Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Arizona Continues To Suck (Banning Public Sector Unions Edition!)

1789101113»

Posts

  • Monkey Ball WarriorMonkey Ball Warrior A collection of mediocre hats Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    How are unions not like companies that sell labor? With the right to form exclusivity contracts with whomever they can, like how Coke has exclusivity rights with a fast food chain.

    I suspect that a lot of the controversy surrounding unions has to do with the ways in which they are treated as their own thing, and not like what, in an economic sense, they actually are.

    I say that as someone who used to be pretty strongly anti-union. So I may be missing something vital.

    "I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    How are unions not like companies that sell labor? With the right to form exclusivity contracts with whomever they can, like how Coke has exclusivity rights with a fast food chain.

    I suspect that a lot of the controversy surrounding unions has to do with the ways in which they are treated as their own thing, and not like what, in an economic sense, they actually are.

    I say that as someone who used to be pretty strongly anti-union. So I may be missing something vital.

    The German system is interesting, in that it treats unions as a normal and completely noncontroversial part of the business structure, an important balance to the power of management. They get seats on the board, and they are generally seen as sharing the interests of the companies they work for.

  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Getting rid of unions is their goal, so agreeing to do it in a managed way, in exchange for employment laws seems like a viable way forward to me. Both sides have something the other side wants, and trading labor laws for employment laws seems like a good deal to me. I know you don't like this suggestion, and that's fine, but what is your solution. Because so far it seems to me that most people want to just give up because its too hard, and the small union enclaves are still doing well for people. You call me an elitist, while at the same time defending a status quo that helps a minority and does not benefit most workers at all. Do you think there is some inherent good in unions beyond their ability to protect and empower workers?

    They're not going to agree to get rid of unions in exchange for stronger labor laws because they don't want stronger labor laws, FULL STOP. Do you understand?

    My solution for moving forward is to strengthen unions and empower them following the Scandinavian model. Which is to say, give unions more power to influence the decisions of the corporations they work under, up to and including having a union rep on the board so they can help prevent things like executive overpay and rampant outsourcing.

    And I never called you an elitist, I merely made the observation that you seem to have comprehension problems despite claiming to be some kind of high-powered lawyer.

    Hacksaw on
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    One week and eight pages later and it's like I never stopped following this thread.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • spottedhumanspottedhuman Registered User
    How are unions not like companies that sell labor? With the right to form exclusivity contracts with whomever they can, like how Coke has exclusivity rights with a fast food chain.

    I suspect that a lot of the controversy surrounding unions has to do with the ways in which they are treated as their own thing, and not like what, in an economic sense, they actually are.

    I say that as someone who used to be pretty strongly anti-union. So I may be missing something vital.

    The German system is interesting, in that it treats unions as a normal and completely noncontroversial part of the business structure, an important balance to the power of management. They get seats on the board, and they are generally seen as sharing the interests of the companies they work for.
    most often corporations and the employees share the goal of making hella money, that is certain!!

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    How are unions not like companies that sell labor? With the right to form exclusivity contracts with whomever they can, like how Coke has exclusivity rights with a fast food chain.

    I suspect that a lot of the controversy surrounding unions has to do with the ways in which they are treated as their own thing, and not like what, in an economic sense, they actually are.

    I say that as someone who used to be pretty strongly anti-union. So I may be missing something vital.

    The German system is interesting, in that it treats unions as a normal and completely noncontroversial part of the business structure, an important balance to the power of management. They get seats on the board, and they are generally seen as sharing the interests of the companies they work for.
    most often corporations and the employees share the goal of making hella money, that is certain!!

    Yeah. It's the kind of thing that Ug the Cave Chieftan figured out a hundred thousand years ago. If you share the spoils with your team, they love you and work hard to win. If you keep all the spoils, they get antsy and work against you, if they work at all.

    Phillishere on
  • spottedhumanspottedhuman Registered User
    How are unions not like companies that sell labor? With the right to form exclusivity contracts with whomever they can, like how Coke has exclusivity rights with a fast food chain.

    I suspect that a lot of the controversy surrounding unions has to do with the ways in which they are treated as their own thing, and not like what, in an economic sense, they actually are.

    I say that as someone who used to be pretty strongly anti-union. So I may be missing something vital.

    The German system is interesting, in that it treats unions as a normal and completely noncontroversial part of the business structure, an important balance to the power of management. They get seats on the board, and they are generally seen as sharing the interests of the companies they work for.
    most often corporations and the employees share the goal of making hella money, that is certain!!

