PDA

View Full Version : Socialism - Was: Leave your religious message in towns!



Rocks 'n Roots
11-28-2004, 12:43
Truly, Minnesota, your comments would not be worth commenting on were it not for the many otherwise rational people who are swayed by such crap. I'm sorry I made the crack about the "cult" Christians, not because it's wrong, but because it's sure to be misunderstood.


I really think Bush won because he was successful at smearing Kerry enough that voters joined a wartime Nuremberg movement that ignored all of Bush's glaring failures. I see the present day as a huge reversal of previous American understanding in order to install the new Bush Company, or the new American Tea Company...

Bin Laden is great for military industrial complex business. I had a long conversation with a relative who voted for Bush and told me the reason why was because "they really believed the WMD's were there, and besides Saddam had his opportunity to come clean and didn't"...


Ralph Nader commented that Bush's greatest success was persuading a segment of American voters who stood to benefit the least from his policies to vote for him enthusiastically...

smokymtnsteve
11-28-2004, 12:52
(SMS...I rememer when people would sign their cards, "Merry Xmas"...drove my mother crazy)


no offense meant, though I find the basic xian message offensive personally,

but xians who find xmas and xian/xtian offensive are ignorant of thier own religious history.

copythat
11-28-2004, 18:59
I dare say we will never agree on George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter or ... or ... you get my drift, I bet.

So we probably won't agree on specific people.

But perhaps we agree on the tenets of the documents that are at the foundation of our nation: things like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, all like that. I'm pretty sure those documents discourage things like Congress endorsing any particular religion (I paraphrase, so don't be tempted to get into a pi**ing match; that's not the point here, which you will already understand if you are open-minded). That would also probably discourage us from evicting people according to their religion. Now think this through before you get cranky: That would not discourage us from evicting people based on their BEHAVIOR, just not according to the color of their skin, the god they worship, the land where they were born. The idea that "the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" harks back to the misguided, illegal slaughter of Vietnam. Anyone here other than me old enough to remember those lovely days?

By the way, if you want to "remove" all the pesky Muslims, you could do do under the misnamed Patriot Act. Just make an accusation and some Joe McCarthy clone will whisk them away. Poof!

Oh, do I miss THOSE days, when there was a whole Congressional committee on Un-American Activities! Boy, did they have things straight back then.

minnesotasmith
11-28-2004, 19:17
"can you even define the word "socialist"?"

Sure thing. It's a person who believes that one individual can legitimately be forced to give money, goods, or labor to another individual (or company or unit of government) when that individual has not agreed to any contract with that other person, nor has committed fraud or force against that other person. Having more money or greater talents/virtue than another person is NOT having wronged them; neither is refusing to help them or deal with them in any way, no matter their nature or situation. Need does not constitute a valid claim, after all. Glad I could clear that up for you. You are a socialist, correct?

A point of clarification I believe I should make here in reference to private companies providing virtually all services except courts, police, and national defense: I believe that people should be free to reject accepting (and thus paying anything for) those services. People should be as free to reject using and paying for snow or garbage removal, fire extinguishing services, etc., as they are free now to refuse to use Ford, Xerox, or General Mills products.

smokymtnsteve
11-28-2004, 19:20
U need to study up a little bit more there MS. ;)

The Old Fhart
11-28-2004, 19:43
Needles-"can you even define the word "socialist"?Although MS has answered the question, I think the best definition is from the father of socialism-"From each according to their ability: to each according to their need."

smokymtnsteve
11-28-2004, 19:48
actually I has more to do with how society controls the means of production,

copythat
11-28-2004, 20:04
[QUOTE=minnesotasmith]If those Muslims were atypical in their attitudes, they would be routinely turned in by fellow Muslims, excommunicated by virtually all Muslim clerics, etc. As that is not happening, the other Muslims are complicit in 9/11-type terrorism IMO. [/b]

THIS is alarming. THIS is exactly the thinking that had terrified Germans and Poles and French and Belgians and Dutch turning in their neighbors when they suspected they were Jews, or perhaps they were just acting funny.

It's one thing to toss around labels like socialist, traitor, liar and the like. It's entirely another to actually QUALIFY for a label ... such as fascist. (Fascism: a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship (W's My-Way-Or-The-Highway approach), forcible suppression of opposition (Patriot Act), private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control (Halliburton), belligerent nationalism (dissent="socialism" or "communism" or whatever label is handy at the time), racism (keeping African Americans from voting in large numbers), and militarism (hauling us into a war on a hunch, and perhaps just to punish Saddam for taking a pot shot at Bush Sr.). See also Nazi.)

Now, don't get me started ...

weary
11-28-2004, 20:48
Although MS has answered the question, I think the best definition is from the father of socialism-"From each according to their ability: to each according to their need."
Which except, perhaps, for a short time in the lives of a few 60's communes and an equally short experiment at Brooks Farm in the mid 1800s, has yet to be seriously tried.

Unfortunately "socialism" as a scare label has been used over the decades by the powerful and their gullible know nothing allies to protect their power.

The irony is that both the powerful and the gullible lose as a result. As we have heard again and again over the past few months, consumers are the engine that drives our economy. I'm fascinated as I see the powerful chuckling over their ability to eliminate jobs and cut payrolls, thus increasing their profits, while decreasing the wages and thus the ability of consumers to drive the economy.

Though I'm sure Minnesotasmith thinks otherwise the miracle that drove the American economy in the first years after war ended the big depression was the rise of unions that fought for a living wage for workers.

As unions lose power we are in trouble. Without unions or some other mechanism for keeping consumers prosperous our economy can do nothing except stagnate.

Weary

copythat
11-28-2004, 20:57
Wow!

Do you realize this is all on the AT Shelters and Lean-Tos forum???

Imagine what a hornets' nest we could stir up on the GEAR forum!!!

Needles
11-28-2004, 20:59
"can you even define the word "socialist"?"

Sure thing. It's a person who believes that one individual can legitimately be forced to give money, goods, or labor to another individual (or company or unit of government) when that individual has not agreed to any contract with that other person, nor has committed fraud or force against that other person. Having more money or greater talents/virtue than another person is NOT having wronged them; neither is refusing to help them or deal with them in any way, no matter their nature or situation. Need does not constitute a valid claim, after all. Glad I could clear that up for you. You are a socialist, correct?

