More striking

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I don't blame the union members for rejecting that deal-it stinks to high heaven. They would get the 26 weeks of unemployment comp under current law anyway. They are entitled to their accrued time under the current contract as well-the only question being how the company will treat that claim (which has a high priority under bankruptcy law) in their proposed reorganization plan. So it seems the only thing the company is offering is four weeks severance-no matter how long you've been there.

This offer is nothing more to a little sop to people the company is going to lay off anyway. They have no incentive to accept this offer unless the additional four weeks pay is a huge deal to them.

If the company truly wants to recover, and have a cooperative and enthusiastic workforce, then perhaps they should offer more than a slap in the face. That's merely good business practice, regardless of whether or not the workers are organized. It's pretty easy for me to see why these workers are organized with that sort of BS offer being made.

They shouldn't be entitled to unemployment or layoff benefits because they willing walked off the job.

I've worked around unions in the aerospace industry, they are the laziest workers I have ever been around (for the most part, our welders were the best welders I have ever seen). For example, if they were supposed to debulk a composite piece for 2 minutes they would start the debulk then leave for 30 minutes. Also we had mechanics that were supposed to take care of our cooling systems. For some reason they hated evaporative cooling towers and would purposely turn of the bleed and refill values. The bleed values keep the towers from getting hard water deposits and the refill values puts fresh water into the tower, without the freshwater the tower doesn't work making it look like it needs to be replaced. Then if someone tries to fix the situation they get threatened with a grievance. It just really sucked to work with these unions. Plus the average pay for a person with a HS degree and a one semester course at a tech school was $25/hr. With their wages and benefits, any time we bid on new work we had factor in a cost of $98.50 per man hour for labor.

I think unions have their place, but a lot of them, especially in Aerospace, abuse their power.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: zendari
Then I would venture to guess he values television much higher than it at first appears. There must be some price at which the individual would choose not to purchase televion. Clearly he hasn't reached it and is still better off in the deal.

The consumer artifically values the cable service higher simply because there is no alternative to switch to.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
Why would an individual pay a higher price for a good he values at a lower price?

Because he has no choice if he wants to continue watching television at all. Just because channels are added doesn't make it the best bang for the buck. Adding channels without the option to not choose them (and not pay for them) is only a ploy to extract more money out of the consumer by the cable companies.

Then I would venture to guess he values television much higher than it at first appears. There must be some price at which the individual would choose not to purchase televion. Clearly he hasn't reached it and is still better off in the deal.

Better off? Paying more for channels that he doesn't need or want? Only thing better to you is that the cable company makes more profit, no matter the means, eh zen?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
Then I would venture to guess he values television much higher than it at first appears. There must be some price at which the individual would choose not to purchase televion. Clearly he hasn't reached it and is still better off in the deal.

Better off? Paying more for channels that he doesn't need or want? Only thing better to you is that the cable company makes more profit, no matter the means, eh zen?

Absolutely. Otherwise he would choose not to purchase the service. A monopoly is still bound by consumer demand for thier product.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
Then I would venture to guess he values television much higher than it at first appears. There must be some price at which the individual would choose not to purchase televion. Clearly he hasn't reached it and is still better off in the deal.

Better off? Paying more for channels that he doesn't need or want? Only thing better to you is that the cable company makes more profit, no matter the means, eh zen?

Absolutely. Otherwise he would choose not to purchase the service. A monopoly is still bound by consumer demand for thier product.

Thank you for playing. You just justified the existence of unions and collective bargaining.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Thank you for playing. You just justified the existence of unions and collective bargaining.

I never said unions should be illegal. A company that tolerates a union is making its own decision.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Bvllshit - in 2000 my bill for basic cable in NJ was $28.50, in 2005 it is over $46.00. You call that stable?? I have maybe 2 or 3 additional channels n 2005 which I don't watch.

This is not bang for your buck - this is price gouging by monopolies.

Sheeple like you make me sick.

You have plenty more than 2 channels. Your problem if you don't watch them.

Any increase in pricing is only due to the free market, and a comparable pricing to sattelite.

