Detroit's Mayor on Unions: Can't read, Can't add, Can't Comprehend

[Bowfinger]

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100225/METRO/2250445



Good for him, about time he stood up and started dealing with the real problem in this city.
Unfortunately his recommendations don't go near far enough. He needs to privatize everything.

I think this solves the Union vs. Private debate once and for all. I fully expect all Liberal posters to stop supporting unions and unionization after this post.

Management criticizing the union? No! Say it ain't so. That has to be the first time that's happened ... since the last time any management was in negotiations with any union. Duh.

I assume you think OJ is innocent because he said so, right? I assume you "know" the Michigan GOP didn't engage in redlining because it was proven false ... by a press release from the Michigan GOP. This is why you (and many others) have zero credibility. You have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. You blindly swallow anything you see that reinforces your preconceived biases and ignore anything that challenges you.

I'm sure AFSCME has taken an extreme and unreasonable bargaining position. No doubt the City of Detroit took an equally extreme and unreasonable position. That's the way such negotiations work. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle. That's the purpose of fact finding, for an independent and reasonably objective third party to cut through the hyperbole and propaganda on both sides and get to something that's fair.

I just laugh every time I see some of you launch into your anti-union, Chicken Little hysteria. It must be comforting to live in such a simple, black and white world, but here's a tip kids. In the real world, unions aren't all bad (or all good) any more than corporations are all bad or all good. They both serve legitimate purposes, both can be used to accomplish good things, both can become too powerful, and both can be and often are abused. Until you learn to address real and specific issues instead of flapping against partisan caricatures you will have nothing useful to contribute to any discussion about either sort of organization.

 

[MrEgo]

Fans can't afford tickets, are charged high rates for pre-season tickets which we are forced to buy, are charged 8 dollars or more per beer, and players need more guaranteed money and 60% of revenue rather than 57%.

The NFL is profitable but fans get gouged so players can get pair more and in the NFL players get 60% of all revenue while owners get 100% of the risk and cost.

Pardon me while I say fuck unions.

I'm going to assume that you are a proponent of the free market. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if I'm not, then wouldn't your stance suggest that the free market will dictate whether or not these athletes are getting paid too much and the ticket sales are too high?

Also, if these owners were REALLY losing money, do you think they would continue to own the team?

 

[MrEgo]

Management criticizing the union? No! Say it ain't so. That has to be the first time that's happened ... since the last time any management was in negotiations with any union. Duh.

I assume you think OJ is innocent because he said so, right? I assume you "know" the Michigan GOP didn't engage in redlining because it was proven false ... by a press release from the Michigan GOP. This is why you (and many others) have zero credibility. You have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. You blindly swallow anything you see that reinforces your preconceived biases and ignore anything that challenges you.

I'm sure AFSCME has taken an extreme and unreasonable bargaining position. No doubt the City of Detroit took an equally extreme and unreasonable position. That's the way such negotiations work. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle. That's the purpose of fact finding, for an independent and reasonably objective third party to cut through the hyperbole and propaganda on both sides and get to something that's fair.

I just laugh every time I see some of you launch into your anti-union, Chicken Little hysteria. It must be comforting to live in such a simple, black and white world, but here's a tip kids. In the real world, unions aren't all bad (or all good) any more than corporations are all bad or all good. They both serve legitimate purposes, both can be used to accomplish good things, both can become too powerful, and both can and are often abused. Until you learn to address real and specific issues instead of flapping against partisan caricatures you will have nothing useful to contribute to any discussion about either sort of organization.

Well said. Partisan hacks on either side will jump on any article written by anyone as long as it supports their view.

 

[soccerballtux]

Well said. Partisan hacks on either side will jump on any article written by anyone as long as it supports their view.

there's no need to jump on this one. Politicians are not "management" as he claims, they are the people who receive the most contributions from unions. That's why this is news worthy. I don't need to rally for it, it and the mayor speaks for itself.

 

[Bowfinger]

there's no need to jump on this one. Politicians are not "management" as he claims, they are the people who receive the most contributions from unions. That's why this is news worthy. I don't need to rally for it, it and the mayor speaks for itself.