A point of clarification I believe I should make here in reference to private companies providing virtually all services except courts, police, and national defense: I believe that people should be free to reject accepting (and thus paying anything for) those services. People should be as free to reject using and paying for snow or garbage removal, fire extinguishing services, etc., as they are free now to refuse to use Ford, Xerox, or General Mills products.

Hmm... by your definition George W Bush is a socialist as he failed to repeal every form of taxation in this country, is a proponent of welfare, but only for corporations and farmers and is forcing people into labor in the US military after their contract with the military has expired. Imagine that W the socialist, makes you wonder why he can't get along with the people in France.

As far as your second point goes, you obviously have no understanding of macroeconomics. With your system there would be no police, courts, or national defense as everyone would opt out of it with the exception of a select few and their contributions would be to small to cover the cost of these services. Of course we might get private police forces, courts, and military forces, but if that doesn't scare you, and if you can't see how strongly that goes against the very principles this country was founded on, then I don't know if there is any hope for you. I used to work for a company that wanted to be a private version of the KGB here in the US and they are doing a pretty good job of it with W's help right now, the private sector is no less nor any more corrupt than the government, but at least we have some say in who runs the government.

And to answer your question about me, I believe that the concept of the "state" is archaic and flawed, I believe that a centralized government will always serve its own purposes first and the people's when it has a spare minute or two. I believe that society is capable of policing itself and providing for the needs of its members. So am I a socialist? No, I am a Marxist, because I also believe the concept of private property is flawed and that any organization that exists only because of greed is doomed to failure because its endless quest for more, money, power, what ever, will always wind up being self destructive. I also believe in God, consider myself a Christian, find no incompatiblity between my political and religious beliefes, and I am also a very proud and patriotic American. I just wonder how much longer my pride will stay intact as everything this country was founded on is being washed away by the corrupt, immoral, and un-American individuals currently in power.

minnesotasmith
11-28-2004, 21:13
The post-WWII economic boom in America had multiple causes. Several of them are:

1) The destruction of the industrial capacity of most of our competitors in the war and before.

2) The still fairly high (though sadly fading rapidly) level of economic (e.g., nonsocialism) freedom in America.

3) The U.S. having had low immigration for a number of years, & nearly all of that European.

4) The U.S. having a decent domestic natural resource supply (e.g., oil).

5) The U.S. having built up its industry during the war.

6) The U.S. entering a national mood called a "First Turning" (also called a "High"), a period of optimism. See www.fourthturning (http://www.fourthturning) for more details.

That is a good start IMO. Actually, unions did nothing permanent and good for workers that wouldn't have been done for them by market forces in any event.

weary
11-28-2004, 23:05
The post-WWII economic boom in America had multiple causes. Several of them are:....
Yes. Minnesota. We all know what you believe. Merely telling us again and again tends to be boring. The puzzling thing is why you believe.

I don't pretend to be an economic expert, but I do read several newspapers and several news magazines and quite a few books dealing with such matters. Most seem to think the American economy is driven by the willingness -- and I assume the ability -- of consumers to buy things. If you have evidence to the contrary, please let us know.

Having worked over the years for union companies and union newspapers, as well as non union companies and non union newspapers, I always earned more money -- and thus consumed more -- when I was a union member.

Once 50+ years ago I remember working as an electrician in a factory that made skins for skinless hotdogs and being a member of the first union to ever successfully oust the Teamsters, who we all thought was crooked and was being bought off by our employer. I was pleased to discover that our wages went up as a result of the change in unions.

I got so prosperous that I drifted into college and newspapering. As I returned to the working world, I found the same thing. No newspapers paid much money, certainly not as much as electricians in factories that made skins for skinless hotdogs were paid. But newspapers with unions paid more money than newspapers without unions. I took that as at least anecdotal evidence that unions help people earn the incomes needed for a lively and vibrant economy. I noticed also that union newspapers also tended to be the most profitable newspapers. I always took that to mean that higher wages enabled them to attract more competent employees. What do you think Minnesota?

I notice also that as real wages of working Americans decrease, the economy also has slumped, which is certainly consistent with my theory that well paid consumers do more for the economy than wealthy stockholders and company managers who seem mostly to just buy and sell companies and then issue conflicting press releases, first announcing the savings made possible by diversifying, and then announcing the savings made possible by reverting to having their companies return to their cores and doing "what we know how to do best."

This certainly keeps money in circulation and some of it spins off into the private accounts of those doing the buying and selling, but seems to do very little to help either production, or the purchase of that production.

Weary

Skeemer
11-28-2004, 23:20
With apologies for being so far off topic...but I couldn't ignore this one.


Weary wrote:
As unions lose power we are in trouble. Without unions or some other mechanism for keeping consumers prosperous our economy can do nothing except stagnate.

I live in Ohio where Kerry attempted and failed to make the loss of jobs an election issue.

I also live in Lorain County where Ford is closing its Lorain Assembly Plant. It sat down with the UAW years ago asking for work rule changes to increase productivity, thus giving them a chance to save the plant. The UAW said "go to hell." Rumors have it the Avon Lake assembly plant will be next.

Honda Motor Co is celebrating its 25th anniversary in Marysville where it has created over 16,000 good paying jobs while successfully thwarting organization efforts by the UAW.

I retired from a UAW Delphi parts plant in Sandusky OH. After being profitable for years it is now losing money and its days are numbered.

During my carrer, I spent years in labor relations across the table from the UAW. They defend tardiness, absenteeism, theft, sabotage and featherbedding and even assault. They know that management cannot sustain a work stoppage and thus "blackmail" the company with unfounded grievances and threats of a strike to get what they want. Its just a matter of time before these jobs too will go elsewhere...their days are numbered.

GM now pays more per vehicle for health care than it does steel while the UAW refuses to help control cost with co-pays and deductibles.

Teachers unions are destoying our education system by demanding more and more for doing less and less. Teachers here are underworked and over paid.

What unions refuse to accept is that the stockholders are the owners of their jobs and deserve a return on their investment before the worker gets a nickle one. The "fair days work for a fair days pay" has long been forgotten. No one ever wanted to deny the worker a fair wage. They just asked them to earn it.

Yes, unions are losing power, but it may be too late.

copythat
11-28-2004, 23:52
Skeemer: Your observations are interesting and obviously based on plenty of experience. I, too, have decades of union experience, but as an activist, not as a table-top negotiator. (I've done my talking on the picket line.)