    Yeah. It's the kind of thing that Ug the Cave Chieftan figured out a hundred thousand years ago. If you share the spoils with your team, they love you and work hard to win. If you keep all the spoils, they get antsy and work against you, if they work at all.
    certainly goes a long way to explain the airline and car worker unions' willingness to play ball on much worse compensation.

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular

    The republican party's hatred is the entire impetus behind my suggestion. Getting rid of unions is their goal, so agreeing to do it in a managed way, in exchange for employment laws seems like a viable way forward to me. Both sides have something the other side wants, and trading labor laws for employment laws seems like a good deal to me. I know you don't like this suggestion, and that's fine, but what is your solution. Because so far it seems to me that most people want to just give up because its too hard, and the small union enclaves are still doing well for people. You call me an elitist, while at the same time defending a status quo that helps a minority and does not benefit most workers at all. Do you think there is some inherent good in unions beyond their ability to protect and empower workers?


    So, because getting rid of unions is the goal of the republicans, we should just agree to that and hope to get something in return?

    Nationally legalized and recognized gay marriage is my goal. Truly universal health care is my goal. An end to the war in Afghanistan, closing Gitmo, and raising taxes on the rich is my goal. And the goal of many Democrats. Should the other side just agree to those too?

    Just because getting rid of unions is their goal, doesn't mean we have to cave on it. Especially not in the hopes of something 'better'. Sure, stronger employment laws are great. And would be fantastic. But I would want somebody around to protect me if, you know, two years later there was a 'budget crisis' and those new laws had to go.

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Surrender has never struck me as an effective strategy, frankly.

    As for your continued insistence that unions don't help anyone but their members, you do realise the average wage in non-right to work states is higher, right?
    http://www.epi.org/publication/datazone_rtw_index/

    I actually think that the first sentence of this post illustrates the problem very well. I think that we would be much better off if we could make the issue less adversarial than it is now. In the real world, despite anything that your union leaders may say to you in letters or speeches, their most important relationship is with management, and at the negotiating table they are more collaborative than you might expect, even as they come away and tell you how hard they pushed. If we could move to a more collaborative labor-company relationship (like in many other countries) I think that would be much better.

    Driving up wages is all well and good, but it is not what I am talking about. I want the kinds of substantive protections against being fired without notice, mandatory vacation, etc. to be extended to the full work force. I know that unions were instrumental in securing our weak employment laws, but unless there is a major labor revival, I don't see them making progress on this point again. Again, this does not mean no unions, but it does mean very different unions, who focus more on protecting and advocating for employees than on securing basic protections for their members.

  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    focus more on protecting and advocating for employees than on securing basic protections for their members.

    Unions already do both these things.

    You've been told that, time and time again.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    I think that we would be much better off if we could make the issue less adversarial than it is now.
    Yes, it would be nice if the Republican Party wasn't openly attempting to destroy unions. Us compromising them away in exchange for promises that really, they'll be nice to workers isn't going to change that.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Hacksaw wrote:
    focus more on protecting and advocating for employees than on securing basic protections for their members.

    Unions already do both these things.

    You've been told that, time and time again.

    You are worse than the Romney said he doesn't care about the poor crowd. This was not even an anti-union statement. I was just saying that it would be good for unions to primarily resolve disputes and raise worker concerns, instead of having to expend their negotiating capital pushing for things like notice and severance in connection with being fired.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote:
    focus more on protecting and advocating for employees than on securing basic protections for their members.

    Unions already do both these things.

    You've been told that, time and time again.

    You are worse than the Romney said he doesn't care about the poor crowd. This was not even an anti-union statement. I was just saying that it would be good for unions to primarily resolve disputes and raise worker concerns, instead of having to expend their negotiating capital pushing for things like notice and severance in connection with being fired.

    You're angry that unions have to spend their political capital to protect their members from their corporate overlords yet Hacksaw is worse then Romney? Where's your hate for the Republicans and corporate class forcing this scenario? Without them being assholes Unions would be able to get better work laws passed and gain more power by organizing on a larger scale. You do realize Unions are the victim in this scenario, right?

  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote:
    focus more on protecting and advocating for employees than on securing basic protections for their members.

    Unions already do both these things.

    You've been told that, time and time again.

