Wisconsin to be 25th RTW state!

[BoberFett]

I think the official party line of either side is to make sure and get extra hysterical and foamy at the mouth when characterizing the other side as enemies of everything we hold dear. Maybe a step above flinging feces, but not as big a step as we imagine.

Truth.

 

[tweaker2]

There is nothing that says the electorate should be happier or better off as a result of their own stupidity. Wisconsinites elected Walker and a Republican legislature, they are going to get what's coming to them as a result.

The problem with that is they're going to blame it all on the Dems and refuse to blame themselves as a political party even if they know it as individuals.

Party loyalty before logic and reality.

Makes me wonder what is so fearful to them that they would vote aginst their own best interests in such a manner?

 

[senseamp]

The problem with that is they're going to blame it all on the Dems and refuse to blame themselves as a political party even if they know it as individuals.

Party loyalty before logic and reality.

Makes me wonder what is so fearful to them that they would vote aginst their own best interests in such a manner?

They still are going to get what's coming to them as a result of their votes, no matter what justifications and reasons they come up with in their heads.

 

[tweaker2]

They still are going to get what's coming to them as a result of their votes, no matter what justifications and reasons they come up with in their heads.

Yeh, it kind'a looks like each Repub state wants to repeat what Bush and Cheney did to the whole nation some years back, of which we're still trying to recover from.

Some folks never learn eh?

 

[senseamp]

I find little to disagree with here, other than the fact that tech and showbiz jobs will always comprise a small minority of available work. Don't get me wrong, I am all for pushing high tech and (hopefully) difficult to outsource jobs as hard and fast as possible, and I hope it can make a significant difference, but as far as the big picture goes I am not as optimistic as you.

In the modern economy it's not about doing work cheaper, it's about adding more value. Foxconn does a lot of work building iPhones, but Apple collects almost all the profits, because it's the one adding value with it's R&D.
As far as Wisconsin, they aren't adding much value, but they have no hope to compete in the race to the bottom in manufacturing. Health care costs alone in the US are higher than hiring someone full time in China.

 

[BoberFett]

Look at these two idiots pleasuring each other, believing that prosperity is simply a matter of voting for their party. LOL, Democrats.

 

[crashtech]

Makes me wonder what is so fearful to them that they would vote aginst their own best interests in such a manner?

Putting aside for a moment what you might personally think of anyone's beliefs, is it so hard to imagine that someone would vote for what they believe is right, even if it works against their short term interests? As voters we are called upon to make the best decisions we know how, which entails being able to look beyond one's own immediate selfish needs. Not to say that is what is occurring here, I'm not making a commentary on this particular issue, but the peculiar insistence that voters should be making the most selfish decisions possible. It's especially strange because, depending on the issue, the same commentators will reverse their advise and exhort us to think of future generations or some half-imagined possible consequence.

 

[tweaker2]

Putting aside for a moment what you might personally think of anyone's beliefs, is it so hard to imagine that someone would vote for what they believe is right, even if it works against their short term interests? As voters we are called upon to make the best decisions we know how, which entails being able to look beyond one's own immediate selfish needs. Not to say that is what is occurring here, I'm not making a commentary on this particular issue, but the peculiar insistence that voters should be making the most selfish decisions possible. It's especially strange because, depending on the issue, the same commentators will reverse their advise and exhort us to think of future generations or some half-imagined possible consequence.

Great post. :thumbsup: Allow me some time to give it the consideration that it's due. As it is, I have to get back to work for now.

 

[senseamp]

Putting aside for a moment what you might personally think of anyone's beliefs, is it so hard to imagine that someone would vote for what they believe is right, even if it works against their short term interests? As voters we are called upon to make the best decisions we know how, which entails being able to look beyond one's own immediate selfish needs. Not to say that is what is occurring here, I'm not making a commentary on this particular issue, but the peculiar insistence that voters should be making the most selfish decisions possible. It's especially strange because, depending on the issue, the same commentators will reverse their advise and exhort us to think of future generations or some half-imagined possible consequence.

