Stupid labor unions

[Ilmater]

I have family members that have had their jobs saved by unions and I've had some that were paid better becausee of unions, but they also create things like this:

Text

In what kind of world should a town's mayor not be allowed to fix a public-safety hazard when he sees one?

In the world of East Haven.

That's where Mayor Joseph Maturo, an electrician by trade and thus a fellow accustomed to rolling up his sleeves and fixing problems when he spots them, is the subject of a grievance filed by Local 1303-119 of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Here's what Maturo did to earn the union's ire: On March 15, a group of teenagers dumped a storm drain grate into a storm sewer. So Maturo did what any right-minded chief executive would do to correct a potential hazard: He jumped into the sewer, fished out the grate and restored it to its rightful place. The work, Maturo said, "took about three minutes."

Not so fast. The AFSCME contract with the town apparently stipulates that Maturo's March 15 task is forbidden to be performed by "non-bargaining unit members." Indeed, the letter of the contract requires that four - count 'em, four - union members (a laborer, dispatcher, truck driver and foreman) should have been paid time-and-a-half for the prescribed minimum for four hours each. This for a job that took Maturo 180 seconds to complete - saving his town's taxpayers many hundreds of dollars.

Citing his own past willingness to look the other way when public-works employees routinely violated the terms of their contract with the town, an understandably upset Maturo calls the union grievance "pretty cheesy."

To us, another word comes to mind: insanity.

Could someone please explain why labor unions are a good thing for the big picture?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

oohhh...lookie here - a union thread that wasn't started by ____.

Anyway, I can't honestly answer in the current times.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Could someone please explain why labor unions are a good thing for the big picture?

There has to be more to the picture not spelled out here.

The guy has obviously pissed the Union folks off more than just picking up a grate.

 

[alchemize]

More reasons labor unions are a "good thing":

- The work gets "smoothed out". You don't have to worry about any "stars" working harder than all the rest hurting everyone's feelings!

- We save money on education. After all, what is the point in getting a college degree if it takes you 10 years to match a union workers pay - and you never match their benefits?

- Speaking of education, where else can we employ our graduates of our rapidly declining school system?

- Keeps the sign industry strong with those picket lines!

- You can continue to have great Soprano's episodes of the mob sitting around in lawn chairs at a work site. (hey, what is that guy's head doing in Sal's lap?)


Unions served a purpose 50-80 years ago. Now they are just a method to coerce private entitlements.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Could someone please explain why labor unions are a good thing for the big picture?

There has to be more to the picture not spelled out here.

The guy has obviously pissed the Union folks off more than just picking up a grate.

It may simply be a militant local.

I've had grievances filed when I was a contract office worker and did inspections of welded parts for internal quality monitoring (not QC or QA; no effect on the union folk in those jobs). Simply because I was picking up the parts and doing something with them, a grievance was filed saying that should have been a union task.

I don't question the value of unions overall, but there's lots of places where the balance of power has shifted too far towards the union. And lots of places where it still rests entirely with the employer.

 

[Train]

so lets say the mayor left the grate there, and went through "proper channels" to get the problem solved.

The grate would still be there, and a wastefull amount of taxpayer money would be spent by the city to fix the problem, and it would probably still be there.

Sounds like a "how many _____ does it take to screw in a lightbulb" joke

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Could someone please explain why labor unions are a good thing for the big picture?

There has to be more to the picture not spelled out here.

The guy has obviously pissed the Union folks off more than just picking up a grate.

Maybe, maybe not - but it is still stupid and it happens all the time. Just the same milking of the system by the Unions that happens everywhere.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree. We should do away with unions. We should do away with corporations and we should do away with inheritance. Each person should be raised by the state and given a financial package at 18 and sent out into the world on an equal basis to do whatever he pleases as an individual. No laws will be allowed that supports any collective. We should practice real capitalism. We must do away with any social structure that leads to economic slavery precluding any attempt by slaves to get free.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I agree. We should do away with unions. We should do away with corporations and we should do away with inheritance. Each person should be raised by the state and given a financial package at 18 and sent out into the world on an equal basis to do whatever he pleases as an individual. No laws will be allowed that supports any collective. We should practice real capitalism. We must do away with any social structure that leads to economic slavery precluding any attempt by slaves to get free.

Umm, raised as in 'provided for', financial package?

You damn communist

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I agree. We should do away with unions. We should do away with corporations and we should do away with inheritance. Each person should be raised by the state and given a financial package at 18 and sent out into the world on an equal basis to do whatever he pleases as an individual. No laws will be allowed that supports any collective. We should practice real capitalism. We must do away with any social structure that leads to economic slavery precluding any attempt by slaves to get free.