    You are worse than the Romney said he doesn't care about the poor crowd. This was not even an anti-union statement. I was just saying that it would be good for unions to primarily resolve disputes and raise worker concerns, instead of having to expend their negotiating capital pushing for things like notice and severance in connection with being fired.

    Lay off the personal attacks.

    And again, unions are already doing these things. They attempt to resolve peaceably and amicably resolve disputes between workers and management, give a stronger voice to workers' concerns, and at the same time push for a better deal pay/benefits-wise for their members.

    In fact, outside the US they get things done much more effectively because they're treated as a given necessity, not an interloping outside force. It's amazing the things you can accomplish when companies don't regard you as the capitalist Anti-Christ, especially without justification.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Surrender has never struck me as an effective strategy, frankly.

    As for your continued insistence that unions don't help anyone but their members, you do realise the average wage in non-right to work states is higher, right?
    http://www.epi.org/publication/datazone_rtw_index/

    I actually think that the first sentence of this post illustrates the problem very well. I think that we would be much better off if we could make the issue less adversarial than it is now. In the real world, despite anything that your union leaders may say to you in letters or speeches, their most important relationship is with management, and at the negotiating table they are more collaborative than you might expect, even as they come away and tell you how hard they pushed. If we could move to a more collaborative labor-company relationship (like in many other countries) I think that would be much better.

    The thing is, it's not the unions who are making the matter adversarial. It's the employers. Let's take the rubber rooms for an example - that was the NYC school chancellor a)not wanting to actually fund the system of investigating charges of serious malfeasance that were agreed to by both the schools and the union and b)trying to force teachers out by means of mind-numbing boredom so he didn't actually have to try to prove the cases.

    But, it could be worse. We could be in Columbia, where American multinationals up and kill unionizers.
    Driving up wages is all well and good, but it is not what I am talking about. I want the kinds of substantive protections against being fired without notice, mandatory vacation, etc. to be extended to the full work force. I know that unions were instrumental in securing our weak employment laws, but unless there is a major labor revival, I don't see them making progress on this point again. Again, this does not mean no unions, but it does mean very different unions, who focus more on protecting and advocating for employees than on securing basic protections for their members.

    And the goalposts get moved. You asserted that unions don't help out the workforce at large. The statistics on wages and right to work laws show that not to be the case. But, to finally put this argument to bed, let's take a look at the website of one of the largest unions in the United States, the Service Employees International Union. What's the first big thing on the page? Their push to have unemployment benefits extended. Other notable points include their support of OWS, the recent decision on contraception, the ACA - all of these topics support the workforce at large, not just the members of the SEIU. Then lets look at the website of the AFL-CIO, the great "union of unions". The big thing on their news blog, front and center? Again, a push to get Congress to extend unemployment. Unions do, in fact, advocate for laws that will help all workers, not just their own.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Surrender has never struck me as an effective strategy, frankly.

    As for your continued insistence that unions don't help anyone but their members, you do realise the average wage in non-right to work states is higher, right?
    http://www.epi.org/publication/datazone_rtw_index/

    I actually think that the first sentence of this post illustrates the problem very well. I think that we would be much better off if we could make the issue less adversarial than it is now. In the real world, despite anything that your union leaders may say to you in letters or speeches, their most important relationship is with management, and at the negotiating table they are more collaborative than you might expect, even as they come away and tell you how hard they pushed. If we could move to a more collaborative labor-company relationship (like in many other countries) I think that would be much better.

    The thing is, it's not the unions who are making the matter adversarial. It's the employers. Let's take the rubber rooms for an example - that was the NYC school chancellor a)not wanting to actually fund the system of investigating charges of serious malfeasance that were agreed to by both the schools and the union and b)trying to force teachers out by means of mind-numbing boredom so he didn't actually have to try to prove the cases.

    But, it could be worse. We could be in Columbia, where American multinationals up and kill unionizers.
    Driving up wages is all well and good, but it is not what I am talking about. I want the kinds of substantive protections against being fired without notice, mandatory vacation, etc. to be extended to the full work force. I know that unions were instrumental in securing our weak employment laws, but unless there is a major labor revival, I don't see them making progress on this point again. Again, this does not mean no unions, but it does mean very different unions, who focus more on protecting and advocating for employees than on securing basic protections for their members.