Sorry, this is your partisan, black and white myopia biting you again. That some politicians receive support from some unions does not mean that all politicians are unconditionally beholden to all unions. In a situation like this, the mayor IS management whether you can grasp it or not, and management is denouncing the union demands -- and vise-versa -- because that's what management and unions do.

 

[Deudalus]

I'm going to assume that you are a proponent of the free market. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if I'm not, then wouldn't your stance suggest that the free market will dictate whether or not these athletes are getting paid too much and the ticket sales are too high?

Also, if these owners were REALLY losing money, do you think they would continue to own the team?

Huge fan of the free market.

The problem that you are running into is you are trying to throw a free market principle in with a Player's Union and Collective Bargaining Agreement.

In the free market those things do not exist. In the NBA a player could be signed to a 6 year 120 million dollar deal and then put out no effort at all and the team and owner would be powerless against him.

That is not free market. When the Unions no longer exist, then we can argue free market.


NFL owners are not losing money, maybe a couple are but most are making money. NBA owners are mostly losing money.

Look it up. Look at what happened to the NHL. Don't fool yourself into thinking that it can't happen in the NBA.

 

[MrEgo]

Huge fan of the free market.

The problem that you are running into is you are trying to throw a free market principle in with a Player's Union and Collective Bargaining Agreement.

In the free market those things do not exist. In the NBA a player could be signed to a 6 year 120 million dollar deal and then put out no effort at all and the team and owner would be powerless against him.

That is not free market. When the Unions no longer exist, then we can argue free market.


NFL owners are not losing money, maybe a couple are but most are making money. NBA owners are mostly losing money.

Look it up. Look at what happened to the NHL. Don't fool yourself into thinking that it can't happen in the NBA.

I realize that those things do not happen in the free market, but even if there were no players' unions, I'd be willing to bet that the owners would still charge you the same amount of money per ticket (since people are willing to pay it), except this time, the owners are pocketing all of that money instead of the players getting a large portion of it.

In either case, the fans would decide when the ticket prices are too high.

Regardless, since the NFL is by far the most successful sports league in the United States, wouldn't you agree that unions can do some good? The way I see it, the more money you pay athletes, the better the competition will be. The NFL would not be the product that it is today if the athletes did not make millions of dollars.

I agree that other unions besides the NFLPA have ridiculous contract parameters, but there are shitty unions just as there are shitty executives.

PS - I don't care what happens to the NBA.. that league is dead to me No MJ, no Magic, no Bird, no Charles, no thanks.

 

[drebo]

Something has to give, and I for one don't understand why the unions can't accept a 10% pay cut and 26 days off. I'd love to make 10% less in exchange for 5 weeks vacation.... Where did this extreme aversion to working less in our culture come from?

It's not an aversion to working less...the unions want the 26 days without having to give up the 10% pay.

 

[Patranus]

It's not an aversion to working less...the unions want the 26 days without having to give up the 10% pay.

Well, 10% can give up their jobs....

 

[soccerballtux]

Sorry, this is your partisan, black and white myopia biting you again. That some politicians receive support from some unions does not mean that all politicians are unconditionally beholden to all unions. In a situation like this, the mayor IS management whether you can grasp it or not, and management is denouncing the union demands -- and vise-versa -- because that's what management and unions do.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php
7 of the top 10 are Unions.
Go to the top 20 and it gets even worse.
Pretty damning evidence, IMO....

 

[CitizenKain]

Instead of people railing against unions asking "Why do they get that?" maybe they should be asking "Why don't I?"

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php
7 of the top 10 are Unions.
Go to the top 20 and it gets even worse.
Pretty damning evidence, IMO....

Yes dear. Nobody is denying unions are major campaign contributors. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the FACT that in this case, the mayor is management. He is responding to the union demands the way management usually responds during contract negotiations. I recognize your indoctrination won't let you accept this FACT, but it is true.

 

[Deudalus]

Regardless, since the NFL is by far the most successful sports league in the United States,

Most profitable yes. Not necessarily the most successful. That completely depends on what you judge "success" to mean really.

I find NCAA football and NCAA March Madness to be HIGHLY enjoyable.

wouldn't you agree that unions can do some good? The way I see it, the more money you pay athletes, the better the competition will be. The NFL would not be the product that it is today if the athletes did not make millions of dollars.

Really?