The only thing I'd like to add to your observations is something I learned from my ex-father-in-law, who has been a negotiator for a Fortune 200 for the past 35 years. He said anyone -- either side -- who wanted to get a jump on the other side would simply create a conflict. An artificial one. Ford wants to shut down Lorain Assembly and they push for work rule changes. The union knows it's a bluff and they dump a folder of grievances on the table. Neither one really cares about what they just did. They're posturing. Ford already knows it's shuttering the plant. And so does the union. And then six months ahead of schedule, Ford closes Lorain and moves a few of the people into a streamline, retooled Kansas City. It's cheaper for them to do that than upgrade Lorain. And everyone knows ahead of time how it's going to go.

Thanks for listening.

Patco
11-29-2004, 00:33
PATCO = Professional Air Traffic Controlers Organization, the one and only union I ever belonged to, led me to give up my job with the FAA by going on strike in 1981. No hard feelings from me but I've not joined any other labor forces since then.

Now we can probably close this forum since it has gotten off topic, and since the original topic is about exhausted.

Needles
11-29-2004, 00:35
What unions refuse to accept is that the stockholders are the owners of their jobs and deserve a return on their investment before the worker gets a nickle one. The "fair days work for a fair days pay" has long been forgotten. No one ever wanted to deny the worker a fair wage. They just asked them to earn it.
Yes, unions are losing power, but it may be too late.

Stockholders are the owners of the companies union members work for, but being a stock holder means you are not only a business owner but a risk taker, just as when an individual starts a company he doesn't get paid until his bills are paid and he finds a bit left over, stockholders are also the last who should be paid, not the first. Shareholders own the company, but they contribute so little to the company's success or failure as to not be part of the equation, it is the company's employees who are responsible for the profits rolling in... or not. If a company is a sucess then it is the workers who should be paid first and the most as they are what made the company propser. If things worked the way they should the return on investment in the stock market would be considerably lower than it is now. Sadly we seem to want to do most everything backwards in the US.

Skeemer
11-29-2004, 08:04
Needles wrote in part:
...but being a stock holder means you are not only a business owner but a risk taker...stockholders are also the last who should be paid, not the first

You're right and I retract my statement about stockholders being paid first. I guess what I was trying to point out is that unions continue to demand more and more while members are contributing less and less. They get $30+ an hour, fully paid health care, cost of living increases, time and a half and double time for overtime, etc...it goes on and on. It's gotten to the point they don't know what to demand...things like covered parking lots, walkways and air conditioned plants...no joke. It's still the stockholders' investment that is at risk and they should be rewarded with as much return as possible AFTER employees and management are rewarded for their contributions. The company does NOT belong to the employees. I do stand by the rest of the post. I still believe unions have done more to chase jobs out of Ohio than any President, past or present.

colt4x5...there are many examples of companies getting concessions from their unions to "save plants." At Sandusky, they negotiated a $16 million investment (I believe) to modernize the plant in order to obtain new business. The union never fullfilled their part, balking on instituting the productivity improvements. I know..."shame on management" for trusting that they would live up to their part of the bargain.

PATCO and others...I will do my best to get back to talking AT and hiking...but I can't promise anything.

ripple
11-29-2004, 10:13
Unions are for people who can't amke it on their own.

MOWGLI
11-29-2004, 10:21
Unions are for people who can't amke it on their own.

Ripple, how do you amke your living?

Blue Jay
11-29-2004, 10:33
Unions are for people who can't amke it on their own.

No unions were the last line of defense, prior to the corporate buy out of the United States. We lost and are too stupid to realize it. We are vassels, serfs to our lords. Actually, in some ways worse, the serfs of the middle ages had to submit less of a percentage of their crops than we do of our wages or profits. They still get our sons for their wars, now they get our daughters too. Some day we'll overthrow them again, however most Americans love being slaves to the corporations. They even pay a lot of money to wear their logos.

weary
11-29-2004, 11:05
No unions were the last line of defense, prior to the corporate buy out of the United States. ....

Well, maybe. But I tend to think of unions as protection against incompetent management. Among my final duties as a member of the Guild's executive committee was saving the job of a circulation manager (he's the guy who recruits and supervises the allegedly "independent" contractors who deliver the papers). Management had wanted to fire him for what I thought were frivolous reasons.

A few weeks ago I got a company newsletter that is sent to retirees. On the cover was the guy whose job I had helped save. The headline named him the "employee of the month." The story went on for several paragraphs about his innovative and efficient ways of accomplishing his job -- most were things that prior managers had tried to fire him for doing.

The newspaper has probably won more awards than any paper of its size in New England. The reason? I like to blame one of the strongest unions of any newspaper its size in New England.

Weary

ripple
11-29-2004, 11:12
Ripple, how do you amke your living?
I work for a town, managining the lab in the waste water plant. Could have been union, but decided I could keep my job by becoming an asset. I could negotiate for myself.

Oh and sorry about the spelling mistake "make" , you see I have a job I must do, and really don't have time to worry about a simple typing error. Don't know is you were trying to poke fun, or if you are just a plain ARS!

MOWGLI
11-29-2004, 11:18
I have been on both sides of the fence. My first 5 years with NY Telephone/NYNEX was spent as a member of the Communications Workers of America (CWA 1105). I walked the picket line twice and was rewarded with nice contracts including great health care benefits.

My last 14 years with the company was spent as a Manager, with several of those years spent supervising Union employees. I spent the 4-month work stoppage of '89 climbing poles and fixing phone troubles during that lengthy work stoppage.

Its not real simple any way you look at it. Verizon would stomp all over their Craft employees if they were not Unionized. Then again, you have some folks in the Unions (IBEW & CWA) who don't do squat, and give the Union a bad name. Then again, there are plenty of Managers in that category too.

How many Cops or Fireman couldn't make it on their own without a Union? Plenty I bet.

How about teachers? Yeah, people love to beat up on the teachers. IMO, our education problems have more to do with bad parenting than anything else. Here in the South, the education problems have more to do with people's reluctance to fund education. That's why I send my daughter to a private school I can hardly afford. They cut education by $21 million here last year. Then the fools will complain when they can't attract employers to hire their uneducated children.

MOWGLI
11-29-2004, 11:22
Oh and sorry about the spelling mistake "make" , you see I have a job I must do, and really don't have time to worry about a simple typing error. Don't know is you were trying to poke fun, or if you are just a plain ARS!

