Some interesting thoughts at Minnpost Can Unions and Democrats Defeat The Oligarchs.
"So can anyone name the 5 freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment?and just ONE MORE...FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.
- Speech
- Religion
- Press
- Petitioning of the government..,
So if I understand correctly, people do have a constitutional right to associate with other like-minded people to form a group that will strengthen their power- you know, like the NRA, or even some other association that for example will negotiate on their behalf, like a UNION. One of you who despise unions, tell me please, do you think unions are hurting YOU? I think this is just one more Republican sacred cow- hatred of unions they cannot control. (disclosure- I'm not a union member nor do I benefit or get hurt by others' union activities.)
Why do people want to take something from others when it would be otherwise one of our essential freedoms? Other associations, which exert much more influence and control over average Americans are the ones using the aforementioned 1st Amendment "right to petition their government". Among these are the AMA, PHARMA, the banking lobby, ALEC, the insurance lobby and more--
These are associations designed to leverage the power of corporations and profit seeking individuals to actually make the laws that govern those of us that belong to a church and maybe a township board. They make tax law, banking law, state government legislative agenda and more... So why the hate on unions? They are small potatoes except for their members and their contract negotiators. Richard
"I think most people are fine with like minded people lobbying for their self interests. That is part of living in a democracy. The challenge here is to remember what Public Employee Unions seem to have for goals now days:None of these are aligned well with the goals of us citizens:
- Keeping their existing employees employed
- Raising the compensation for the employees
- Fixing the work rules
- Make government more effective and less expensive
- Improve the quality of government services
We live in a very competitive world, and the burden cost of government needs to be minimized if we want to maintain or relatively high standard of living. The Unions seem to not be aligned with that goal.
Now Private Unions will fail when they drive the business costs too high. Our American Consumers have proven that they are not willing to pay a Premium for their involvement. Unfortunately there is no such control on the Public side." G2A
28 comments:
It has to do with economics and politics. Business dislikes unions because unions demand more in terms of wages, benefits and work rules. This costs owners money. Unions advocate for these things both in collective bargaining and in the political arena. Unions are in steep decline in America, and while these means higher profits for business, it has also resulted in wage stagnation for both union and non workers alike.
I don't know that any of this is controversial. The dispute really comes when thinking about things like lower wages, fewer benefits and fewer work rules are in fact, good for the economy, generating higher levels of economic growth that benefit everyone.
--Hiram
Hiram,
I know I am just repeating myself, but...
American Consumers demand low cost, high quality, great performance, cool features, quick availability, excellent reliability, great durability, etc. And most do not care if it means there employability / wages may be indirectly reduced.
Until they are willing to demand high USA and Union content, and are willing to pay more to support those higher wages, additional regulations, benefits, etc. The lower skilled workers in America will suffer quality of living losses until we reach some global equilibrium.
it seems to me that it is mostly the wealthy funding out govt and they can afford to pay for quality public service and public sector employees within reason.
How low do you want to pay them. I believe aside from pensions they are paid similarly to their private industry counterparts.
Laurie,
I don't want to have them make more nor less than people in Private industry...
I want them to be:
- paid what each individual is worth in the market
- paid based on the challenge / responsibility level of their individual position
- paid based on how well they perform in that position
- laid off in order of the lowest value employee first (cost and performance factor into this)
The current system as I have said dozens of times rewards tenure, degrees and staying in the same organization
It in no way encourages high performance, improved productivity, hard work, high quality, risk taking, etc.
And I think we tax payers deserve more from our public servants and their organizations.
American Consumers demand low cost, high quality, great performance, cool features, quick availability, excellent reliability, great durability, etc. And most do not care if it means there employability / wages may be indirectly reduced
then why did the elect Trump who through a trade war, is seeking to jack up prices. American consumers want lots of stuff, including good paying jobs.
--Hiram
Ironic isn't it...
They want low cost / high value goods...