So basically what you are saying is sports from 20+ years ago are horrible and all college sports suck?

 

[Throckmorton]

Huge fan of the free market.

The problem that you are running into is you are trying to throw a free market principle in with a Player's Union and Collective Bargaining Agreement.

In the free market those things do not exist. In the NBA a player could be signed to a 6 year 120 million dollar deal and then put out no effort at all and the team and owner would be powerless against him.

That is not free market. When the Unions no longer exist, then we can argue free market.


NFL owners are not losing money, maybe a couple are but most are making money. NBA owners are mostly losing money.

Look it up. Look at what happened to the NHL. Don't fool yourself into thinking that it can't happen in the NBA.

How exactly is a union not free market?? That's like saying a corporation isn't free market.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yes dear. Nobody is denying unions are major campaign contributors. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the FACT that in this case, the mayor is management. He is responding to the union demands the way management usually responds during contract negotiations. I recognize your indoctrination won't let you accept this FACT, but it is true.

you don't set fire to your own lawn

that's all I have to say

 

[Deudalus]

How exactly is a union not free market?? That's like saying a corporation isn't free market.

He asked if I was a "free market" fan and I said I was.

I personally believe that anything that removes competition anywhere is anti-free market.

Insurance companies being able to collude and set prices stifles competition in premiums for example.

Unions promoting people based on seniority is anti-competition in the work place.

For me free market should always mean the most competition we can have.

 

[Hacp]

How exactly is a union not free market?? That's like saying a corporation isn't free market.

They're not free market. You really think Lebron James wants to make what he only makes? The owners would pay him WAY more than the maximum salary if they could but James can't earn that much because of the Union.

I'm not sure about the exact law but I think the agreement basically allows unions to force membership and their agreement upon anyone working for a company. Now that is tyranny.

 

[MrEgo]

Most profitable yes. Not necessarily the most successful. That completely depends on what you judge "success" to mean really.

I find NCAA football and NCAA March Madness to be HIGHLY enjoyable.



Really?

So basically what you are saying is sports from 20+ years ago are horrible and all college sports suck?

Don't forget that college sports are governed by the NCAA. It is by far a free market. If the NCAA did not regulate college athletics, then the schools with the most money would just buy up all of the good athletes just like the New York Yankees do - thus preventing maximum competition... in which case, I would not mind, because I'm a big Michigan fan, and I know UM has quite a bit of money in their pockets.

They're not free market. You really think Lebron James wants to make what he only makes? The owners would pay him WAY more than the maximum salary if they could but James can't earn that much because of the Union.

Ok, imagine if the NBA did NOT have a maximum salary cap. Do you think he'd be playing for the Cavs right now? Of course not, because he would have been bought out by the Knicks, the Lakers, the Celtics, or the Mavs, because nobody else could afford him. These teams would also have all of the other good players, because these franchises can afford it. Where does that leave all of the other franchises? You really think Charlotte and Oklahoma City could put together a legit contender every year without maximum contracts? There would be very little competition in the league.

Free market in sports leagues? You preach competition, but taking away the unions would destroy competition.

 

[TheSlamma]

Detroit should be sold for scrap years ago.

100% feces has no scrap. Better just to nuke the site from orbit. I don't miss living in that dump.

 

[CLite]

They're not free market. You really think Lebron James wants to make what he only makes? The owners would pay him WAY more than the maximum salary if they could but James can't earn that much because of the Union.

I'm not sure about the exact law but I think the agreement basically allows unions to force membership and their agreement upon anyone working for a company. Now that is tyranny.

WHAT LAW? you can't be serious......

The ultimate endgame of a limited-supply free market is a corporate monopoly and/or a union. Both are essentially the same, laws are required to protect agaisnt these, however no laws are required for their formation.

The NBA could very well replace every single one of the players once the contract expires (which is does on a semi-regular basis, hence the continuous negotiations). There is no law preventing this, however the players have a "monopoly" on talent and hence created the union.

Personally I believe the government needs to INCREASE regulation, like it does for corporate monopolies to prevent the formation of monopoly-like unions. I am curious how a hack such as yourself would feel about such a route.

 

[Hacp]

WHAT LAW? you can't be serious......