Republican voters have been eager to give up not just their immediate selfish needs, but their health, their children's education, etc, to make themselves cheaper labor and lower taxes for the employer on top of it. So they aren't intelligently investing in the future, they are simply fools squandering it for the benefit of someone else.

 

[crashtech]

In the modern economy it's not about doing work cheaper, it's about adding more value. Foxconn does a lot of work building iPhones, but Apple collects almost all the profits, because it's the one adding value with it's R&D.
As far as Wisconsin, they aren't adding much value, but they have no hope to compete in the race to the bottom in manufacturing. Health care costs alone in the US are higher than hiring someone full time in China.

Most successful businesses know a lot about the concept of adding value, but despite what you seem to be saying, cost of labor is not completely divorced from the value equation, especially in Western nations.

I would think that if RTW is as bad as you would have us think, eventually voters will get rid of it. Until then, we just need to keep examining the data. I haven't done any deep research, but from what little I know, RTW does result in lower wages, but it also appears to drive growth, giving workers who have been looking for work a better chance to participate. I can anticipate the reaction to this, and I suppose to some, a protected worker class is superior to lower unemployment. I guess that's a fair opinion. But it looks like this is going to be the new reality; wages in the US are going to keep stagnating or falling because we are transitioning to a more service based economy, and in the long run, the lifestyle most of us have been living is simply not sustainable.

 

[senseamp]

Cost of labor is a two sided coin. Wages, benefits, and stability are also incentives for workers to invest in education and training and increase their ability to add value. People aren't going to go to trade school to learn a complicated skill unless they can expect a stable well paying job to get a ROI.
There is a reason why some of the highest value add manufacturing is in heavily unionized Germany. Because the workforce makes an investment in training and apprenticeship in exchange for a protected union job. Race to the bottom does not afford that, even if the job is there now, if there is a cheaper place to do it, it will be gone tomorrow. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Again, the confusion.
RTW has little to do with unions BECAUSE most people are not in a union.
But... RTW does and will have major impact on non-union workers and their legal relationship to the employer.

You need not be in a union to get screwed by the employer.
But, you do need a state without RTW to play fair with the employer.

What always happens is, and TAKE NOTE, and exactly what will happen in Wisconsin, that after RTW passes, every and all business will search the law books tooth and nail to discover new ways to screw their employees, legally thanks to RTW.
Employers will fully examine just what that employer can now get away with.
And every employer will then put in place new rules and regulations to benefit the employer, and never the employee.

What usually happens in a RTW state, when employees are screwed out of overtime or wages or benefits or unfair unjustified firings to ensure new employee replacements earn the minimum basic wage rather than pay the seasoned loyal long termed employee a decent wage, what always happens is the wronged employees filing a CLASS ACTION law suit to remedy the RTW injustice.

And if you check out all those many many MANY class action law suits by harmed employees, you will find more often than not, the class action lawsuit wins in court.
The employee(s) win in the end thru class action, but only after the fact.
The problem here is, that the lawyers take all the rewards and the wronged employees get very little of the reward.

RTW? You will not like it if you are an employee. No one bit. I guarantee you!!!!!
Republican, democrat, liberal, or far righty, your employer will scan the books and discover new ways to legally screw the workers.
And they have a lot of fun with doing that.
With much legal assistance to guide the employer exactly how to screw their employees for the benefit and profit of the company.

In truth, Unions have very little to do with it.
RTW changes the relationship between the employer and the employee, and never for any benefit for the employee.
The employer has everything to gain and nothing to lose.
And the employee has everything to lose. And will.

Ps.
Regardless of your politics, regardless of your ideology, all it takes is one time being cheated out of wage, overtime, fairness, advancement or lack of, fare treatment, by your employer in a RTW state.

Your gut knee jerk reaction?
"I'm going to the labor board. They can't get away with this".
And when at the state labor board?
You will be told, in every RTW state, you the employee have NO rights. Period!

