2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Agreed with everything except for notion that the amount of money you make is directly correlated to how hard you work.  Sometimes this is true, sometimes it isn’t. There are people out there making millions of dollars making videos of themselves opening toys on YouTube.  I wouldn’t say those people are working harder than the skilled laborer busting their a s s all day for a decent salary.

Working smarter and/or finding something to exploit in the marketplace?  Sure.  Not necessary working harder.

Heck look at Jake Paul.  He made more money in that Tyson "fight” than like 99.9% of boxers will make in their entire career.  He would get absolutely destroyed by any number of journeyman heavyweights.  Is he making more money than them because he works harder?  No.  He found something to exploit in the marketplace.  Good for him, but not necessarily a sign of working harder.

I was going to make this argument but I figured I'd let vikas take his obligatory jab at the poors.

12 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I was going to make this argument but I figured I'd let vikas take his obligatory jab at the poors.

Rolling over and taking it...this is why you fail.

Your views on Unions is always going to be biased towards on your personal experiences. My dad was a steel worker when he was young. Super dangerous job and the union was pretty important in maintaining worker safety standards back then. 

The reality of the benefits/downsides of Unions is probably somewhere in the middle of workers and owners perception. 

2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

They could be less inclined to vote for politicians who promise limitless spending when they realize they’ll have to foot part of the bill as well.   Likewise, politicians wouldn’t be able to promise programs to their constituents with the idea that "someone else” will pay for it.

The bottom 50% squawk the loudest about how "their tax dollars" are spent. 

My dope MAGA cousins are retired on a USPS pension and modest savings after spending their lives exploiting every possible way they could to not pay taxes, and they're convinced their "class" is what's funding government.

35 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Eh, I can only speak from my own experiences. My dad was a chemical engineer at an oil refinery where the operators were unionized. They'd catch guys high and couldn't fire them because of the union rules; had to send them to rehab. The issue with companies we have owned would be trying to fire more senior workers -- sometimes the union rules made it last in, first out.

I’m not going to go too far in defending unions. I have avoided working for one for all but 2 or so of the 47 years I’ve been in the workforce. I have no need for one. If a place is that horrible to work at, I’d rather find a better job than stay and cry about it. I agree unions give too much weight to seniority. 

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

Your views on Unions is always going to be biased towards on your personal experiences. My dad was a steel worker when he was young. Super dangerous job and the union was pretty important in maintaining worker safety standards back then. 

The reality of the benefits/downsides of Unions is probably somewhere in the middle of workers and owners perception. 

Unions made great strides in the first decades, but most of the things they were founded to address have now been codified into law. They now primarily exist to protect their members from any consequences for poor performance while also demanding ludicrous pay and benefit packages that bankrupt industries. 

36 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Unions made great strides in the first decades, but most of the things they were founded to address have now been codified into law. They now primarily exist to protect their members from any consequences for poor performance while also demanding ludicrous pay and benefit packages that bankrupt industries. 

They try to maximize the pay and benefits of their workers. How is that different from CEOs existing just to maximize profits for shareholders? If you want everyone to cooperate for the greater good of the entire company, fine but that includes the owners/CEOs etc. If everyone is out for their own interests, fine but that also includes the workers. You can't have it both ways IMO. 

6 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

They try to maximize the pay and benefits of their workers. How is that different from CEOs existing just to maximize profits for shareholders? If you want everyone to cooperate for the greater good of the entire company, fine but that includes the owners/CEOs etc. If everyone is out for their own interests, fine but that also includes the workers. You can't have it both ways IMO. 

The law holds companies hostage because they aren’t allowed to replace the union workers. Let companies fire them for demanding too much, and stop having politicians openly campaign on their side, and they can collectively bargain all they want. 
 

It doesn’t work when the politicians they get elected make it illegal to replace them. 

8 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The law holds companies hostage because they aren’t allowed to replace the union workers. Let companies fire them for demanding too much, and stop having politicians openly campaign on their side, and they can collectively bargain all they want. 
 

It doesn’t work when the politicians they get elected make it illegal to replace them. 

Sure, but then politicians can't accept money from corporations either.  Again you can't have it both ways. 

10 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Sure, but then politicians can't accept money from corporations either.  Again you can't have it both ways. 

Difference is, unions contribute to politicians through union dues, which workers are forced to pay.  If a corporation were to take their employee’s wages and give them to a PAC against their employee’s will, they’d be breaking the law.  

19 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Sure, but then politicians can't accept money from corporations either.  Again you can't have it both ways. 

Fine by me 

I can’t think of an example of a large corporation giving to a politician, but no problem making it illegal. 
 

EDIT: I think some do - inauguration committee or buying tables. Make it illegal. 

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Difference is, unions contribute to politicians through union dues, which workers are forced to pay.  If a corporation were to take their employee’s wages and give them to a PAC against their employee’s will, they’d be breaking the law.  

Companies don’t donate to politicians. Company executives do. Musk gives his own money, not Tesla’s. 

19 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Fine by me 

I can’t think of an example of a large corporation giving to a politician, but no problem making it illegal. 
 

EDIT: I think some do - inauguration committee or buying tables. Make it illegal. 

 

18 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Companies don’t donate to politicians. Company executives do. Musk gives his own money, not Tesla’s. 