I had around 70 channels then and about the same this year. Just to be clear I am talking of analog cable. Digital customers got more channels but they pay more.

My neighbor has dish and he pays less than I & gets more channels but that should be compared to digital cable.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
Why would an individual pay a higher price for a good he values at a lower price?

Because he has no choice if he wants to continue watching television at all. Just because channels are added doesn't make it the best bang for the buck. Adding channels without the option to not choose them (and not pay for them) is only a ploy to extract more money out of the consumer by the cable companies.

Then I would venture to guess he values television much higher than it at first appears. There must be some price at which the individual would choose not to purchase televion. Clearly he hasn't reached it and is still better off in the deal.

I value TV because of the 8-10 channels I watch - mainly news and educational type channels and some movies. The problem is there is NO ALTERNATIVE OR CHOICE in a monopoly. The reason I stay with cable is because I have cable Internet (which brings down the price when bundled with cable TV) and again there is NO alternate to them due to the monopoly enjoyed by the cable companies in each area.

As to price I can hardly wait for a la carte pricing of TV if the FCC can push that through.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer
Better off? Paying more for channels that he doesn't need or want? Only thing better to you is that the cable company makes more profit, no matter the means, eh zen?

Absolutely. Otherwise he would choose not to purchase the service. A monopoly is still bound by consumer demand for thier product.

Pure greed for profits is the reason why unions exist.

 

[BlancoNino]

Our price of cable TV here hasn't really gone up but we keep getting more channels. We pay around 90 dollars a month for digital cable and cable internet which I average around 350k per download. I think that's a good deal, but we also watch a lot of sports and stuff too.

Anyway, why such a big discussion on cable?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: db
We now have a perfect storm for companies to totally screw employees: politically, economically, and an oversupply of workers. It's only just the beginning for reductions of retirements, health care benefits, wages, work rules, etc. Companies are not taking what they need--they are taking everything the can get. Money is their god and capitalism is our unofficial state religion.

It's only been made possible by the economic force of global labor wage arbitrage. Without that we'd see what the real American Free Market wages and prices would be.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
Let's make unions illegal and we'll all rely upon the warmth and compassion of corporate execs.


:roll:

Well you might have a point if the 4000 striking workers had not been replaced by about 1000 new workers. It seems this union had managed to really pad the number of people it took to get the job done.

Looks like this thread wants to ignore this issue.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer
Better off? Paying more for channels that he doesn't need or want? Only thing better to you is that the cable company makes more profit, no matter the means, eh zen?

Absolutely. Otherwise he would choose not to purchase the service. A monopoly is still bound by consumer demand for thier product.

Pure greed for profits is the reason why unions exist.

That's exactly what unions are: maximizing their profits (in this case, its called income).

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

If a member can feed himself and his familly as well as provide shelter for them to live and is not working 12 hour says every day in horrible conditions, than the unions are doing there jobs. What the unions want is to give every worker the most coziest easiest life in the world. Not only that, but workers in unions tend to be more apathetic towards there employement than non-union workers due to the fact they believe the union will protect them from anything (and they usually do). There will always be workers, this is a fact of life, sadly, the unions have not realised this. What does this mean for the average worker? Jobs overseas where costs are lower.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

If a member can feed himself and his familly as well as provide shelter for them to live and is not working 12 hour says every day in horrible conditions, than the unions are doing there jobs. What the unions want is to give every worker the most coziest easiest life in the world. Not only that, but workers in unions tend to be more apathetic towards there employement than non-union workers due to the fact they believe the union will protect them from anything (and they usually do). There will always be workers, this is a fact of life, sadly, the unions have not realised this. What does this mean for the average worker? Jobs overseas where costs are lower.