Just having a little fun Ripple. Sorry it was at your expense.

smokymtnsteve
11-29-2004, 11:27
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with
water to prepare his
morning coffee. The water is clean and good because
some tree-hugging
liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily
medication. His
medications are safe to take because some stupid
commie liberal fought to
ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his
employer's medical plan
because some liberal union workers fought their
employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs.
Joe's bacon is safe to
eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to
regulate the meat
packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo.
His bottle is properly
labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the
total contents because
some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what
he was putting on his
body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath.
The air he breathes is
clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal
fought for the laws to
stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for his
government-subsidized ride to work.
It saves him considerable money in parking and
transportation fees because
some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public
transportation, which
gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with
excellent pay, medical
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation
because some lazy liberal
union members fought and died for these working
standards. Joe's employer
pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't
want his employees to
call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll
get a worker
compensation or unemployment check because some stupid
liberal didn't think
he should lose his home because of his temporary
misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so
he can pay some bills.
Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC
because some godless
liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from
unscrupulous bankers who ruined
the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage
and his below-market
federal student loan because some elitist liberal
decided that Joe and the
government would be better off if he was educated and
earned more money over
his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father
this evening at his
farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the
drive. His car is among
the safest in the world because some America-hating
liberal fought for car
safety standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third
generation to live in the
house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because
bankers didn't want
to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity
until some
big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't
belong and demanded
rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His
father lives on
Social Security and a union pension because some
wine-drinking,
cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of
himself so Joe
wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns
on a radio talk show.
The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and
conservatives are
good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans
have fought against
every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his
day.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government
liberals ruining our lives!
After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone
should take care of
themselves, just like I have."

MOWGLI
11-29-2004, 11:28
How many Cops or Fireman couldn't make it on their own without a Union? Plenty I bet.



I meant to say, how many cops & fireman could make it on their own.

ripple
11-29-2004, 11:30
Just having a little fun Ripple. Sorry it was at your expense.
It's all good!

ripple
11-29-2004, 11:31
Steve

Do much stereo typing?

Rain Man
11-29-2004, 11:37
Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government
liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone
should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Steve,

You hit that nail squarely on the head!!!!

Some guy said "No man is an island."
:sun
Rain Man

.

smokymtnsteve
11-29-2004, 11:53
Steve

Do much stereo typing?

Nope, I'm very hard of hearing and so I don't own a stereo ;)

I enjoy the sounds of silence!

Tha Wookie
11-29-2004, 12:03
Steve,

Good post. But unfortunately the people who should read it are too busy being told how to think right now.

Skeemer
11-29-2004, 13:35
No one said that unions never did any good. But you give them (I assume since they only back liberals) far too much credit for far too much. Wasn't it our old friend Tricky Dick that pushed for and signed the bill guaranteeing cost of living increases to social security recipients?

You mentioned Workers Comp...in Ohio it is a scam. No one, and I mean no one. in the union has a bad back that resulted from anything other that an "injury at work." The system is corrupt and plagued by greedy liberal trial lawyers.

Look, take all the credit you want for all the good things in the past. Employers would just be happy if workers today came to work and earned their pay. Fact is they don't, and your liberal friends defend them and whine when the jobs go elsewhere.

BTW, is it possible to be an environmental liberal and a fiscal conservative? I do agree the Cuyahoga River would still be on fire if it weren't for strong enforcement of environmental laws. I saw these laws being enforced during both liberal and conservative administrations. And, it took both sides to pass the laws and programs you referred to that made Joe's life so great.

ripple
11-29-2004, 14:11
Steve,

Good post. But unfortunately the people who should read it are too busy being told how to think right now.
Or these people you speak of, are working earning their pay. The people being told what to think are the masses following union.

smokymtnsteve
11-29-2004, 18:55
to my conservative hiking friends I would suggest that you read

Jack London's PEOPLE OF THE ABYSS

a study of the conditions of the working class of edwardian england,

and then listen and look around at the world today,

and see if you can find any similarities, you may be surprised.

Needles
11-29-2004, 20:15
You're right and I retract my statement about stockholders being paid first. I guess what I was trying to point out is that unions continue to demand more and more while members are contributing less and less.

Do remebr though, the union members, even if they are contributing less and less (and I don't know that I agree with that statement) are still contributing something to the success or failyre of the company, the vast majority of stockholders contribute absolutely nothing. The shareholders owe it to the employees, who are responsible for any and all profits the shareholders reap, to treat them fairly and pay them well. How much would that stock be worth without the employees? Nothing, zero, zilch, nada, someday maybe this country will realize that wealth comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. Treat the guys at the bottom as well as is possible (and if a company makes $10,000,000 in profits one year and drops to $9,000,000 in profits the next that does NOT mean the company is loosing money no matter what the guys on Wall Street say) and things will get better for the guys at the top. Treat the guys at the bottom poorly and sooner or later they will get rid of the guys at the top.

smokymtnsteve
11-29-2004, 20:24
it seems today that productivity is UP ..which means that the workers are producing more...however this gain in productivity has not been reflected in the workers wage.

weary
11-29-2004, 20:47
....Employers would just be happy if workers today came to work and earned their pay. Fact is they don't, and your liberal friends defend them and whine when the jobs go elsewhere.
....
Well, I've been involved with working and observing the workforce for six decades. Skeemer's comments based on my observations are sheer nonsense. Yes. There will always be a few that abuse the system -- both managers and workers, and probably in equal numbers.

I went to work at age 13 in 1942 for a national company that had a small operation in Maine. (Yeah, I lied about my age.) Until I "retired" in 1991 (from earning money, not from working), and since, I've watched these matters more closely than most.

The vast majority of the people I have worked with and have observed have been diligent and honest. I have worked for and with many extremely dedicated people. I can count on less than two hands the slackers -- those who have abused the system. A few in fact have been incompetent. Given the way managers are selected in this nation, gross incompetence, not surprisingly, has tended to predominate among the managers.

Before the conservatives launch their attack, please remember it's difficult to be an incompetent piece worker, or an incompetent assembly line worker, or even an incompetent newspaper reporter. Such are exposed and gotten rid of quickly. It's harder to detect an incompetent manager who has learned the rudimentary rules of surviving. Where do you suppose the term "brown noser" came from?