And higher compensation and more benefits...
Socialism is at an all time America. Capitalism is at risk. And this is largely because wages are too low and benefits too scanty. We have elected a clown as president of the United States. I would say any organization working to reverse these trends is a good thing. And it certainly is easy enough to see why those who profit from America's decline, despise our unions.
--Hiram
Personally I do not despise Unions or Union Members.
I simply think their many of their goals are at odds with those of the US citizens.
Lots of citizens have lots of different goals. Most citizens I know wouldn't mind a pay raise, wouldn't mind better working conditions. Most citizens I know want better health care benefits. I find it difficult to see how when unions fight for these things, their goals are at odds with American citizens.
The people unions oppose just gave Warren Buffett, the third richest man in America a check for 29 billion dollars. Is giving billionaires billions a goal the American people are not at odds with?
--Hiram
First of all, America did not give anyone a check... We chose to let them keep more of their money... And please remember that I was against that also.
Here are some newer comments from MP that may be appropriate here, Richard seems to agree with you.
"Civil service was created to stop patronage. A new executive would fire everybody who is not "loyal."
Without public service employees, we would be at the whim of the next boss.
How in the world could you abandon all the safeguards chasing the next perfect employee? In my long years, I have never seen that perfect employee walk in the door. It just doesn't happen.
Furthermore, the most costly problems come from a loss of institutional memory. We apparently have forgotten WHY the public employees have been protected from the whims of elected leaders.
I am at a loss as to why our public servants have become targets of such animus. Mostly they all put up with people (think Trump) who think they know everything and yet are completely out of their element when uit comes to the public business and how it must be run.
It seems folks have had only bad experiences with their public employees, or there is some other reason for the resentment and unrealistic expectations.
They aren't well paid. Without security or the respect of the people, why would anyone want to serve or teach?" Richard
"Oh come now. CEOs, managers and supervisors change often in the modern private sector large corporations. They keep the good performers who are willing to support their agenda and they remove the others.
How do you expect the new Govt Dept Heads who are put in place by the people we elect are supposed to improve quality, productivity, cost effectiveness, etc if you in essence tie their hands with fixed bureaucracy and protected employees?
I used to work for a fortune 100 company that was free to fire pretty much at will. They had very low turnover as the Management changed, but they were not shy about laying off employees who were change averse. The organization needed every productive employee in the organization pulling the oars in the somewhat same direction if they wanted to be successful in a very competitive world." G2A
Hiram,
As for your comment. "I find it difficult to see how when unions fight for these things, their goals are at odds with American citizens." (ie wages, benefits, working conditions)
If they stuck to those things I would not be as concerned. Unfortunately they instead fight for:
- higher wages for older workers, not better worker
- higher job security for older workers, not better workers
- job placement for older workers, not better workers
- power to make organizational change/ improvement very hard
This rigidity and burden makes for a very expensive and ineffectual organization.
Always amazing how expendable old people get when we don't need the car keys on Saturday nights.
We don't like older people it seems, and they are something of a nuisance, I have found. All that talk about the good ol' days; all that watching of Fox News. Way too much complaining about kids who walk on their lawns. And what's worse, they cost a lot in terms of health care.
There was a movie a few years ago about a guy who was born old, and got younger over time. Maybe we should try that. Let's give young people the big salaries, the ceo packages the moment they get out of college, and then steadily reduce their income over the years so by the time they reach retirement they will make minimum wage. And let's deny them health care so that we won't have to deal with their depressing refusal to depart the scene.
--Hiram
Basically, if we shift compensation to younger people, we have to raise the compensation younger people receive because the money is going to have to tide them over during their lean older years. That is something we could do, of course, but the negotiations would be complex. Could unions play a role in that? I do know a lot of people would favor a system that could allow them to work part time or even retire at a younger age.
--Hiram
I've have a different and creative idea.