Sure, maybe you worked for 15 years and were in line for that promotion, and the boss promoted the less qualified, only been there 6 months, better looking girl. That new girl that spends all her time in his office gabbing, while you work your butt off.

Or that day they called you in 2 hours early because they were short of help, but you never received overtime pay. You only received regular pay for overtime worked.

Or the time you wanted a week off for vacation, and you put in for a week off, and some other employee later puts in for the same week off, and while you asked first the boss gives the week off to the other guy, and not you.

All are examples of RTW state employers screwing of their employees.
And the labor board will not help you one little bit.
You sit back, and lose out on all the promotions, on all the fairness, on all the wages while the new guy reaps all the employer benefits. And just because he, like the boss, plays golf. Or likes the Mets. Or their kids go to the same pre-school together. Or they both frequent the same bar.

THAT is the hard cold reality of RTW.
.
.

Find a better company to work for is that happens to you. Good companies do exist. I have left jobs before due to the employer(or management) not holding up their end of an agreement. But then again, I don't buy into the victim mentality like you do. I control my decisions and do what's best for my family and myself. Everyone has this ability, some just don't seem to want to do it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Holy shit, this thread is proof that the left is becoming unhinged, just like the right. Listen to all the left wing crazies.

lol, even obama now has added his spittle.

 

[Jhhnn]

Most successful businesses know a lot about the concept of adding value, but despite what you seem to be saying, cost of labor is not completely divorced from the value equation, especially in Western nations.

I would think that if RTW is as bad as you would have us think, eventually voters will get rid of it. Until then, we just need to keep examining the data. I haven't done any deep research, but from what little I know, RTW does result in lower wages, but it also appears to drive growth, giving workers who have been looking for work a better chance to participate. I can anticipate the reaction to this, and I suppose to some, a protected worker class is superior to lower unemployment. I guess that's a fair opinion. But it looks like this is going to be the new reality; wages in the US are going to keep stagnating or falling because we are transitioning to a more service based economy, and in the long run, the lifestyle most of us have been living is simply not sustainable.

Which means that current debt loads aren't sustainable, either.

If RTW provides better opportunities for work, that comes at the expense of other states almost exclusively. It's a beggar thy neighbor deal.

I also think you're correct about lifestyle, but only in the frame of trickle down economics.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Thanks for thoughtful post on this CAD.

What you are suggesting can't be done under current regulation in any meaningful sense. If you attempted to organize a worksite outside of the system of rules in the NLRA you have no legal standing with the labor board, and management could and would simply ignore your organization, refuse to recognize it, and refuse to bargain.

I'm guessing the 2 union guys are contract workers at your company, not direct hires? Regardless, they are members of a some craft union, which is more like an association and certification program, not a direct bargaining unit with your management.

So for a site based union, all the workers are covered by the contract, and have the right to its representation. In Union Security states, if you start work at a plant that is covered by a union contract you pay dues or pay a "fair share" fee which is the cost of representation. In Right to Work states, you can opt out of paying ANY fees. However, you are still covered by the union contract, grievance procedure, and the right to union representation. And those costs are covered by a smaller pool of people, both dividing the workforce, and eroding the union.

The net result in RTW states is this: After 10 years, no one remembers what it was like before the union, and all they can see is the $30-$40 a month coming out of their checks, so they vote out the union.

Its a simple, elegant plan.

Nope, not contractors. And again I have no doubt the one they joined has little power but that's not my problem or point. The point is, it can be done. Just because you are stuck in the old economy thinking doesn't mean that's the only way it can or should be done. So again, if a union doesn't want to cover non-members it doesn't have to if it doesn't want to, however since they chose the structure that gives them exclusivity, they must deal with the side-effects. They have a choice, they just enjoy the power too much.