Weary

MOWGLI
11-29-2004, 21:09
It's harder to detect an incompetent manager who has learned the rudimentary rules of surviving. Where do you suppose the term "brown noser" came from?

Weary

Right on Weary! My 19-year experience in the telecommunications industry has led me to the same conclusion.

Rocks 'n Roots
11-29-2004, 22:51
During my carrer, I spent years in labor relations across the table from the UAW. They defend tardiness, absenteeism, theft, sabotage and featherbedding and even assault.
Are you referring to the union or the management?


I worked for a non-union major corporation one time. Try it sometime and then look at your complaints. They told the workers that while they were in high profits they would not outsource any departments. The workers were literally breaking their bodies with short crews and rotten equipment during the 90's boom. The next year they had their highest profits in the company's history and followed it up by outsourcing all of those departments right on down the line. The chairman received a grotesque tens of millions dollar package for doing that. I permanently injured my leg on one of those pieces of equipment. It pains me every day.

Skeemer
11-30-2004, 09:39
Weary wrote in part:
...Skeemer's comments based on my observations are sheer nonsense...it's difficult to be an incompetent piece worker, or an incompetent assembly line worker, Such are exposed and gotten rid of quickly.

Let me say right up front that there are plenty of incompetent managers and CEO's...I worked for some.

It's obvious to me Weary has lost any semlance of objectivity and has long been out of touch with reality. I whitnessed first hand the following: The Shop Chairman's son where I worked was arrested for dealing drugs at a Visteon plant across town and was fired. Liberal judges and lawyers made sure he never went to jail. The Shop Chairman then "black mailed" our management into hiring his son, not just as a production worker but as an apprentice skilled tradesman.

When threatened with work stoppages managers don't know what to do. The "big three" has worked hard trying to make the UAW a "partner in the business" and it has failed miserably. Because of what I have seen, I will never purchase another vehicle built by a UAW worker...even with my discount.

Incompetnet workers are not "gotten rid of quickly" as Weary contends. In a 15 year span the UAW facility that I worked at was never able to sustain one hourly discharge...not one...and one of those was an unprovoked assault. On the other hand, salaried personnel administration fired at least 8 salaried employees. So please, don't try to glorify the "abused" hourly employee. It is NOT that difficult to be an incompetent piece worker and even less difficult to be a incompetent skilled trades worker. Why?...because management has lost control and it is now the unions that are running things. At least Companies like Caterpillar and Bridgestone had the guts to stand up to their unions and these jobs are still here in the US for the time being. Like I said before, the plant I worked at is beginning to lose money and its days are numbered. BTW, it employed about 250 salaried employees and 1,100 hourly last I looked. When things got bad it was the salaried who were the first to go.

Look guys, if there is one thing obvious here, it's that some liberals are "die hards" and are just not going to accept the fact that their way MAY not always be the right way. Companies cannot abuse workers like olden days and expect to get the quality demanded by today's marketplace, On the other hand, I do thank liberals for their environmental rules and regs. I do believe that if it weren't for strong environmental laws, air and water polution would be out of control.

Skeemer
11-30-2004, 10:38
Roots 'n Rocks wrote:
Are you referring to the union or the management?
What I was referring to were "Shop Rule violations" in the hourly contract agreement. Read my reply to Weary...we fired plenty of salaried and not one hourly.

SMS (who I respect) wrote:
it seems today that productivity is UP ..which means that the workers are producing more...however this gain in productivity has not been reflected in the workers wage.
Productivity is up due to computers (fewer salaried) and a few work rule changes that management has been able to squeeze in at unionized facilities. I agree, the productivity increases do not make up for the benefit package and the $60k a year ($100k plus with overtime) the hourly UAW worker makes. That's why as time goes on the profits wain and you go eventually go out of business.

To tie this to hiking. I hiked with and got to know a guy who was a retired pattern maker (highly skilled) at a non-union facility. He worked hard, loved his job and was well paid. He told me he had plenty of opportunities to work at Ford but stayed where he was. His bosses appreciated his contribution and rewarded him accordingly.


Needles wrote:
The shareholders owe it to the employees, who are responsible for any and all profits the shareholders reap
Not exactly...before you have employees you must have capital at risk to build the business and you can thank the shareholders for that.

Back when GM had 60% of the market they could make junk and get away with it. (That's when the UAW fought for and got COLA.) With what? 25% today, they are able to sell cars for what? $40k and the stock is floundering. They must have workers who will come to work and do quality work or everybody losses...customers, management...employees, hourly and salaried. Shareholders will be punished by bad management and bad hourly employees.

Needles
11-30-2004, 12:57
Not exactly...before you have employees you must have capital at risk to build the business and you can thank the shareholders for that.


Umm... I think you are getting the cart bee the horse a bit here. Normally a company is started, makes it or doesn't, gets big enough to start attracting attention, then the owner of the private company decides to take it public and if the stock sells well it is a huge windfall for the owner of the company. Capital normally comes from a single individual who starts a business, or from a bank, or from a few family members. It is an exceptionally rare situation that involves shareholders providing capital up front to build the business, shareholders normally come in much later on. Plus the shareholders normally don't even care if the business is profitable or not, heck, Microsoft has been rediculously profitable but until quite recently they didn't pay dividends so none of that profit made it to the shareholders. They made their money off of speculation alone. Apple still doesn't pay dividends, Amazon has been a huge success for its shareholders even though they are still loosing money. So it is still true that shareholders provide nothing, and quite often reap the most profits from a company, the last large company I worked for was seeing record profits, the stock was going higher and higher, and yet people kept getting laid off because the record profits weren't as high as the wall street goons thought they should be. I saw several really hard working, highly qualified and very experienced employees get booted out the door, but I never got laid off, even though I tried my best to get fired and did everything I could to not add to the company's profits as I felt what they did was imorral and unethical, but I still didn't get fired, I got a raise and got promoted. Of course we didn't have a union, which is probably a good thing, keep those good employees could have made the company even more profitable and I would have hated that.

Skeemer
11-30-2004, 13:53
I guess it's just how one looks at things. I invested in a company which went public about 15 years ago. They made sizable capital investments at the time of the stock offering. Since then they continue to make acquistions, grow and pay a 5% dividend on top of it. I don't recall hearing about the original owners pocketing the cash and leaving town. Obviously, you and I have had different experiences with capitalism. I don't understand why some people hate Bill Gates or Warren Buffet just because they are rich. The ones I don't care for are the Teddy Kennedy's who have never worked a day in their lives.