The ultimate endgame of a limited-supply free market is a corporate monopoly and/or a union. Both are essentially the same, laws are required to protect agaisnt these, however no laws are required for their formation.

The NBA could very well replace every single one of the players once the contract expires (which is does on a semi-regular basis, hence the continuous negotiations). There is no law preventing this, however the players have a "monopoly" on talent and hence created the union.

Personally I believe the government needs to INCREASE regulation, like it does for corporate monopolies to prevent the formation of monopoly-like unions. I am curious how a hack such as yourself would feel about such a route.

I think its the National Labor Relations Act.

 

[MrEgo]

Ok, imagine if the NBA did NOT have a maximum salary cap. Do you think he'd be playing for the Cavs right now? Of course not, because he would have been bought out by the Knicks, the Lakers, the Celtics, or the Mavs, because nobody else could afford him. These teams would also have all of the other good players, because these franchises can afford it. Where does that leave all of the other franchises? You really think Charlotte and Oklahoma City could put together a legit contender every year without maximum contracts? There would be very little competition in the league.

Free market in sports leagues? You preach competition, but taking away the unions would destroy competition.

So.. Hacp.. how do you feel about this?

 

[Deudalus]

Ok, imagine if the NBA did NOT have a maximum salary cap. Do you think he'd be playing for the Cavs right now? Of course not, because he would have been bought out by the Knicks, the Lakers, the Celtics, or the Mavs, because nobody else could afford him. These teams would also have all of the other good players, because these franchises can afford it.

Yup you are right.

Where does that leave all of the other franchises? You really think Charlotte and Oklahoma City could put together a legit contender every year without maximum contracts? There would be very little competition in the league.

So why don't the Yankees win every year? Why haven't they won the World Series in quite awhile actually?

The money spent plays a part but realistically the biggest killer is 100% guaranteed contracts. What wins titles in the NBA isn't good players it is good management.

Teams that spend their money wisely and find good bargain players are the teams that do well.

Take my Hornets for example. David West is a steal at 8 million a year. Morris Peterson barely plays and until we traded away 2 guards wasn't even in the top 12 and is getting 5 million per year.

Free market in sports leagues? You preach competition, but taking away the unions would destroy competition.

Guaranteed contracts are the biggest problem.

Unions are not there to promote competition, they are there to get the players more money and preferably the guaranteed kind of money.

Guaranteeing someone money in a field that requires a high level of competition to be successful is a sure fire way to insure you don't have competition.

Why do you think many NBA players are accused of being lazy while car salesmen are the most energetic pesky people in the world?

 

[MrEgo]

So why don't the Yankees win every year? Why haven't they won the World Series in quite awhile actually?

If by "awhile", you mean last season, then yes it's been awhile. Before that, they won in '96, and won 3 straight from 1998 to 2000. They were runners-up in 2001 and 2003. They have won 27 championships and appeared in the world series 40 times. FORTY.

Considering that there has been 20-30 teams in the league for a vast majority of those years, I'd say that the playing field is quite in favor of the Yankees, and that's WITH a players' union. Without it, you can bet that the number would be significantly higher.

The money spent plays a part but realistically the biggest killer is 100% guaranteed contracts. What wins titles in the NBA isn't good players it is good management.

Teams that spend their money wisely and find good bargain players are the teams that do well.

Like I said, if the union was not in place, there would only be a few teams able to afford to elite athletes, and your Hornets would not be on the same playing field. They are only where they are because teams like the Lakers and the Mavs cannot dish out hundreds of millions to buy up all of the superior talent due to the luxury tax and cap limitations.

I'm not saying that the NBA's union is perfect, because it's not. I'm saying that without the union, the league would not be competitive at all. I know the union isn't there solely for competition, but it does help preserve it.

Also.. if it isn't good players that win championships, name me a team that has won a professional sports league that did NOT have good players..

 

[Throckmorton]

He asked if I was a "free market" fan and I said I was.

I personally believe that anything that removes competition anywhere is anti-free market.

Insurance companies being able to collude and set prices stifles competition in premiums for example.

Unions promoting people based on seniority is anti-competition in the work place.

For me free market should always mean the most competition we can have.

My point is the union negotiates on the free market just like any other organization. Just because you think they get something unfair doesn't mean it's not a free market... quite the contrary. That's exactly what happens on a free market.