Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!

[Wisconsin] Fake Democratic primary contenders ahoy!

1585960616264»

Posts

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Detharin wrote: »

    Ahh but we are not talking about government, we are talking about the court of public opinion. We know why the Corporations and the Unions act (money).

    Uh no. We were and are very much talking about government and what government should be doing. At no point in the conversation were the words "court of public opinion" uttered with regards to
    At this point I am not quite sure how we handle democracy is capable of handling the problems we have. We have a huge shit sandwich and no one is going to vote for taking a bite.

    However the reality is that I would much rather see people acknowledging that we are in fact openly trying to fuck corporations/ the upper class/anyone with money in favor of the middle to lower classes.

    But they aren't "openly trying to fuck corporations/the upper class/ anyone with money in favor of the middle to lower class". They're trying to win rights and privileges for those in the lower class that would otherwise be taken from them. They are trying to protect the people from the corporations/upper class/ people with money, who would, otherwise damage them.

    And I just explained why that was so.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Goumindong wrote: »

    Uh no. We were and are very much talking about government and what government should be doing. At no point in the conversation were the words "court of public opinion" uttered with regards to
    At this point I am not quite sure how we handle democracy is capable of handling the problems we have. We have a huge shit sandwich and no one is going to vote for taking a bite.

    The original quote you made that I responded to was in regards to the union moving this into the court of public opinion.
    But they aren't "openly trying to fuck corporations/the upper class/ anyone with money in favor of the middle to lower class". They're trying to win rights and privileges for those in the lower class that would otherwise be taken from them. They are trying to protect the people from the corporations/upper class/ people with money, who would, otherwise damage them.

    And I just explained why that was so.

    The rights they are pushing for is the right to continue milking state governments for more money to funnel into the Democrat party. This has been made painfully obvious since the beginning when while not even involved in a negotiation offered to give the Republicans everything they could possibly want as long as they would come to the negotiating table and not destroy their ability to continue sucking money from these state employees.

    The public sector unions are not fighting to win rights and privileges for anyone, nor are they the watchdog to safe guard us against corporations. It is great they want to bill themselves as such but it is complete BS as they do not negotiate against, or compete with private corporations. Your local teachers union is not there to stop google from being evil. The best they can argue through some extreme mental gymnastics is that the public sector unions protect us from corporations by taking mandatory dues from public employees and using it to support a political party that opposes large corporations. That however is not what a public union is for, nor is it their responsibility. The only rights and privileges they are fighting for is their right to bankroll Democrat candidates.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Derrick wrote: »
    Well, I for one was shocked when Baltimore public schools had to shut down because it was hot outside. No working AC and I guess the windows can't be opened?

    I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable. Funds should be appropriated to fixing that immediately.

    I think the major monetary problem with public schools is that administration staff siphon off a huge chunk and they are not worth it. Seriously, who gives a shit about the board of education and their hangers-on? Just fund the teachers and the principal. Give everyone a larger chunk of responsibility on the admin side with an increase in pay, call it a day. Make a new mantra even- "Everybody teaches." -If you don't teach, then you don't get paid. (excludes grounds/lunch staff)

    You seriously want IT teaching? :?

    hawkbox on
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Except you are flat out wrong about public sector unions in Wisconsin, detharin. Under Doyle (a democratic governor) the unions agreed to a freeze in pay for 2 years, freeze in hiring for 2 years (more work for each worker), and furlough days (I believe 14 per worker). Had there been an unfair advantage in the bargaining process as you claim, why would the unions agree to these terms when they could have just said "give us more pay and we'll give you more money" as you claim?

    Veevee on
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    "The rights they are pushing for is the right to continue milking state governments for more money to funnel into the Democrat party."

    So vote for Walker, a guy that gives money and pollution rights to the guys that financed his campaign. I've kinda been through this.

    Detharin, it's almost as if your front of indignation is nothing but a veneer of marketing and Joe Q-sentiment to cover the fact that you were born and raised in the American Enterprise Institute.

    Both parties suck and it's all a rat-race, so vote republican? I didn't know you were a libertarian, Deth.

    Absalon on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The problem is the assumption that one side of the negotiation, and only one side, has something that the other side can't do without.

    Which, of course, doesn't make any sense.

    Schrodinger on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Veevee wrote: »
    Except you are flat out wrong about public sector unions in Wisconsin, detharin. Under Doyle (a democratic governor) the unions agreed to a freeze in pay for 2 years, freeze in hiring for 2 years (more work for each worker), and furlough days (I believe 14 per worker). Had there been an unfair advantage in the bargaining process as you claim, why would the unions agree to these terms when they could have just said "give us more pay and we'll give you more money" as you claim?

    Because they money was not there to give them more. Politics is a long term game, a two year pay/hiring freeze is nothing especially given the current financial situation the country faces. However straight pay is not where the majority of the problem comes in, it is in the perks. If we were just paying them the average salary of 56k a year this would not be such a fiscal issue.
    •State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan. That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a total of 13%.