I'm not sure I could sleep at night if I was receiving a paycheck, getting raises and promotions from a company that I hated and was trying to put the screws to. Why not quit and go work for someone who shares your values...or aren't there any out there that do?

ripple
11-30-2004, 14:02
I think the factories china shares those values.

Needles
11-30-2004, 14:18
I guess it's just how one looks at things. I invested in a company which went public about 15 years ago. They made sizable capital investments at the time of the stock offering. Since then they continue to make acquistions, grow and pay a 5% dividend on top of it. I don't recall hearing about the original owners pocketing the cash and leaving town. Obviously, you and I have had different experiences with capitalism. I don't understand why some people hate Bill Gates or Warren Buffet just because they are rich. The ones I don't care for are the Teddy Kennedy's who have never worked a day in their lives.

I'm not sure I could sleep at night if I was receiving a paycheck, getting raises and promotions from a company that I hated and was trying to put the screws to. Why not quit and go work for someone who shares your values...or aren't there any out there that do?

I actually have nothing at all against Warren Buffet, he has done a lot of good with the money he has made and I find that most admirable. My main problem with Bill Gates is not that he wants to take over the market, it's that he wants to take over the market with a crappy product. The free market is all about choice and Microsoft aims to eliminate all of their competition and therefore limit the consumers choices. Doesn't sound like Mr. Gates is much of a caplitalist to me.

As far as my previous job, it was a huge issue for me, this company compiles databases filled with information on every person in the US, and many outside of the US. They then sell this information to businesses, the US government, and anyone else who has the money and who isn't blatently violating the credit reporting act. The fact that they have become the corporate version of "Big Brother" is bad enough, and when I found out that they were doing this (by breaking the company into numerous small divisions it makes it hard for anyone in the company to know the full scope of their opperations, but the sales staff has to know, and since I worked with the sales staff I found out) I started making plans to leave, and then something interesting happened. The CEO came to our office to give a pep talk. While he was there he talked about he wanted to get a DNA sample from every person in the US (the company had purchased Bode Laboratories the year before, Bode is the largest DNA lab in the world) and form a database of these samples which could then be cross referenced with all of the other information the company holds. So you are walking down the street and a hair falls out of your head, someone finds that hair and can then find out who you are, when you live, who you are married to, how much your house cost, where you work, if you ever failed a drug test, how good your credit is, how many claims you have filed on your auto and home owners insurance, find out certain aspects about your health, so on and so forth, because this is all information this company holds in its databases. I'm sorry, this scared the hell out of me. If the US government was doing this there would be a huge uproar. A corporation does it and no one seems to care, at least we get to have some say so in who represents us in the government, but did anyone here vote for Derek Smith to be the CEO of ChoicePoint? Do any of you know how Derek Smith feels about privacy rights? Do any of you know what and how much information ChoicePoint holds on you and who they are selling it to and how much of it is false? I didn't think so, but I decided to stay with the company for a while to find out as much as I could, the more I found out the more it frightened me and now I tell who ever I can find what I know so maybe they can get frightened as well and just maybe enough people will care so that we can do something about this.

Of course I no longer work for ChoicePoint and I do work for a company that shares my values, it is a small company where the hard work of the employees is truly valued and no one on the board of directors mistakenly believes that the company could survive without its employees. We don't have a union but the CEO of this company would welcome one if the employees ever thought it was something they needed. Our company is profitable, growing, and working to do more than just make profits as we work with several non-profit organizations to hopefully make the world, or at least our little corner of it a better place.

Needles
11-30-2004, 14:21
The ones I don't care for are the Teddy Kennedy's who have never worked a day in their lives.

Oh, by the way, add George W Bush to the list with Teddy Kennedy, he has never worked a day in his life either.

Rocks 'n Roots
11-30-2004, 14:25
Companies cannot abuse workers like olden days and expect to get the quality demanded by today's marketplace

Hmm, somebody's out of touch with reality here. While I agree that incompetent or even incorrigible workers get away with it, the level of employee had dropped considerably in the occupation I witnessed. This loss of quality service was passed onto the customer. The apathy this systemic and institutionalized decline produced lead to less safety in the work area since the job was seen as a dying position. The previous workers didn't care because they knew they were going to be replaced. The replacements were not inclined to give a high performance not only because of their level of capability, but because they also knew why they were there. The company sent out an independent and anonymous survey asking about the position. I emphasized that this work environment was lucky it hadn't gotten anyone killed. We had already had one death. Shortly after two more were killed. One was mangled horribly. Trust me, that survey wasn't for our good, it was more company skeeming trying to figure out how best to screw us and make it all look professional and OK. The first qualification of these new employees is willingness to allow the company to pay less and less without complaint. Competency was negotiable. I won't go into the demographic these new workers came from and why that demographic was preferable. The reason those incompetent workers get away with it is because the company has deliberately installed a level of disconnectedness with that level in order to promote an atmosphere of purposeful non-responsiblity or unaccountability that is most cost effective. Company doubletalk translates that into "giving opportunities to the unemployed" or some other dishonest spin...

weary
11-30-2004, 14:55
Oh, by the way, add George W Bush to the list with Teddy Kennedy, he has never worked a day in his life either.
Come on guys. Time again for a reality check. We all heard George say again and again in the debates about "it's hard work." Surely George wouldn't lie.

FWIW, Teddy is probably the hardest working member of Congress. That's why he remains influential. And why he's been elected many times. I met him once. He came to my union town (though it routinely votes Republican) once when his older brother was running for the Presidency. We were both in our 20s. I was recruited to meet with him since everyone else was for Stevenson.

So. We met, chatted a bit, had a beer together. And just to prove my political skills, I told Ted, I to was a Stevenson supporter. He never called back.

Weary

Skeemer
11-30-2004, 15:38
Very interesting, and explains why you both feel the way you do.

Needles, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that IS scary. Puts a whole new perspective on things.

I hope you can see why I feel the way I do about unions...if not I've got lots and lots of stories. One is about a Plant Manager that got fired because he tried to do his job. He insisted the hourly people all be required to wear safety glasses WITH SIDE SHIELDS. He also tried to remove rented scooters from the plant that hourly employees were using to ride around on while they should be working. He went on medical leave and never came back. The union went over his head and got him fired...I'm not hiding anything...it's about power.