How about we pay all people based on:
- the job requirements / challenge
- their performance results
- the supply / demand of workers who are interested and qualified for that position
Not base their compensation on age, sex, race, religion, etc.
Maybe what we pay people should be based on the negotiations of the people involved. Employers want performance; employees want to be paid for performance. If we decide that younger people should be preferred, younger people should expect to be compensated more. It's like with football players. They are paid big money in the year or two they play the game, because they know that there performance will quickly fall off. Shouldn't the same principle apply with older workers everywhere?
--Hiram
I don't think I have indicated anywhere here that compensation should fall as a worker gets older. Where are you getting this idea?
I just think 2 workers doing the same job with the same performance should be paid equally.
Not based on their compensation on age, sex, race, religion, etc.
Some older workers who use their education and experience to good effect will make more. Some older worker who do not and lose passion for their job may be paid less.
I don't think I have indicated anywhere here that compensation should fall as a worker gets older
That's the problem. In a situation that requires stability, none of the positions are fixed, or even very clearly understood.
--Hiram
Tell me more about "requires stability".
People want to know if they will have a job tomorrow. They want to know if a pay check is waiting for them at the end of the period. They don't want a market approach to job security. They don't want to have to bid for their jobs frequently on ebay.
Employers want stability too. They want people to show up for work.
It's the nature of contracts. Contracts are a trade of freedom for security. The trade goes multiple ways. Not all employee relationships are that way, of course, but that model is a common one.
--Hiram
I personally like job and income security.
However I do not need a contract to ensure this.
I need to make sure that:
- I keep my job skills current
- I continuously learn / improve
- I perform well at work
- I work to keep my perceived value higher than my perceived cost
- I save for unforeseen gaps in my employment
You have a contract, just not a very good one.
--Hiram
No... And I don't know about that...
I get paid pretty well.
I have only been laid off once in ~27 years. And I was rehired within 2 months, well before my severance ran out.
My schedule is pretty flexible.
I am continually learning new things.
I get to travel the world.
And all I have to do is make sure I continue to learn, improve and perform.
How many of those things were in your contract?
--Hiram
No contracts required... Just sailing the free market...
From MP.
""CEOs, managers and supervisors change often in the modern private sector large corporations. They keep the good performers who are willing to support their agenda and they remove the others."
So, are you saying the good old boys network is now extinct? Experience says just the way "T" plays the game, kiss his ring and pledge loyalty. "Other than your opinion" After 40+ years in industry I think this is "BS", they are no more efficient than most other sectors. Show some performance metrics?
Here is how your message comes across: If I work 20 years at Graco working my way up the ranks, I am an honest loyal employee, If I do the same thing for the State of Minnesota, I am a lazy low life bureaucrat hiding form real work. As before show some metrics.
There was a great Bloomberg article yesterday that strongly disputes your opinion, they suggest America's steel industry collapsed from arrogant and incompetent leadership across the entire business segment. We all know, or should know 1 data point does not create a trend, however in this case it suggests, gross and widespread incompetence at the highest levels of industry, and now they want free stuff from the government to cover their excessively poor leadership!
Bloomberg Steel HistoryDennis
"I don't know much about steel factories, leadership and their unions, however if they are similar to GM... There was plenty of blame to go around.
And ironically they operated almost the same then as our government does today. They were large near monopolies who could raise prices with almost no fear of competition, financial troubles, bankruptcy, etc. (sound familiar)
So that is just what they did... They raised prices, the leaders / union members made excellent compensation and they all became arrogant. I mean why cut costs, improve effectiveness, improve quality, improve productivity, etc when people have to come to you...
Then their blissful near monopolistic bubble was popped when consumers learned that there were better and cheaper options available. That is why I am happy to challenge our governmental public employees with competition where ever possible.
People grow and improve when challenged, ensuring their wage, job security, etc certainly is not the best way to motivate them give the tax payers more for less. " G2A
Post a Comment