U.S. Politics 20

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Who cares about high speed rail, there is no support for Amtrak 2.0, it hemorrhages money and we don't have any to begin with. It's

.

That's a great video, Commodore. I particularly liked it when the guy pointed out "rush hour" on Woodland Ave. But the video makes a great point out that decisions like that often are based on what benefits local politicians rather than on what actually makes economic sense. You build something like that in response to a demand. Instead, to many things like that are built on the theory that they'll create their own demand, which is just wacky.

[Altherion]

More interesting is what's going on in Wisconsin:

That is indeed quite interesting, although I don't quite understand it. Has the Wisconsin government degenerated to such an extent that they no longer comprehend the purpose of collective bargaining? It's a tool that allows the government to negotiate with a few people rather than dealing with protesting crowds. Take it away and the only viable means of negotiation are mass protests with all that this entails. I guess they do kind of anticipate the consequences because police and the like are exempt, but they're underestimating the response of the rest.

[Swordfish]

Personally, I'd much rather commute on a train than a car. I can nap, read, or work while doing so. The end-point lacking decent public transportation is a more valid concern, I'll grant you that. So lets improve local public transportation as well. A decent network of intracity public transportation and intercity rail means that the available job market for people, especially those that can't afford cars or to commute for long periods of time, improves rapidly. You directly create jobs by hiring people to create and staff these public transit, and indirectly by broadening the job market for a significant portion of the population.

It seems like we should be encouraging people to live CLOSER to work, not further away, shouldn't we?

Isn't what you describe here more or less exactly how suburbs were born, except substitute 'High speed rail' for 'cars and freeways'?

[Commodore]

That is indeed quite interesting, although I don't quite understand it. Has the Wisconsin government degenerated to such an extent that they no longer comprehend the purpose of collective bargaining? It's a tool that allows the government to negotiate with a few people rather than dealing with protesting crowds. Take it away and the only viable means of negotiation are mass protests with all that this entails. I guess they do kind of anticipate the consequences because police and the like are exempt, but they're underestimating the response of the rest.

The problem with collective bargaining for public workers is that the taxpayers are not part of the equation. You have two sides (politicians and unions) bargaining with other peoples money. There is no incentive to limit cost, which is how you get these exorbitant pensions and benefits and salaries. And the money the union receives gets funneled right back into campaign contributions for the politicians that got them those deals.

I have no problem with collective bargaining (I think Right-To-Work laws are anti free market) in the private sector, if a company negotiates a bad deal with a union they'll just go under. But public employees are a different matter.

Here is FDR:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

EDIT:

what violent political rhetoric looks like (it doesn't offend me at all btw, just pointing out the double standard)

[Altherion]

The problem with collective bargaining for public workers is that the taxpayers are not part of the equation. You have two sides (politicians and unions) bargaining with other peoples money.

The same is true of any medium or large corporation. The average shareholder has very little say in what the officers of the corporation do with the money -- the recourse of the shareholders is to vote officers they don't like out and the taxpayers have the exact same recourse with respect to the government.

But public employees are a different matter.

Not that different -- they get angry over low wages just like everyone else.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I have no problem with collective bargaining (I think Right-To-Work laws are anti free market)

How are Right-to-Work laws anti-free market? I mean, I could understand the logic if labor-management relations weren't already heavily regulated, but they are. Leaving aside Right to Work laws, union-management relations aren't "free market" as it is. As a matter of fact, if a company balks at agreeing to a union security clause -- which is what makes right to work laws relevant in the first place -- it could well be blasted by the feds for an unfair labor practice.

[Commodore]

How are Right-to-Work laws anti-free market? I mean, I could understand the logic if labor-management relations weren't already heavily regulated, but they are. Leaving aside Right to Work laws, union-management relations aren't "free market" as it is.

As I understand it, RTW laws prevent an employer from having a "union only" hiring policy.

A company should have every right to do that if they choose.

[TerraPrime]

Re: FLoW

You build something like that in response to a demand. Instead, to many things like that are built on the theory that they'll create their own demand, which is just wacky.

So you're no fan of supply-side economics either, eh? I thought that was what the GOP likes? Or have they moved on from that?

