US politics

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, you've touched on outsourcing of manufacturing and other tasks as a major contributor to declining personal incomes. We might investigate why this has been occurring, and how it conveniently concentrates wealth further in the management class and among shareholders at the expense of others. And it's not that jobs are declining so much as they are being replaced by lower-paying service sector jobs with weaker or non-existent benefits.

No argument there. But does more unionization of manufacturing sector jobs solve the problem, or worsen it? There are obvious "solutions" like protectionism, etc., that can be discussed. My only point is that I don't think you can solve the problem of declining personal incomes just by advocating unions that push for higher wages.

Non-union jobs, I might add. It seems that service sector employees are ripe for unionization, notwithstanding the union-busting tactics of the likes of Walmart, a company which has closed stores outright following successful organizations.

Service sector jobs generally can't be outsourced, so that solves part of the problem. On the other hand, that means that the higher costs due to increased wages are going to be paid primarily by the patrons of those service jobs. And because competition in the service sector is so much more fierce domestically than in the manufacturing sector, service sector employers who remain non-union are going to have significant cost advantages over those who do not. In essence, rather than union manufacturing jobs going overseas, you'll see unions service sector jobs leaching away to non-union domestic employers.

So they always get what they want when they want it and no civil servants or public employees are ever laid off? Think again.

I didn't say that. They just have a lot more leverage than private sector union members.

[DanteGabriel]

Folks, however virulently we disagree with Raddichio's opinions, we should at least extend her the courtesy due a sitting Member of Congress. A pleasure to have you aboard to debate with, Congresswoman.

[jack-be-lucky]

Both sides in union organizing campaigns have sometimes gone over the line. There are plenty of times union organizers use express or implied threats to coerce people into signing authorization cards. And there are literally hundreds of times during Bush's presidency that management was found to have violated organizational rights under Section 8 of the NLRA.

I appreciate the fact that you didn't throw the "union thugs" line out there. Today's union organizer is just as likely to be a grandma as they are to be a knuclebreaker. But lets not compare the use of peer-pressure, which all of us have to face some time in our lives, to the blatant threat of the loss of your livelihood if you unionize. And for some reason, I get the sneaky feeling that any companies the Bush administration found guilty were the tip of the iceberg and didn't suffer much under any penalties imposed.

That's because it is illegal to replace them temporarily. Consider the alternative -- if a union declared a strike, they could force a company out of business 100% of the time because the company would never be permitted to hire new workers, even if those union members got jobs with other companies.

I believe you're an attorney, correct? And I hate to argue law with a lawyer, but since its rare to get a chance to do so fee free, I'll bite. I do not believe its illegal to hire temporary workers to replace strikers. The only provision being that those workers must be fired if the strikers offer to return to work. For that reason, companies don't see temporary workers as a big enough threat to unions to be effective. And i don't believe anyone can say honestly that there is a bit of difference between being fired for going on strike or being permanently replaced.

I think personal incomes are declining primarily because jobs are declining. It's pretty simple -- increase labor costs, and you encourage 1) moving production overseas; 2) importing the finished goods from overseas; or 3) investments in capital equipment and/or processes that will reduce the need for workers. Now, if management is making huge profits and can afford long-term pay increases, then the workers will get those increases and their jobs will stay. That's when unions really can help workers. But if not, then a company that caves because it cannot afford a long strike will become less competitive, and eventually lose and/or hire fewer employees.

The result is that the higher-paying manufacturing jobs disappear, leading to a decline in average worker wages. So it's not like people are staying in jobs in which the wages of those jobs decline. It's that the overall number of better paying jobs, as a percentage of overall jobs, has declined.

For public employee unions, it's different because there is no competition. As long as governments can get more money from taxpayers, public employee unions have an incredibly effective hammer. That's one reason why even FDR opposed letting public employees form unions.

Let me introduce you to my brother. Back in the 80's when he was CEO of an international conglomerate and Fortune 500 company, his basic business practice consisted of buying small unionized manufacturers, demanding ridiculous concessions from the union which forced them to strike, and then replacing those workers with permanent replacements. Thats the real way the system worked. And when his company was in turn bought out, he just pulled the ripcord on his golden parachute and jumped into private equity. Needless to say he's loves the free market, and we have some very interesting dinner arguments, but we always let him win, because hell, he picks up the tab.

[BloodRider]

Folks, however virulently we disagree with Raddichio's opinions, we should at least extend her the courtesy due a sitting Member of Congress. A pleasure to have you aboard to debate with, Congresswoman.

"We are determined to live free or not at all. And we are resolved that posterity shall never reproach us with having brought slaves into the world."

Wait - is she saying all freedom loving people should have abortions so long as Obama is president. Thats how I read it.

[awesome possum]

It should come as no surprise when a politician flip-flops over an issue to appease their base. But has any party in recent history flip-flopped as much as the Republicans have since Obama was elected, all for the sake of "sticking it" to the president?