Needles
11-30-2004, 16:08
Very interesting, and explains why you both feel the way you do.

Needles, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that IS scary. Puts a whole new perspective on things.

I hope you can see why I feel the way I do about unions...if not I've got lots and lots of stories. One is about a Plant Manager that got fired because he tried to do his job. He insisted the hourly people all be required to wear safety glasses WITH SIDE SHIELDS. He also tried to remove rented scooters from the plant that hourly employees were using to ride around on while they should be working. He went on medical leave and never came back. The union went over his head and got him fired...I'm not hiding anything...it's about power.

Trust me, I don't go for far out sounding conspiracy theories and had I not worked for this company and seen it with my own eyes I would have never believed it. Had I not heard Derek Smith say he wanted a DNA sample from every person in the US and then go on to tell his plan on how to get it (the recent law that was put in place in California that allows a DNA sample to be taken from every fellon in the state, and everyone who is arrested for a fellony, even if they aren't convicted or even charged, falls right into the plan that Derek Smith detailed) I would have thought this was just some crazy paranoid idea being promoted by some fringe group. In fact it is being put in place by a large and very powerful corporation (the same corporation that owns Database Technologies in Florida which is the company that created the list of names Florida election officials used to barr individuals from voting in the 2000 presidential election, the same corporation that makes huge donations to the RNC each election cycle, you know the kind of corporation with a ton of political clout) that opperates completely under the radar of the average American and apparently under the radar of most big media outlets. If you do a web search you can find all sorts of articles on ChoicePoint, including info on how they illegally obtained the voter registration lists from a number of countries in Latin America so they could sell this information to the US government (why would the US government want this?) and how inaccurate their databases are, and how thier database products have incorrectly kept numerous individuals from being able to do things like sell their homes. ChoicePoint was also involved in CAPPS II the air traveler screening program, and the Total Information Awareness Project. Strange how all of this information is available but no one seems to take notice, is it possible that we Americans just don't care? I certainly hope not.

As far as your second point goes, I know that unions sometimes do things that make no sense, especially from the standpoint of business owners and management. But the perspective of management and the workers can be so different that what seems completely idiotic to one might make perfect sense to the other. Furthermore unions have done a lot of good in this country, including things that were good for business, neither business or unions are completely evil, and it isn't fair for anyone to characterize either as such, of course neither is complete good but that goes without saying. What I do know is that the productivity rate of the industrializes European nations on a per capita basis out paces the productivity rate in the US. I also know that most workers in the industrialized nations of Europe get 3 to 4 times the paid vacation time as workers in the US. Now the average manager in the US can't conceive that extra time off might mean extra productivity while he or she can easily see how fewer workers doing the same amount of work equates to higher productivity. If the unions were to push for more vacation time it could be good for the workers, which is why the unions would do so, but it could also be good for the businesses, but I don't think they would believe it until they saw it. This is the value of unions, the US government, no matter who is running it, will never try to force companies to give their workers more paid vacation, so in the US it is up to the unions to do so, the US government seems to find it painful to even ask for a reasonable minimum wage as businesses always fear that it will make them go under, strangely Washington state, with the highest minimum wage rates in the country, has been a popular place for many businesses to move to and many have been highly successful (remember where Microsoft is headquartered) and none have been forced to go under because of the minimum wage in the state. Unions are needed in the US, but we need good unions, sadly our entire country seems to be populated by a bunch of non-thinking reactionist idiots now, "if management says it, it must be a lie", "Unions are all greedy and never do anything that helps the company that pays the union member's paychecks", "Republicans all want to murder the planet and rape the poor", Democrats are all a bunch of tree hugging idiots whit no common sense". None of these statements are completely true and until we can all get away from the black and white CNN Crossfire mentality we have adopted I don't think we will see a lot of progress on any issue. Please people, do some research, learn what the other side really thinks instead of just accepting what your side says they think, and then think for yourself for a change. That's what made our country great once, and can make it great again, but unless we start using our brains I am afraid this nation is doomed to permenant mediocrity within a few years, and that would make us no better than the French ;-)

weary
11-30-2004, 21:23
....do some research, learn what the other side really thinks instead of just accepting what your side says they think, and then think for yourself for a change. That's what made our country great once, and can make it great again, but unless we start using our brains I am afraid this nation is doomed to permenant mediocrity within a few years, and that would make us no better than the French ;-)
Well, I think I've done quite a bit of research for 60 years or so. During some of those years no one I worked for ever cared what I did or did not believe. But for a lot of those years they cared deeply about my alleged biases. There were questions in many letters to the editors. I managed to survive them all.

I've never worked for a "liberal," but I did manage to survive several arch right wing bosses and several middle of the road types, and a few just plain incompetent types. What's my conclusion after all these decades? Liberals are at an inherent disadvantage. We believe in reason and facts, not faith. It remains difficult to argue with folks who insist they are right, because God told them so.

Weary

jjmcgo
02-10-2005, 15:10
I can't help but note that first came the unions and then the move by working people to the suburbs. We'd still be living in city rowhouses but for the big bump up in earning power that all Americans achieved because non-union businesses had to pay workers more to compete for skilled labor.
No more living like "The Honeymooners."

MoBeach42
02-10-2005, 15:20
I believe that people should be free to reject accepting (and thus paying anything for) those services. People should be as free to reject using and paying for snow or garbage removal, fire extinguishing services, etc., as they are free now to refuse to use Ford, Xerox, or General Mills products.
MS - this is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! So you have legitimated my not paying for National Defense and the Pentagon's bloated budget, as well as all the ludicrous subsidies for factory farms, the oil industry, and our disgusting highway system. Thanks for the advice. I've always wanted to be a war tax resister.

-Jay

MoBeach42
02-10-2005, 15:20
I believe that people should be free to reject accepting (and thus paying anything for) those services. People should be as free to reject using and paying for snow or garbage removal, fire extinguishing services, etc., as they are free now to refuse to use Ford, Xerox, or General Mills products.
MS - this is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! So you have legitimated my not paying for National Defense and the Pentagon's bloated budget, as well as all the ludicrous subsidies for factory farms, the oil industry, and our disgusting highway system. Thanks for the advice. I've always wanted to be a war tax resister.

-Jay

Skeemer
02-10-2005, 17:11
jjmcgo
I can't help but note that first came the unions and then the move by working people to the suburbs. We'd still be living in city rowhouses but for the big bump up in earning power that all Americans achieved because non-union businesses had to pay workers more to compete for skilled labor.
No more living like "The Honeymooners."