    And the goalposts get moved. You asserted that unions don't help out the workforce at large. The statistics on wages and right to work laws show that not to be the case. But, to finally put this argument to bed, let's take a look at the website of one of the largest unions in the United States, the Service Employees International Union. What's the first big thing on the page? Their push to have unemployment benefits extended. Other notable points include their support of OWS, the recent decision on contraception, the ACA - all of these topics support the workforce at large, not just the members of the SEIU. Then lets look at the website of the AFL-CIO, the great "union of unions". The big thing on their news blog, front and center? Again, a push to get Congress to extend unemployment. Unions do, in fact, advocate for laws that will help all workers, not just their own.

    On the first point, I don't think it is solely management or the unions that are at fault. Management made the rubber room, but it was in reaction to how hard it is to fire tenured teachers. The rubber rooms were a terrible policy, but I don't think anyone is well served by the way that tenure currently works. I don't think blaming one side or the other is productive. It is the system that is broken, and both sides contributed to it.

    On 2, point well taken. While rhetoric may not match actions, I will concede that they do at least some work to push for general worker rights. What I don't understand is why Europe managed to get strong employment laws and unions which are generally views as ok by companies, but we failed to do either. I'm not blaming the unions alone for this, but I think it is undeniable that at the height of their power, American unions were not able, or did not care, to push for strong employment laws. What we have (worker classification, overtime, etc.) is put to good use, and in my experience, companies try very hard to comply with them, because the risk of costly litigation if they don't looms very large. But what we have just is not enough. When my clients buy a company, they might fire hundreds of US employees, but they are much more thoughtful about firing even one Canadian employee, because it can be very costly or time consuming to do so.

    So, granting that unions are pushing for employment laws (albeit it, not necessarily the ones we really need) the question becomes what can unions be doing better. I think one clear example is how people being fired is handled. Right now, companies can fire you for any reason, but the union will probably try to get your job back. Instead of this adversarial system, I think we would be better served if terminations could be appealed to a neutral 3rd party, like how claim denials are handled under healthcare reform. This way, the union could push to help people with legitimate grievances, while not being held accountable for not getting the guy who shows up drunk or the teacher who reads the paper their jobs back.

    I also think that for unions to work, we need them to either be ubiquitous and for the cost of unionization to employers to be consistent within an industry, or we need most of the cost of current unions to be shifted to employment laws, so that everyone is bearing those costs, and having a union step in is not a huge cost center like it is now. This second approach is a lot of why even American companies who are union averse don't generally mind foreign unions. One major issue on the costs side is retirement. The SEIU which you mentioned is basically toxic for employers right now due to the underfunding of their pension (it was found to be at the highest level of underfunding last year by the DOL). The plan is so underfunded that an employer who was solvent and non-union (or even dealing with a different union) could be put in danger of going out of business within a few years of being affiliated with the SEIU's retirement plan. If we don't reform how union pensions work (and to be honest, a lot of the problems are due to incompetent management of the plans by the unions, and corruption. Contributin employers have no say in how the plans are managed, or in what their annual contributions are) I don't think wide spread union membership will ever be possible on a cost efficient basis.

  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    All the unionization stuff is a lot more culturally permissible, since they have had centuries of guild control of local labor markets.

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Octoparrot wrote:
    All the unionization stuff is a lot more culturally permissible, since they have had centuries of guild control of local labor markets.

    There's also WWII turning labor into a rare commodity in Europe, too.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Octoparrot wrote:
    All the unionization stuff is a lot more culturally permissible, since they have had centuries of guild control of local labor markets.

    So do we, actually. The United States has a contiguous history with Europe in this case, since the guild system transferred with the colonists. It only faded when indentured servants were phased out in favor of slavery, although the North never lost the tradition of trade unions.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Octoparrot wrote:
    All the unionization stuff is a lot more culturally permissible, since they have had centuries of guild control of local labor markets.

    There's also WWII turning labor into a rare commodity in Europe, too.

    Union battles predate WWII by a long while. There's a reason the famous saying starts, "First, they came for the trade unionists..."

  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    Octoparrot wrote:
    All the unionization stuff is a lot more culturally permissible, since they have had centuries of guild control of local labor markets.

    So do we, actually. The United States has a contiguous history with Europe in this case, since the guild system transferred with the colonists. It only faded when indentured servants were phased out in favor of slavery, although the North never lost the tradition of trade unions.

    The town of Pullman was previously cited. I have no doubt that colonists established guilds of their own but don't you think the frontier nature of the U.S. helped mitigate their strength?