So you have yourself up as the arbitrator of excess? It takes two parties to sign a labor agreement. Apparantly companies find it in their best interests to sign these agreements with the unions. Unions should fight for every last dime, that's how we determine the true value of labor.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

If a member can feed himself and his familly as well as provide shelter for them to live and is not working 12 hour says every day in horrible conditions, than the unions are doing there jobs. What the unions want is to give every worker the most coziest easiest life in the world. Not only that, but workers in unions tend to be more apathetic towards there employement than non-union workers due to the fact they believe the union will protect them from anything (and they usually do). There will always be workers, this is a fact of life, sadly, the unions have not realised this. What does this mean for the average worker? Jobs overseas where costs are lower.

So you have yourself up as the arbitrator of excess? It takes two parties to sign a labor agreement. Apparantly companies find it in their best interests to sign these agreements with the unions. Unions should fight for every last dime, that's how we determine the true value of labor.

The true value of labour is set by the companies, that is why you see more jobs going to India, China, Asian countries to produce there goods rather than pay for overpriced labour here. The unions keep fighting for every last dime, companies keep sending jobs overseas.

 

[AragornTK]

union's are good for two things, threatening scabs, and driving prices of goods up...

there was a parking garage attendant strike here a few months back... people got payed something around $12.00/hour with good health care and a weeks paid vacation each year, and all they had to do was sit in a booth and take money.

My freind that worked as an attendant told me it was the best job he ever had, sit around watching TV, and getting paid+health insurance to do it... there were rarely cases of people trying to rob them because of the construction of the booths, and he only left the booth to go to the bathroom and eat

can someone tell me why I should have to pay $20 to park my car for longer than 8 hours?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: RichardE
The true value of labour is set by the companies, that is why you see more jobs going to India, China, Asian countries to produce there goods rather than pay for overpriced labour here. The unions keep fighting for every last dime, companies keep sending jobs overseas.

You can't possibly believe that crap. Companies send jobs over seas because it is drastically cheaper. It's cheaper because the poor laborers in those countries are willing to work for much less than workers here. Your example just shows that workers are the ones who define the value of labor, not the companies. Companies look to pay their workers as little as possible without the workers quitting. Just because someone is willing to work for cheap doesn't make their salary "fair", they may have no other option.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: RichardE
The true value of labour is set by the companies, that is why you see more jobs going to India, China, Asian countries to produce there goods rather than pay for overpriced labour here. The unions keep fighting for every last dime, companies keep sending jobs overseas.

You can't possibly believe that crap. Companies send jobs over seas because it is drastically cheaper. It's cheaper because the poor laborers in those countries are willing to work for much less than workers here. Your example just shows that workers are the ones who define the value of labor, not the companies. Companies look to pay their workers as little as possible without the workers quitting. Just because someone is willing to work for cheap doesn't make their salary "fair", they may have no other option.

Nonsense. With very rare exceptions, employment is a buyer's market. You think those Chinese want to work for pennies a day?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: RichardE
The true value of labour is set by the companies, that is why you see more jobs going to India, China, Asian countries to produce there goods rather than pay for overpriced labour here. The unions keep fighting for every last dime, companies keep sending jobs overseas.

You can't possibly believe that crap. Companies send jobs over seas because it is drastically cheaper. It's cheaper because the poor laborers in those countries are willing to work for much less than workers here. Your example just shows that workers are the ones who define the value of labor, not the companies. Companies look to pay their workers as little as possible without the workers quitting. Just because someone is willing to work for cheap doesn't make their salary "fair", they may have no other option.

My main point as stated above, were unions were fine if they didn't step over the line where they strangle employers. Companies are regulated by minimum wage to the minimum amount they can pay employees. Unions do not face a maximum amount due to the society we live in (capitalism ect). If unions did not strangle employers with demands that make it expensive to do labour here do you think companies would leave? There is an expense in moving your entire operation to another country, as well the shipping costs incured to ship your product back ect. Companies must stay competitve in a global market or they will go bankrupt, Unions can either conform to these ideas and work witht the company, or watch as the company either goes bankrupt, or moves there operations somewhere else.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sounds peachy, Richard E, except for one thing- the subject at hand is NW airlines, a domestic carrier who only competes against other domestic carriers. It's not like they or their competitors can move their operations overseas, or that they have to compete directly with other state subsidized airlines in their market segment...