My point is you can't have executives act with impunity to maximize profits and leverage their advantage (money), but not expect workers to try to maximize their pay and leverage their advantage (numbers/optics). The advantages government policy gives Unions was fought for by Unions and given to them because the politicians wanted the votes. They give benefits to people like Musk because they wanted their money.  You can't ban one but accept the other, even if both use less than savory means to that end. 

Personally I'd prefer none of em have a day but alas I think that ship has sailed

28 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

 

My point is you can't have executives act with impunity to maximize profits and leverage their advantage (money), but not expect workers to try to maximize their pay and leverage their advantage (numbers/optics). The advantages government policy gives Unions was fought for by Unions and given to them because the politicians wanted the votes. They give benefits to people like Musk because they wanted their money.  You can't ban one but accept the other, even if both use less than savory means to that end. 

Personally I'd prefer none of em have a day but alas I think that ship has sailed

But as Vikas has pointed out, executives can be removed by the board.  If the board feels that the executives aren’t acting in the best interest of the company, the board can remove them.  If a union isn’t acting in the best interest of the company, the union can’t be removed.

I have less issues with private sector unions than public.  At least in the case of a private sector union, if ownership makes a bad deal with them that causes the company to go belly up, it only affects the company.  I’m totally against public sector unions.  If an administration makes a bad deal with a public sector union, now the taxpayers are on the hook.

24 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

But as Vikas has pointed out, executives can be removed by the board.  If the board feels that the executives aren’t acting in the best interest of the company, the board can remove them.  If a union isn’t acting in the best interest of the company, the union can’t be removed.

I have less issues with private sector unions than public.  At least in the case of a private sector union, if ownership makes a bad deal with them that causes the company to go belly up, it only affects the company.  I’m totally against public sector unions.  If an administration makes a bad deal with a public sector union, now the taxpayers are on the hook.

Eh I don't think that's analogous. When the executives are looking at what's good for the "company" they're looking at what's good for the shareholders. When Unions are looking at what's good for the "company" they're looking at what's good for the workers. Their internal management of their own power structures is irrelevant IMO, because neither group is looking out for the entirety of the company outside of avoiding the mutually assured destruction of it going under. 

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

Eh I don't think that's analogous. When the executives are looking at what's good for the "company" they're looking at what's good for the shareholders. When Unions are looking at what's good for the "company" they're looking at what's good for the workers. Their internal management of their own power structures is irrelevant IMO, because neither group is looking out for the entirety of the company outside of avoiding the mutually ensured destruction of it going under. 

Have you ever seen the poster art inside an American labour union office?

I have. They look like this:

The reason is nuanced and complicated, yet simple.

smaller (or more efficient) government = fewer taxes 

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue Unions aren't full of scumbags and crooks to rival  any board room. I just view them as 2 sides of the same kinda Fed up coin. 

50 minutes ago, greenskeeper said:

smaller (or more efficient) government = fewer taxes 

Welcome to the party Lindy

 

 

19 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue Unions aren't full of scumbags and crooks to rival  any board room. I just view them as 2 sides of the same kinda Fed up coin. 

I've been in many a board room with executives and union leaders.  Believe me, the executives aren't the scumbags.  

7 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I've been in many a board room with executives and union leaders.  Believe me, the executives aren't the scumbags.  

Eh you're not gonna win me over with anecdotes. I've dealt with more than a few hospital executives that we're true scumbags. They're both looking out for their own interests.  

I didn't know this country elected a south african citizen 

I'm waiting for their bromance to blow up like you know it will

 

On 12/21/2024 at 4:09 PM, DEagle7 said:

Eh you're not gonna win me over with anecdotes. I've dealt with more than a few hospital executives that we're true scumbags. They're both looking out for their own interests.  

Yea, I've seen plenty of those too.  But, I'm talking about a board room with a handful of business leaders (mostly Finance and HR People) who have spent months calculating out what the business can afford to pay without laying people off.  Then the Union leaders come in with a bunch of thugs that look like they are straight out of the Sopranos. It doesn't matter how good the company offer is, they slam their fists on tables, call people names and I've even seen them make personal threats.  Usually only the leader and his finance guy talk, the rest are just there to stare people down and look intimidating.  Most are there only to strong arm...very few actually understand the numbers of come to negotiate in any sort of an honest fashion.  If an executive behaved the way many of these Union leaders to, they'd be fired on the spot. 

Thanks to people like Joe Biden, Unions are absolutely above the law.  I honestly don't know a single business person who's ever personally dealt with Union leadership, Republican or Democrat, that doesn't think they need to be eradicated.  And, to be fair, most of the actual Union guys I talk to complain about the dues and feel pressured to keep up their membership...or else.  

What usually happens is that the Union gets their way and the business has to cut elsewhere to compensate.  You might say that's a good thing, but "cutting" is almost always people as it is by far the biggest expense.  So yea, the unionized shop worker floor guys may keep their jobs and get a raise, but the order entry, customer service and facilities people all take the fall.  I've had to lay off a lot of people over the years because we spent more than we could afford on the new union contract.  Then to watch some of the Unionized workforce act like a**h*les and do a horrible job because they can't be touched by management is about more than I can handle. 

Now, look, I understand the need for unions for independent contractors like electricians, wood workers and truckers.  It helps them negotiate better group rates for health insurance, benefits, etc.  That being said, business have their own regulations, controls and employee protections.  If a company doesn't pay well, or they treat their employees poorly, the free market allows their employees to leave any time they want. Businesses don't ever need to be unionized.  

And don't even get me started on public sector unions.  What an absolute joke.