, I've studied the subject. Just came to some opposite conclusions.
You ask "What "right" are you referencing as far as citizens rights that companies are taking away?"
A perfect example would be the arbitration clauses more corporations are requiring their customers to agree to. This effectively blocks customers from taking any grievances to the courts, while corporations still can happily sue each other. The late Ken Lay of Enron is a textbook example of this kind of hypocrisy. He was the primary donor of "Texans for Tax Reform" which worked to outlaw class action lawsuits. Of course, at any given moment, Enron was involved in litigation with dozens of other corporations.
And what about bankruptcy? It sure seems a lot easier for corporations to enact this process now than private citizens, thanks to bankruptcy "reform" laws.
But hey, it's all in the name of "responsibility to shareholders" right? 'Cause that's how business functions!
Well, I disagree. There are businesses out there who hold to a better code of honor than that, and if you don't work for one, you have my sympathies.
Because I can tell you that corporate recruiting, your particular profession, sure isn't protected from outsourcing. If your company or clients can find someone in another country with a phone, Internet connection, and good English speaking skills, why shouldn't they give them your job? And then you can explain to your son one day "Well, that's how business functions!"
Is that really a lesson we want to teach our kids? That all of us, all of our security, depends on the whims of a corporation? I don't know about you, but I'm going to encourage my son to figure out how to make a living in an area where he has far more control.
April 29, 2008
3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Dan2: "I wholly disagree with you on a fundamental level that those who create and design should be compensated the same as those who then "put together." Without the "design" level, the assemblers would have nothing to assemble. That is why, the "thinkers" make more than th