Seven Things Republicans Were For Before They Were Against

See the link for a little more depth, but the seven things are:

1. Financial disclosure

2. Cap and trade

3. Immigration

4. Deficit spending

5. Bipartisan deficit-reduction commission

6. Individual insurance mandate

7. Medicare spending curbs

[Trebla]

:rofl:

The Tea Party responds to the NAACP

The Tea Party Express, a national Tea Party organization, is angry about the resolution.

"This is indeed the kettle calling the pot black," Mark Williams, national spokesman of the conservative grassroots group, told CNN.

"We're fighting the government programs that have emasculated the black family," Williams said.

He added: "It's the Obama administration that rolled back civil rights to a pre-civil rights era with 'Obamacare' in which they removed the concept of individual rights…it's the Obama administration that put a tax on white people with a tanning salon tax. I mean, this is the kind of stuff the Tea Party movement is fighting. We are fighting for the Constitution of this country, which, by definition, makes this a human rights movement a civil rights movement."

"It's the 21st century and their rights as humans are absolutely at risk here. And the threat doesn't come from those people who love the Constitution. It comes from those people in power in Washington right now," Williams said.

ETA: fixed link

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I appreciate the fact that you didn't throw the "union thugs" line out there. Today's union organizer is just as likely to be a grandma as they are to be a knuclebreaker. But lets not compare the use of peer-pressure, which all of us have to face some time in our lives, to the blatant threat of the loss of your livelihood if you unionize.

I'd say you're underestimating the type of "peer pressure" at issue here. As for the loss of livelihood threats, those are clear 8(a)(1) violations and usually pretty easy to prove.

And for some reason, I get the sneaky feeling that any companies the Bush administration found guilty were the tip of the iceberg and didn't suffer much under any penalties imposed.

One thing on which you and I would agree is that the penalties for a violation of the NLRA are too low, and need to be increased. Right now, an employer can fire someone during a campaign, and the only individual remedy is backpay. That does need to change. However, you're wrong about what "the Bush Administration" has done regarding your average complaint. Most of those are handled by career DOL people, and they don't care who is president. But I'm with you on increasing penalties for violations. I'd add liquidated damages and attorneys' fees to that mix.

I believe you're an attorney, correct? And I hate to argue law with a lawyer, but since its rare to get a chance to do so fee free, I'll bite. I do not believe its illegal to hire temporary workers to replace strikers.

That'll teach me to post while driving. I was trying to make a point about lockouts versus strikes and got lost in the text. You're correct.

The only provision being that those workers must be fired if the strikers offer to return to work. For that reason, companies don't see temporary workers as a big enough threat to unions to be effective. ]And i don't believe anyone can say honestly that there is a bit of difference between being fired for going on strike or being permanently replaced.

Well, the difference is that if you're fired, you can't ever get that job back. If you're permanently replaced, you're entitled to reinstatement as soon as there is a vacancy. So for some workers, it's a huge difference because they do get rehired. For others who don't, there's no difference.

Let me introduce you to my brother. Back in the 80's when he was CEO of an international conglomerate and Fortune 500 company, his basic business practice consisted of buying small unionized manufacturers, demanding ridiculous concessions from the union which forced them to strike, and then replacing those workers with permanent replacements. Thats the real way the system worked. And when his company was in turn bought out, he just pulled the ripcord on his golden parachute and jumped into private equity. Needless to say he's loves the free market, and we have some very interesting dinner arguments, but we always let him win, because hell, he picks up the tab.

Heh. Look, I'm not trying to argue that unions are always bad, or that union workers are all slugs and thugs. I have plenty of bad stories from both the union and management side to think that either side is always right. I do think that generally, they do more harm than good now to the average worker, but that's debatable on a level we really can't get into here.

I just wanted to make the point that the solution proposed for declining average wages -- more unionization -- is too simplistic and overlooks some root problems. It's called the Rust Belt because manufacturers learned it is smarter to build new plants in the Sunbelt, largely due to bloated labor costs. If you push unionization nationally, it'll just mean that the Sun Belt will start looking more like the Rust Belt as those jobs head overseas, and everyone loses then.

The real problem that unions can ultimately cause is short-sighted behavior on the part of management. A strike causes immediate, short-term pain that potentially can be fatal. Faced with that prospect, employers will sometimes make concessions that are unsustainable long term simply to resolve the problem that is in front of their faces at that moment. They then cross their fingers and hope that something will happen in the future to make those future concessions manageable. When that doesn't happen, the company becomes non-competitive, and those jobs are sometimes lost.

[RAddichio]

Well, I guess this is topical in a number of ways in here at the moment.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/108065-womens-advocacy-groups-target-voinovich-to-pass-global-bill

Why do Liberals habitually consider throwing huge amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned revenue at a difficult social problem equivalent to solving the problem? Usually the only permanent result of these ill-conceived lib programs is the creation of more government bureaucracy.

We've thrown billions of said revenue at public schools with zip results - there are still far too many students who either drop out or are unemployable due to illiteracy & basic math deficiencies.

[Alcibiades]

The economic downturn hasn't been "cushy" for anyone but the hedge fund guy who bet against subprime loans in 2007 and made billions. He's the only one who has really done well.