Re: Altherion

That is indeed quite interesting, although I don't quite understand it. Has the Wisconsin government degenerated to such an extent that they no longer comprehend the purpose of collective bargaining?

Yes, it has. It started with Tommy Thompson. Jim Doyle was a Democrat but he was not very progressive. Now we get Walker, who is absolutely batshit insane crazy. Also, Wisconsin's state government has been in GOP control for many years. That adds to the problem, too.

The old days of progressive Wisconsin is no more.

It's a tool that allows the government to negotiate with a few people rather than dealing with protesting crowds. Take it away and the only viable means of negotiation are mass protests with all that this entails. I guess they do kind of anticipate the consequences because police and the like are exempt, but they're underestimating the response of the rest.

I think you're missing the subtext. The government is not planning on negotiating with labor, any more. They plan on simply dictating terms to the employees. Therefore, there'd be no thousands of small negotiations.

Re: Commodore

The problem with collective bargaining for public workers is that the taxpayers are not part of the equation.

What? I pay taxes, I assure you.

You have two sides (politicians and unions) bargaining with other peoples money. There is no incentive to limit cost, which is how you get these exorbitant pensions and benefits and salaries.

Exorbitant by what standard? Some numbers you care to share to demonstrate this claim?

And the money the union receives gets funneled right back into campaign contributions for the politicians that got them those deals.

Similar to how banks, manufacturers, and businesses have their own set of lobbyists, you mean?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As I understand it, RTW laws prevent an employer from having a "union only" hiring policy.

No. That's a closed shop, not a union shop, although closed shops have long been illegal. Union shops mean that the company can hire whomever it wants, but it must fire an employer who refuses to join the union within a given period of time, usually 30 days. But I suppose that's a technicality not relevant to the point.

A company should have every right to do that if they choose.

Then presumably, you'd agree that a company should also have the right not to hire someone who is involved with a union. Right? Except that is not the law -- it is illegal for an employer to refuse to hire someone because of union sympathies or affiliation.

There are so many laws/regulations controlling what a company can and can't do with respect to unions that's its mind-boggling. It is about as far from the free market as you can get. In the context of union security clauses (against which Right to Work laws are directed), if the union manages to get elected, and demands the company agree to a contractual provision promising to fire employees who don't join the union, the company may get brought up on unfair labor practice charges if it doesn't agree to that provision. So under that legal threat, companies usually will agree to those provision, which means that employees who don't want to join the union must be fired.

I get your point, but I think it is premised on a mistaken belief that a company is freely chosing to have that policy. The reality is that such policies aren't just the product of "free negotiations" between union and management, but rather there are potential legal sanctions for employers who refuse to agree to such policies. Otherwise, why would so many employer groups support right to work laws at all? They'd simply not have that policy in the first place, and the law would be unnecessary.

[Guest Raids]

I agree with FLOW that the existence of the NLRA makes any discussion of the free market when speaking of union policy - on either side - a nonsequitor.

But, check this out - the federal government is right-to-work. Isn't that nuts? I pay union dues, but it's totally voluntary. The thing is this: you get the fruits of the collective bargaining agreement whether you join the union or not, but nobody's going to step in on your behalf if you have a dispute with management about anything if you don't pay dues, and at my office I've seen that matter a number of times. Otherwise, AFGE will take it all the way to court on your behalf and pay the legal fees. That's a big benefit. I'm no longer as against right-to-work policies as I used to be, because it seems to work out fine in my office.

Granted, this is true as long as the union you're talking about is pretty big and powerful, but aren't they all, pretty much?

[alguien]

There is rail already - I've taken that train many times, actually, from East Lansing to Chicago, but it's not high speed. That's a 4 hour drive and a 6 hour train ride. It's not bad though.

Oh, I know there's a rail. I've taken it so many times that the Kalamazoo station manager recognizes my face. Also taken the 4 hour train to Grand Rapids a lot. It is a pleasant ride, lots of room in the seats and everyone has an outlet for their laptops.

But its shared with the freight trains. Usually if the Amtrak train is only 20 minutes late, we consider "on time". I'd love a hi-speed rail instead.