Ofcourse your BS is inherently flawed and contradicting. You start out with the state raising people - which would be part of the "collective". But then again - I don't think I've ever accused you of posting honestly.
Anyway, your all/none spew is funny but doesn't defend your precious socialism.

CkG

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I agree. We should do away with unions. We should do away with corporations and we should do away with inheritance. Each person should be raised by the state and given a financial package at 18 and sent out into the world on an equal basis to do whatever he pleases as an individual. No laws will be allowed that supports any collective. We should practice real capitalism. We must do away with any social structure that leads to economic slavery precluding any attempt by slaves to get free.

Ahhh Moonbeam. I hadn't posted in this forum in awhile, so I was hoping you'd still be around. Can't get a better liberal view than yours.

Anyway, the fact is, if Americans want to work AT ALL, they had better accept that they may have to take pay cuts in the future. It's REALLY simple: either workers take paycuts or their jobs go overseas. Yes, the big, bad corporations don't care about their workers, and yes, they're terrible. But the fact is, they WILL cut costs to compete, and if that means sending work to India (or in the next decade, China), they'll do it in a hearbeat. Do you want to work, or do you want to make more?

 

[Dissipate]

There is nothing wrong with workers banding together voluntarily to bargain with their employers. However, when unions start using government force to get what they want, that's where the problems begin.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
There is nothing wrong with workers banding together voluntarily to bargain with their employers. However, when unions start using government force to get what they want, that's where the problems begin.

Agreed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I agree. We should do away with unions. We should do away with corporations and we should do away with inheritance. Each person should be raised by the state and given a financial package at 18 and sent out into the world on an equal basis to do whatever he pleases as an individual. No laws will be allowed that supports any collective. We should practice real capitalism. We must do away with any social structure that leads to economic slavery precluding any attempt by slaves to get free.

Ofcourse your BS is inherently flawed and contradicting. You start out with the state raising people - which would be part of the "collective". But then again - I don't think I've ever accused you of posting honestly.
Anyway, your all/none spew is funny but doesn't defend your precious socialism.

CkG

I am not a socialist. I am a family man just like you. The difference is only in the size of my family. Mine is huge.

And we have to have the state raise people right, because otherwise competition is totally unfair. How can you pit the average ghetto Joe up against the rich elite. The state can treat all children equally well or poorly depending on the design. It will naturally be designed will since it will raise your kids, no? The only caveat is that there will be no special advantages. We need to replace the born lucky joker elite who imagine they got what they got because of personal talent with a true merit system right where only talent succeeds, right?

 

[rextilleon]

Yeah--thats like GWB getting into Yale and Harvard based on legacy and getting into the Air National Guard based on connections. It happens every day. I never hear the right wing complaining about Rich Man's Welfare--Nepotism etc.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize
More reasons labor unions are a "good thing":

- The work gets "smoothed out". You don't have to worry about any "stars" working harder than all the rest hurting everyone's feelings!

- We save money on education. After all, what is the point in getting a college degree if it takes you 10 years to match a union workers pay - and you never match their benefits?

- Speaking of education, where else can we employ our graduates of our rapidly declining school system?

- Keeps the sign industry strong with those picket lines!

- You can continue to have great Soprano's episodes of the mob sitting around in lawn chairs at a work site. (hey, what is that guy's head doing in Sal's lap?)


Unions served a purpose 50-80 years ago. Now they are just a method to coerce private entitlements.

So you believe because somebody goes to college to become some pencil pushing suckass Yuppie they automatically deserve to make more money than a Union Carpenter who has to go through 4 years of Apprentice School to become a Journeyman? What entitles them to that?

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize
More reasons labor unions are a "good thing":

- The work gets "smoothed out". You don't have to worry about any "stars" working harder than all the rest hurting everyone's feelings!

- We save money on education. After all, what is the point in getting a college degree if it takes you 10 years to match a union workers pay - and you never match their benefits?

- Speaking of education, where else can we employ our graduates of our rapidly declining school system?

- Keeps the sign industry strong with those picket lines!

- You can continue to have great Soprano's episodes of the mob sitting around in lawn chairs at a work site. (hey, what is that guy's head doing in Sal's lap?)


Unions served a purpose 50-80 years ago. Now they are just a method to coerce private entitlements.

So you believe because somebody goes to college to become some pencil pushing suckass Yuppie they automatically deserve to make more money than a Union Carpenter who has to go through 4 years of Apprentice School to become a Journeyman? What entitles them to that?

Being smarter entitles them to that.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Umm, raised as in 'provided for', financial package?