One thing I failed to mention in my previous postings was that I have never begrudged the hourly workers their high wages, full paid health care, cost of living allowances, tool allowances, overtime pay, profit sharing, etc., etc. All I ever asked them to do in return was a fair days work...not slave work in a sweat shop...just come to work every day and do their job in a safe environment...that's all. I worked in three different UAW facilities and they won't do it. Guys like Weary have workers believing that management is evil and if it wasn't for unions they wouldn't have a job. Well, unions did a lot of good until the 60's when things began to change. It is now the unions that are running things and chasing jobs overseas. Here in Ohio, non-union Honda, has created 16,000 jobs and is celebrating its 50th anniversary while the Ford Plant in Lorain announced it will close its doors for good. And BTW, " Mr. Weary know-it-all", management sat down with them years ago and asked them to help change some work rules and save the business. The UAW told them to go to hell! Also, if it wasn't for Caterpillar standing up to the UAW those jobs would be long gone from the USA. Remember the Air Traffic Controllers laughing, jumping up and down on strike until Reagon told them they were fired? Want some more examples?...I've got a bunch.

Liberals like Weary have got them believing they are entitled to everything. Whether you believe it or not I don't really care...I've seen them get everything they want when they recognize how much power they have. And, BTW, I think you can tell from some of my other posts that I've not claimed god has anything to do with anything. I'm a fiscal conservative and have some very liberal points of view on many matters like religion, environmental laws, women's right to choose, etc. And, my father woked as a union member most of his life before becoming management while my first job was a card carrying carry-out boy for Krogers.

Have you ever noticed the egomaniacs like Weary...they think the're experts on everything. He's always right on everything and puts down anyone who doesn't agree with him. Maybe it's his brain that's getting weary with his old age and senility setting in.

oldfivetango
02-10-2005, 18:33
Which except, perhaps, for a short time in the lives of a few 60's communes and an equally short experiment at Brooks Farm in the mid 1800s, has yet to be seriously tried.

Unfortunately "socialism" as a scare label has been used over the decades by the powerful and their gullible know nothing allies to protect their power.

The irony is that both the powerful and the gullible lose as a result. As we have heard again and again over the past few months, consumers are the engine that drives our economy. I'm fascinated as I see the powerful chuckling over their ability to eliminate jobs and cut payrolls, thus increasing their profits, while decreasing the wages and thus the ability of consumers to drive the economy.

Though I'm sure Minnesotasmith thinks otherwise the miracle that drove the American economy in the first years after war ended the big depression was the rise of unions that fought for a living wage for workers.

As unions lose power we are in trouble. Without unions or some other mechanism for keeping consumers prosperous our economy can do nothing except stagnate.

Weary Ok people- I dont know a lot but i do know this much.Go take a look at the
socialist/communist countries and compare their standard of living for the
"average Joe Sixpack" to our capitalist "mass production" driven society and
tell me why every joker in the world is trying to move over here,including some who risk their very lives to do so,if we have not created a system that is the very envy of the world.Oh,and any of you who would like to leave,like Ward Churchill, i have a little slogan for ya-Delta is ready when you are!
Cheers to all,
Oldfivetango:bse

icemanat95
02-10-2005, 18:37
This crap is why I no longer waste much of my time around here.

MOWGLI
02-10-2005, 18:37
Have you ever noticed the egomaniacs like Weary...they think the're experts on everything. He's always right on everything and puts down anyone who doesn't agree with him. Maybe it's his brain that's getting weary with his old age and senility setting in.

There is no reason to resort to that sort of dialogue.

oldfivetango
02-10-2005, 18:49
You're right and I retract my statement about stockholders being paid first. I guess what I was trying to point out is that unions continue to demand more and more while members are contributing less and less. They get $30+ an hour, fully paid health care, cost of living increases, time and a half and double time for overtime, etc...it goes on and on. It's gotten to the point they don't know what to demand...things like covered parking lots, walkways and air conditioned plants...no joke. It's still the stockholders' investment that is at risk and they should be rewarded with as much return as possible AFTER employees and management are rewarded for their contributions. The company does NOT belong to the employees. I do stand by the rest of the post. I still believe unions have done more to chase jobs out of Ohio than any President, past or present.

colt4x5...there are many examples of companies getting concessions from their unions to "save plants." At Sandusky, they negotiated a $16 million investment (I believe) to modernize the plant in order to obtain new business. The union never fullfilled their part, balking on instituting the productivity improvements. I know..."shame on management" for trusting that they would live up to their part of the bargain.

PATCO and others...I will do my best to get back to talking AT and hiking...but I can't promise anything. I think the president of Toyota summed it up better than anyone if ever heard-paraphrasing he said something like this-"So how can a guy making $6 dollars an hour buy a car from a guy making $30 dollars an hour?"IMHOthe sooner everybody acknowledges that competition and greed drive the whole economic engine the better off we all will be.Thanks for listening.
Oldfivetango:bse

weary
02-10-2005, 19:24
...Well, unions did a lot of good until the 60's when things began to change. It is now the unions that are running things and chasing jobs overseas.
.....
Time for a fact check. Unions at the end of World War II represented 40 percent or so of the American working force. That percentage began to change in the 50s with the passage of the Taft Hartley Act, which removed unions negotiating power.

Unions now represent only about 14 % of the work force. As union membership has declined, companies have moved overseas. That's a fact. We can debate forever whether one is a cause of the other.

Though some union workers make $30 an hour, most make far less. The members of one of the fastest growing unions in recent years typically make $11 and hour, if an article a week or so ago in the New York Times magazine is to be believed.

The last 25 years of my working life (ending in 1991) I worked at a union newspaper with one of the better pay scales among the middle-sized newspapers in the industry. I think my top pay was something like $17 an hour, according to the union contract.

Since I was more concerned about getting important things into the newspaper than my hourly rate, I earned less than that because to the consternation of my fellow union members, I put in a lot of "volunteer" hours.

My rule was: "as long as the company leaves me alone, I'll leave them alone."

Weary

Skeemer
02-10-2005, 21:56
...it is Honda's 25th anniverary in Ohio.

And I was a little rough with Weary. :o

Having worked with the UAW and watch it close a Ford plant next door it's an emotional thing with me...I'll try to shut up.