 

[crashtech]

Cost of labor is a two sided coin. Wages, benefits, and stability are also incentives for workers to invest in education and training and increase their ability to add value. People aren't going to go to trade school to learn a complicated skill unless they can expect a stable well paying job to get a ROI.
There is a reason why some of the highest value add manufacturing is in heavily unionized Germany. Because the workforce makes an investment in training and apprenticeship in exchange for a protected union job. Race to the bottom does not afford that, even if the job is there now, if there is a cheaper place to do it, it will be gone tomorrow. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

I appreciate your idealistic notions because I have some of them myself, but more often than not, wages, benefits, and stability are just incentives to buy houses, boats, and giant flat screens. Workers, (with many stellar exceptions, I will grant) generally will seek as much training as they need to achieve a lifestyle where most of their needs are met. But I actually want to agree with your premise, and there are many signs that employers who not only pay well but incentivize training have a very effective long-term strategy.

I would attribute Germany's success more to cultural factors than the mere presence of trade unions; I particularly like the way they sort people into apprenticeship programs. Although it is extremely efficient, I don't see it ever happening that way in the highly individualistic USA. Mike Rowe may eventually make some headway in that regard with his Works Foundation, but we can't ever be Germany.

 

[berzerker60]

I appreciate your idealistic notions because I have some of them myself, but more often than not, wages, benefits, and stability are just incentives to buy houses, boats, and giant flat screens.

Unless we're talking about CEOs, of course. Then, any talk of taxation or limits on CEO salaries would absolutely destroy any incentive to work harder.

 

[senseamp]

I appreciate your idealistic notions because I have some of them myself, but more often than not, wages, benefits, and stability are just incentives to buy houses, boats, and giant flat screens. Workers, (with many stellar exceptions, I will grant) generally will seek as much training as they need to achieve a lifestyle where most of their needs are met. But I actually want to agree with your premise, and there are many signs that employers who not only pay well but incentivize training have a very effective long-term strategy.

I would attribute Germany's success more to cultural factors than the mere presence of trade unions; I particularly like the way they sort people into apprenticeship programs. Although it is extremely efficient, I don't see it ever happening that way in the highly individualistic USA. Mike Rowe may eventually make some headway in that regard with his Works Foundation, but we can't ever be Germany.

I am not sure what your point is on the incentives. Is there a problem with American workers wanting a house, a boat, a flat screen TV, and a comfortable lifestyle? Those are all incentives. People aren't going to go to college or trade school for sustenance wages down the road. Also, have you thought what would happen to the US (and global) economy if American workers (aka "consumer of last resort") stop buying all those things? They would have less, but no one else would have more as a result. It's a negative sum game.

 

[crashtech]

Unless we're talking about CEOs, of course. Then, any talk of taxation or limits on CEO salaries would absolutely destroy any incentive to work harder.

I don't know what to do about excessive CEO salaries, without a cultural change I doubt such things can be legislated out of existence. But it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand, anyway.

 

[crashtech]

I am not sure what your point is on the incentives. Is there a problem with American workers wanting a house, a boat, a flat screen TV, and a comfortable lifestyle? Those are all incentives. People aren't going to go to college or trade school for sustenance wages down the road. Also, have you thought what would happen to the US (and global) economy if American workers (aka "consumer of last resort") stop buying all those things? They would have less, but no one else would have more as a result. It's a negative sum game.

No problem with consumerism at all, anything I might say against it would be rank hypocrisy. I'm just offering my point of view, which is that people tend to get comfortable at a level that is probably below where they actually need to be to stay competitive, and in some regards our unions tend to protect that status quo instead of insisting that their members continually augment their skill sets as a condition of accepting union pay and benefits.

Henry Ford famously realized the benefit of paying his workers enough to be able to afford his cars, there's not much new in that. But to answer, no I don't know what will happen if we start consuming less. I think it's going to happen, though. There will be predictable outcomes and and also unintended consequences. Interestingly, this would seem to be an area where two leftist factions would be at cross purposes. From the perspective of those concerned about climate change, less consumption can only be seen as a good, but for union members? Not so much.