    Bentonville, AR., Grapes of Wrath, and all that shit.

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Octoparrot wrote:
    Octoparrot wrote:
    All the unionization stuff is a lot more culturally permissible, since they have had centuries of guild control of local labor markets.

    So do we, actually. The United States has a contiguous history with Europe in this case, since the guild system transferred with the colonists. It only faded when indentured servants were phased out in favor of slavery, although the North never lost the tradition of trade unions.

    The town of Pullman was previously cited. I have no doubt that colonists established guilds of their own but don't you think the frontier nature of the U.S. helped mitigate their strength?

    Bentonville, AR., Grapes of Wrath, and all that shit.

    Certainly, as did the transition from skilled labor to factory labor. It took awhile for the unions to establish themselves in the factories here and in Europe, which allowed for a Wild West period in labor relations. What Europe took for a transitional anomaly, American businessmen have tried to present as the natural state of labor.

    The West actually had the most violent union battles in the 19th century. Unlike in myth, settlement was driven not by frontier families but by resource extraction operations - industrial mines, rail labor gangs, etc. - and organized labor was huge in the region. There was a reason that, once upon a time, Kansas was known as "Red Kansas."

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So, are we done talking about how the system should change now that I said we don't neccesarily need to get rid of unions? It seems to me that now we should be in a better position to discuss reform, which I think is sorely needed.

  • dontindentdontindent Registered User regular
    So, I've had something that's been bothering me.

    This was posted over in the Obama Administration thread:
    ...

    There's also the fact that the American Medical Association and medical schools artificially limit the number of American-trained doctors, creating artificial scarcity and a market for those foreign doctors.

    Our medical system is fucked up from top to bottom. The reason in almost every case is the profit motive.

    Elsewhere being a doctor is a good position in a noble profession. Here it's a cash grab you get for enduring a decade of hell.

    In the case above, is the AMA not acting like any union would, by ensuring a minimum wage-level for their employees via limiting entry into the work force? (As an aside: I don't generally buy the idea that doctors (or teachers, for that matter) should be entering their profession out of some inner nobility. People should become doctors (and, again, teachers) because they have a passion for the work, and their pay should match their education level. There's nothing wrong with wanting a fair amount of compensation in return for your work.)

    Am I missing somethng that makes the AMA's case different than a union's?

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    dontindent wrote:
    So, I've had something that's been bothering me.

    This was posted over in the Obama Administration thread:
    ...

    There's also the fact that the American Medical Association and medical schools artificially limit the number of American-trained doctors, creating artificial scarcity and a market for those foreign doctors.

    Our medical system is fucked up from top to bottom. The reason in almost every case is the profit motive.

    Elsewhere being a doctor is a good position in a noble profession. Here it's a cash grab you get for enduring a decade of hell.

    In the case above, is the AMA not acting like any union would, by ensuring a minimum wage-level for their employees via limiting entry into the work force? (As an aside: I don't generally buy the idea that doctors (or teachers, for that matter) should be entering their profession out of some inner nobility. People should become doctors (and, again, teachers) because they have a passion for the work, and their pay should match their education level. There's nothing wrong with wanting a fair amount of compensation in return for your work.)

    Am I missing somethng that makes the AMA's case different than a union's?

    Health is a touchy subject for obvious reasons, and the AMA kind of goes above and beyond 'protecting its workers'. (See: how the AMA treats Nurses) The basic problem is that stuff like Health and Education are not commodities, so the market forces acting on them are distorted like crazy. Treating those unions like others is...problematic to say the least.

    I also agree that while some doctors are simply in it for the passion of the job, we shouldn't expect everyone to be like that.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote:
    dontindent wrote:
    So, I've had something that's been bothering me.

    This was posted over in the Obama Administration thread:
    ...

    There's also the fact that the American Medical Association and medical schools artificially limit the number of American-trained doctors, creating artificial scarcity and a market for those foreign doctors.

    Our medical system is fucked up from top to bottom. The reason in almost every case is the profit motive.

    Elsewhere being a doctor is a good position in a noble profession. Here it's a cash grab you get for enduring a decade of hell.

    In the case above, is the AMA not acting like any union would, by ensuring a minimum wage-level for their employees via limiting entry into the work force? (As an aside: I don't generally buy the idea that doctors (or teachers, for that matter) should be entering their profession out of some inner nobility. People should become doctors (and, again, teachers) because they have a passion for the work, and their pay should match their education level. There's nothing wrong with wanting a fair amount of compensation in return for your work.)