Did you see the Propublica article about Magnatar? I'm not sure I'd go as far as they do in stating that single hedge fund's role in the crisis, but it's definitely interesting. There's a This American Life episode about it as well.

[RAddichio]

Ridiculous. There are people who lost significant money in the stock market crash. These "wealthy elites" would be people who want to expand their businesses (but now can't afford to make the investment) or people who had spent 30 years saving for retirement.

It's just as valid to be distressed at losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a market downturn (especially if saved up over 30 years) as it is to be distressed at losing one's job.

The economic downturn hasn't been "cushy" for anyone but the hedge fund guy who bet against subprime loans in 2007 and made billions. He's the only one who has really done well.

Congress is responsible for triggering the sub-prime economic crash when they demanded banks must lower their lending standards. Point your finger at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd(via Fannie & Freddie) if you want to identify the authentic culprits responsible for buying their relections by weakening long-standing bank mortgage lending principals. The recent so called 'financial reform' was a sham because it exempted Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - the two gov institutions that caused the sub-prime crash.

[TrackerNeil]

Ridiculous. There are people who lost significant money in the stock market crash. These "wealthy elites" would be people who want to expand their businesses (but now can't afford to make the investment) or people who had spent 30 years saving for retirement.

It's just as valid to be distressed at losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a market downturn (especially if saved up over 30 years) as it is to be distressed at losing one's job.

There's a mighty big difference between losing "significant money" and "going broke." One is a disappointment; the other puts people out of their homes. And it's not as valid to be distressed over losing hundreds of thousands of dollars if you have hundreds of thousand more. After all, very few people who lost jobs can say they had backup jobs stashed away somewhere. Context matters.

[alguien]

Why do Liberals habitually consider throwing huge amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned revenue at a difficult social problem equivalent to solving the problem? Usually the only permanent result of these ill-conceived lib programs is the creation of more government bureaucracy.

This just seems like Faux Newspeak. Sound + fury = nothing. I bet you really hate those ill conceived liberal programs such as the FDA, Social Security, and Medicare.

We've thrown billions of said revenue at public schools with zip results - there are still far too many students who either drop out or are unemployable due to illiteracy & basic math deficiencies.

Do you have any statistics to back this up? Like, at all? What do you consider an acceptable margin? Any idea on the differences between suburb and inner city schools? I'm not saying our public education system is perfect, far from it, but I don't think it is quite the flaming disaster of a money sink that you seem to be claiming. Quite often, the state of the public school depends on the district where it resides.

ETA: and apparently, you're not in favor of combating violence against women. Okay... :rolleyes:

[Jaime L]

Congress is responsible for triggering the sub-prime economic crash when they demanded banks must lower their lending standards. Point your finger at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd(via Fannie & Freddie) if you want to identify the authentic culprits responsible for buying their relections by weakening long-standing bank mortgage lending principals. The recent so called 'financial reform' was a sham because it exempted Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - the two gov institutions that caused the sub-prime crash.

What exactly in Chataya's post triggered this response? This feels like an automatic dialer where you pick up the phone and someone just starts talking your ear off with a list of talking points.

[The Progressive]

I just wanted to make the point that the solution proposed for declining average wages -- more unionization -- is too simplistic and overlooks some root problems. It's called the Rust Belt because manufacturers learned it is smarter to build new plants in the Sunbelt, largely due to bloated labor costs. If you push unionization nationally, it'll just mean that the Sun Belt will start looking more like the Rust Belt as those jobs head overseas, and everyone loses then.

The suggestion was for more unionization is the service sector, not manufacturing. To lump them together would be a simplistic justification for a race to the economic bottom.

[The Progressive]

Lol, I see that all the usual suspects have ceased their kneejerk defense for our new resident teabagger.

[RAddichio]

Folks, however virulently we disagree with Raddichio's opinions, we should at least extend her the courtesy due a sitting Member of Congress. A pleasure to have you aboard to debate with, Congresswoman.

Oh no, my cover is blown...please don't anyone spin that last word into a guttersnipe remark. Thanks.

No that's not me - but I admire her tremendously. She's one of the many united & organized(for unselfish reasons) Republican women who have adopted the following as their theme song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOqk_q4NLLI

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Quite often, the state of the public school depends on the district where it resides.

I think that's at least 75% of the problem. And sadly, I don't think there's much that can be done about that. I've volunteered tutored in some inner city schools, and if you picked those classrooms of kids up, plopped them into a really nice suburban school with all the bells and whistles, and great teachers, the classrooms still would be shit for learning. Nobody wants to talk about that, but it's the truth.

[The Progressive]

I think that's at least 75% of the problem. And sadly, I don't think there's much that can be done about that. I've volunteered tutored in some inner city schools, and if you picked those classrooms of kids up, plopped them into a really nice suburban school with all the bells and whistles, and great teachers, the classrooms still would be shit for learning. Nobody wants to talk about that, but it's the truth.

I can't think of any real world example or study that would substantiate this little nugget of truthiness.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Rather than using the oblique "usual suspects" why don't you call people out by name?

[The Progressive]

That would be flow and you, scot.