You damn communist

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ofcourse your BS is inherently flawed and contradicting. You start out with the state raising people - which would be part of the "collective". But then again - I don't think I've ever accused you of posting honestly.
Anyway, your all/none spew is funny but doesn't defend your precious socialism.

CkG

Holy crap! We agreed about something!

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize
More reasons labor unions are a "good thing":

- The work gets "smoothed out". You don't have to worry about any "stars" working harder than all the rest hurting everyone's feelings!

- We save money on education. After all, what is the point in getting a college degree if it takes you 10 years to match a union workers pay - and you never match their benefits?

- Speaking of education, where else can we employ our graduates of our rapidly declining school system?

- Keeps the sign industry strong with those picket lines!

- You can continue to have great Soprano's episodes of the mob sitting around in lawn chairs at a work site. (hey, what is that guy's head doing in Sal's lap?)


Unions served a purpose 50-80 years ago. Now they are just a method to coerce private entitlements.

So you believe because somebody goes to college to become some pencil pushing suckass Yuppie they automatically deserve to make more money than a Union Carpenter who has to go through 4 years of Apprentice School to become a Journeyman? What entitles them to that?

Its not the education that makes the college educated man more "valuable" than the union man. I believe alchemize was referring to how the union mans wage is higher because its kept artificially higher by the unions, not his actual value.

 

[jjzelinski]

so kissing a$$=smart?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn


Unions served a purpose 50-80 years ago. Now they are just a method to coerce private entitlements.

So you believe because somebody goes to college to become some pencil pushing suckass Yuppie they automatically deserve to make more money than a Union Carpenter who has to go through 4 years of Apprentice School to become a Journeyman? What entitles them to that?[/quote]


As a "pencil pushing suckass yuppie," I would argue that it's a function of skills needed in today's marketplace and the substitutability of relatively unskilled labor. Prior to becoming a ?pencil pushing suckass yuppie," I used to do roofing and built trusses for a few years. I believe I can build and install cabinets, hang eight-square of shingles a day, and frame walls as well as many of these ?journeyman? carpenters. How many journeyman carpenters, though, can crank through logistical non-linear regressions and make decisions based on the results thereof? The world of business, for better of for worse, values different skills and pays a premium for those skills that coincide best with their business model. Am I wrong?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Being smarter entitles them to that.

Correction: Being an Elitist entitles them to that.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Train
Its not the education that makes the college educated man more "valuable" than the union man. I believe alchemize was referring to how the union mans wage is higher because its kept artificially higher by the unions, not his actual value.

Nope he's suggesting that unions artificially restrict labour supply and therefore increase the marginal value of each employee who is under the union umbrella.

It's a case of labour applying the same sort of market-distorting tactics that monopoly suppliers have available to them.

The labour still trades at its marginal value; the value is just inflated by a market manipulation.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize
More reasons labor unions are a "good thing":

- The work gets "smoothed out". You don't have to worry about any "stars" working harder than all the rest hurting everyone's feelings!

- We save money on education. After all, what is the point in getting a college degree if it takes you 10 years to match a union workers pay - and you never match their benefits?

- Speaking of education, where else can we employ our graduates of our rapidly declining school system?

- Keeps the sign industry strong with those picket lines!

- You can continue to have great Soprano's episodes of the mob sitting around in lawn chairs at a work site. (hey, what is that guy's head doing in Sal's lap?)


Unions served a purpose 50-80 years ago. Now they are just a method to coerce private entitlements.

So you believe because somebody goes to college to become some pencil pushing suckass Yuppie they automatically deserve to make more money than a Union Carpenter who has to go through 4 years of Apprentice School to become a Journeyman? What entitles them to that?

Being smarter entitles them to that.

Who says they are smarter? I've worked in both sectors and I can honestly say the the ratio of dumb asses to smart individuals is about the same. Hell after I decided to go back to school after 10 years as a Carpenter I found College simple. All you had to do was pay attention, take good notes and study. I did observe that many more people in the White Collar sector seemed to be more disillusioned with their jobs than those I encountered working in the trades.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Train
Its not the education that makes the college educated man more "valuable" than the union man. I believe alchemize was referring to how the union mans wage is higher because its kept artificially higher by the unions, not his actual value.

Nope he's suggesting that unions artificially restrict labour supply and therefore increase the marginal value of each employee who is under the union umbrella.

It's a case of labour applying the same sort of market-distorting tactics that monopoly suppliers have available to them.

The labour still trades at its marginal value; the value is just inflated by a market manipulation.

thats basically what i said, thanks for the paraphrase though.