    Am I missing somethng that makes the AMA's case different than a union's?

    Health is a touchy subject for obvious reasons, and the AMA kind of goes above and beyond 'protecting its workers'. (See: how the AMA treats Nurses) The basic problem is that stuff like Health and Education are not commodities, so the market forces acting on them are distorted like crazy. Treating those unions like others is...problematic to say the least.

    I also agree that while some doctors are simply in it for the passion of the job, we shouldn't expect everyone to be like that.

    I think the point is that when you train doctors like they do in the rest of the world - shorter training, less expense, being treated as professionals even while still in school, no hazing internships, no enforced scarcity - you have doctors becoming just normal well-compensated professionals. They make good money and get great respect, but they don't feel like they have to be rewarded with great wealth because of all of the artificial trials and terrors they had to overcome to get that M.D.

  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote:
    dontindent wrote:
    So, I've had something that's been bothering me.

    This was posted over in the Obama Administration thread:
    ...

    There's also the fact that the American Medical Association and medical schools artificially limit the number of American-trained doctors, creating artificial scarcity and a market for those foreign doctors.

    Our medical system is fucked up from top to bottom. The reason in almost every case is the profit motive.

    Elsewhere being a doctor is a good position in a noble profession. Here it's a cash grab you get for enduring a decade of hell.

    In the case above, is the AMA not acting like any union would, by ensuring a minimum wage-level for their employees via limiting entry into the work force? (As an aside: I don't generally buy the idea that doctors (or teachers, for that matter) should be entering their profession out of some inner nobility. People should become doctors (and, again, teachers) because they have a passion for the work, and their pay should match their education level. There's nothing wrong with wanting a fair amount of compensation in return for your work.)

    Am I missing somethng that makes the AMA's case different than a union's?

    Health is a touchy subject for obvious reasons, and the AMA kind of goes above and beyond 'protecting its workers'. (See: how the AMA treats Nurses) The basic problem is that stuff like Health and Education are not commodities, so the market forces acting on them are distorted like crazy. Treating those unions like others is...problematic to say the least.

    I also agree that while some doctors are simply in it for the passion of the job, we shouldn't expect everyone to be like that.

    I think the point is that when you train doctors like they do in the rest of the world - shorter training, less expense, being treated as professionals even while still in school, no hazing internships, no enforced scarcity - you have doctors becoming just normal well-compensated professionals. They make good money and get great respect, but they don't feel like they have to be rewarded with great wealth because of all of the artificial trials and terrors they had to overcome to get that M.D.

    My Fiancée is finishing up her Clerkship year and will be starting residency in the summer (we aren't sure where or what yet but likely Psych) She goes to the University of Calgary and the program there is 3 years accelerated instead of 4 years like most of the other schools. We haven't seen any hazing or enforced scarcity (that I am aware of) its certainly rough though, i've had to keep her sane more than a few times over the last 3 years, and likely will have to continue doing so until she finishes residency(which if she is in psych will be another 5 years) I feel sorry for American docs if they have extra crap to deal with on top of the already daunting task of learning medicine.

  • LaOsLaOs Registered User regular
    Yeah, the American situation is pretty different than ours up here.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    dontindent wrote:
    So, I've had something that's been bothering me.

    This was posted over in the Obama Administration thread:
    ...

    There's also the fact that the American Medical Association and medical schools artificially limit the number of American-trained doctors, creating artificial scarcity and a market for those foreign doctors.

    Our medical system is fucked up from top to bottom. The reason in almost every case is the profit motive.

    Elsewhere being a doctor is a good position in a noble profession. Here it's a cash grab you get for enduring a decade of hell.

    In the case above, is the AMA not acting like any union would, by ensuring a minimum wage-level for their employees via limiting entry into the work force? (As an aside: I don't generally buy the idea that doctors (or teachers, for that matter) should be entering their profession out of some inner nobility. People should become doctors (and, again, teachers) because they have a passion for the work, and their pay should match their education level. There's nothing wrong with wanting a fair amount of compensation in return for your work.)

    Am I missing somethng that makes the AMA's case different than a union's?

    Yes, professional organizations share alot of qualities with unions.

1789101113»
Sign In or Register to comment.