[TrackerNeil]

There are so many laws/regulations controlling what a company can and can't do with respect to unions that's its mind-boggling. It is about as far from the free market as you can get.

And yet Corporate America still manages to turn a profit...hmm, perhaps regulating the "free market" isn't as destructive as we've been led to believe.

[alguien]

Who cares about high speed rail, there is no support for Amtrak 2.0, it hemorrhages money and we don't have any to begin with. It's

.

You're going to use DETROIT as an example of why rail doesn't work? Are you serious? :rolleyes:

[Yagathai]

And yet Corporate America still manages to turn a profit...hmm, perhaps regulating the "free market" isn't as destructive as we've been led to believe.

Do you think it's a coincidence that corporate profits rise as more and more labor gets offshored, TN?

[Sariel]

I've never understood the aversion against unions that so many Americans seem to share. Just one of many cultural divides between you guys and my socialist paradise I guess :P

[TerraPrime]

Granted, this is true as long as the union you're talking about is pretty big and powerful, but aren't they all, pretty much?

No.

The union for the academic staff at University of Wisconsin - Madison, for example, is pretty weak and ineffectual. The union has agreed to give up their right to strike in exchange for binding arbitration. That seems nuts to me.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You're going to use DETROIT as an example of why rail doesn't work? Are you serious? :rolleyes:

No. But it is a tremendous example of how political considerations can trump common-sense and economic efficiency when it comes to mass transit issues. And given that it is the feds financing both the Detroit light rail proposal and high-speed, you kind of have to wonder how much is the product of true efficiency analysis rather than just wishful thinking about how people might change their habits.

[TerraPrime]

Do you think it's a coincidence that corporate profits rise as more and more labor gets offshored, TN?

Can't speak for TN, but I'm not surprised that companies turn a higher profit when they can forego basic workplace protections and regulations. Sweatshops exist for a reason, do they not?

But that's rather not the entire point from TN, I suspect. I think the point is that legislations that intrude on the free market ideal are not going to cause companies to go under, as some free market fanbois/gurls like to claim. Any time that any government law is passed to regulate the market, we get a chorus of "doooooommmm. DOOOOOOOMMMM!" from these people. The fact is that the market in the U.S. is not free, and yet we manage to turn capital and profit.

Besides, some of us don't think that the largest amount of profit is itself a goal so worthwhile that it obliterates other considerations.

[TerraPrime]

No. But it is a tremendous example of how political considerations can trump common-sense and economic efficiency when it comes to mass transit issues. And given that it is the feds financing both the Detroit light rail proposal and high-speed, you kind of have to wonder how much is the product of true efficiency analysis rather than just wishful thinking about how people might change their habits.

People will change.

It's not like the Interstate system was built by native Indians and the colonists just found them, you know. The government paid to build the interstate system. And if I understand it correctly, the auto industry won against the rail industry on that one. The U.S. used to have a passenger rail system, but it was dismantled in favor of automobiles. Roads were built, cars were made, and people adjusted how they lived accordingly. There wasn't a demand for suburbs with box-cutter stores when we built the interstate, as far as I can tell.

[Yagathai]

Can't speak for TN, but I'm not surprised that companies turn a higher profit when they can forego basic workplace protections and regulations. Sweatshops exist for a reason, do they not?

But that's rather not the entire point from TN, I suspect. I think the point is that legislations that intrude on the free market ideal are not going to cause companies to go under, as some free market fanbois/gurls like to claim. Any time that any government law is passed to regulate the market, we get a chorus of "doooooommmm. DOOOOOOOMMMM!" from these people. The fact is that the market in the U.S. is not free, and yet we manage to turn capital and profit.

Besides, some of us don't think that the largest amount of profit is itself a goal so worthwhile that it obliterates other considerations.

And my point is that, simply, the more regulated the labor market gets, the more labor gets offshored. TN is saying that legislation that restricts the free market isn't hurting corporate profits any, and I'm saying that it's because corporations are moving their costs -- and therefore salary-paying, capital-generating jobs -- to other countries, thus rendering his point at least partially moot. It may not be hurting corporate profits, but it is hurting the American worker.