 

[BoberFett]

No problem with consumerism at all, anything I might say against it would be rank hypocrisy. I'm just offering my point of view, which is that people tend to get comfortable at a level that is probably below where they actually need to be to stay competitive, and in some regards our unions tend to protect that status quo instead of insisting that their members continually augment their skill sets as a condition of accepting union pay and benefits.

Henry Ford famously realized the benefit of paying his workers enough to be able to afford his cars, there's not much new in that. But to answer, no I don't know what will happen if we start consuming less. I think it's going to happen, though. There will be predictable outcomes and and also unintended consequences. Interestingly, this would seem to be an area where two leftist factions would be at cross purposes. From the perspective of those concerned about climate change, less consumption can only be seen as a good, but for union members? Not so much.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Jeff7]

I would be fine with a federal program for maternity/paternity leave paid for by taxes rather than forcing companies to pay it, but regardless, it's a standard throughout the first world. It does a lot of good things for society:
-keeps highly-skilled/educated employees from dropping entirely out of the work force to have kids because it's no longer an either/or proposition, thereby increasing economic mobility
--Corollary: Makes the company more attractive to top-level employees from around the world, increasing economic competitiveness
-Look at Japan to see the long-term problems of an aging society. We need youth to keep the economy moving, expanding, and adapting
-There are a lot of links between parental care/involvement and child welfare, with long-term benefits in forming healthy, productive citizens when the children grow up

Not having those benefits I mention is hardly the worst tragedy of all time, but they are standard in lots of other countries, including economically successful ones like Germany. Workers here work longer for far less benefits than lots and lots of other countries. I, for one, think we should strive for the best possible quality of life for Americans.

An economy should not be reliant on breeding its way to success.

Eventually there's going to be a problem with that approach.


Like many systems though, it works better for us if it's consistent and stable. If you have significant changes in proportions of those paying in versus those taking out, and have not adequately prepared for them, that's when you get problems.

My employer has become more profitable and productive, but we have not added new people to do it.
- Improvements in efficiency were identified, increasing capacity and reducing downtime.
- New equipment also increased capacity greatly and led to impressive increases in efficiency and reduction of space needed for inventory.

Economic growth can come about by improving how things are done. Adding more people to the pool is a quick patch. People aren't free to maintain though, and the planet cannot support an infinite human population.

I think the official party line of either side is to make sure and get extra hysterical and foamy at the mouth when characterizing the other side as enemies of everything we hold dear. Maybe a step above flinging feces, but not as big a step as we imagine.

Truth.

:hmm:

 

[senseamp]

No problem with consumerism at all, anything I might say against it would be rank hypocrisy. I'm just offering my point of view, which is that people tend to get comfortable at a level that is probably below where they actually need to be to stay competitive, and in some regards our unions tend to protect that status quo instead of insisting that their members continually augment their skill sets as a condition of accepting union pay and benefits.

Henry Ford famously realized the benefit of paying his workers enough to be able to afford his cars, there's not much new in that. But to answer, no I don't know what will happen if we start consuming less. I think it's going to happen, though. There will be predictable outcomes and and also unintended consequences. Interestingly, this would seem to be an area where two leftist factions would be at cross purposes. From the perspective of those concerned about climate change, less consumption can only be seen as a good, but for union members? Not so much.

It depends what the consumption is. If it's to buy electric cars and solar panels, more consumption could be good for global warming. I think less consumption is already happening due to skewed wealth concentration. The wealthy are less likely to spend incremental dollar of income, especially on manufactured goods.

 

[crashtech]

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

You flatter me sir, especially considering I have no sarcasm detector. As soon as I can string more than two paragraphs together without forgetting what the hell I was trying to say, you'll be the first to know.

 

[werepossum]

I think the official party line of either side is to make sure and get extra hysterical and foamy at the mouth when characterizing the other side as enemies of everything we hold dear. Maybe a step above flinging feces, but not as big a step as we imagine.

This, exactly. Neither party has a monopoly on being correct, and whomever we judge to be correct on most any issue, the other side has valid points too.

You've been a breath of fresh air on this topic, thanks. Hope your business prospers.