    •Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension, Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a 1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension. Teachers contribute nothing.

    •Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.

    Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. The divergence is greater yet for health insurance:

    •Health care for current employees. Under the current collective- bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage. These plans are extremely expensive.

    This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    So when unions want more money, they're greedy jerks.
    When unions don't want more money, they're playing the long con.


    You work for Fox News?

    hippofant on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Absalon wrote: »
    "The rights they are pushing for is the right to continue milking state governments for more money to funnel into the Democrat party."

    So vote for Walker, a guy that gives money and pollution rights to the guys that financed his campaign. I've kinda been through this.

    Both parties suck and it's all a rat-race, so vote republican? I didn't know you were a libertarian, Deth.

    I do not think at any point I have told anyone to vote for anyone. Nor have I made any statements indicating the Republican stance is any less corrupt or more honest.

    If you want to know where I sit on the political chart there was a thread on it awhile back, feel free to search it.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    hippofant wrote: »
    So when unions want more money, they're greedy jerks.
    When unions don't want more money, they're playing the long con.
    You work for Fox News?

    When the state gives 200 million to corporations in tax credits not redeemable for 5 years in exchange for them spending 200 million now its corruption, when they give 200 million to unions it is a happy day. Focus less on short term politics do you think public sector unions became the 2nd top contributor of political campaigns in the last 20 years on accident? I know that 45 million in union dues could have done a lot more than financed political candidates.

    Personally I am still waiting to see how it all turns out once the dog and pony show of the recall ends and we start hearing more about the actual effects of the laws themselves.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Are you seriously equating compensation for unionized employees with payments to the union?

    Brian Krakow on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Detharin wrote: »
    The original quote you made that I responded to was in regards to the union moving this into the court of public opinion.

    No. It wasn't. You know those little arrow things at the front of the quote? They take you back to the post in question. Its very easy to check to see what was going on.

    This is what you were responding to.
    TheOrange wrote: »
    Well, if all things are equal, and you have to lessen the quality of life of a single class, shouldn't you pick the class that has it better already? If I have to choose between corporations and middle to lower class, I'd choose to fuck over corporations.

    The statement is explicit. "well if we have to reduce the quality of life of one class, why do we choose to fuck over the lower class"?

    The quote it is in response to is explicit as well. It was you, arguing that "corporations don't owe you anything so policy that hurts them and protects you is bad".

    And that conversation spawned as a result of discussions about corporations screwing over people.

    You wrote:
    The public sector unions are not fighting to win rights and privileges for anyone, nor are they the watchdog to safe guard us against corporations.
    Because they money was not there to give them more. Politics is a long term game, a two year pay/hiring freeze is nothing especially given the current financial situation the country faces. However straight pay is not where the majority of the problem comes in, it is in the perks. If we were just paying them the average salary of 56k a year this would not be such a fiscal issue.

    Look, this is getting ridiculous. In the past page you have contradicted yourself directly twice.

    Unions are terrible blood sucking leeches that do nothing for public workers they just funnel money to democrats[except they apparently raise the average wages of their members over the median private employees wage so much that the state can afford it!]!

    Unions are just playing the short con and long con at the same time!

    Do you have an explanation that doesn't require union leaders to be James Bond villains?

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    hippofant wrote: »
    So when unions want more money, they're greedy jerks.
    When unions don't want more money, they're playing the long con.


    You work for Fox News?

    Ok I'm starting to see how this works. There's two problems with public unions.

    Public unions are bankrupting the state governments with the huge benefits packages that they extort from the helpless government for all the public employees. They must be destroyed, for the long term fiscal health of state governments.

    Public unions clearly don't care about their employees at all, only about themselves and gifting money to democrats. We can see that because of how easy it is for state governments to get them to agree to cut benefits for all the public employees.

    :?

    Pi-r8 on
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Detharin wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    So when unions want more money, they're greedy jerks.
    When unions don't want more money, they're playing the long con.
    You work for Fox News?

    When the state gives 200 million to corporations in tax credits not redeemable for 5 years in exchange for them spending 200 million now its corruption, when they give 200 million to unions it is a happy day. Focus less on short term politics do you think public sector unions became the 2nd top contributor of political campaigns in the last 20 years on accident? I know that 45 million in union dues could have done a lot more than financed political candidates.

    Personally I am still waiting to see how it all turns out once the dog and pony show of the recall ends and we start hearing more about the actual effects of the laws themselves.

    I don't know if anybody's saying that the government should give the public unions $200M dollars. I believe the point is that the government should allow the public unions to collectively bargain for their pay, as they would for any private corporation. Furthermore, if there is $200M to be spent, it would be better spent on pay to union workers, who live locally within the state and are lower on income curves, than to corporations, where the money is more likely to trickle out of state or into long-term investments rather than returning into the economy.



    Additionally, you seem ignorant of the history of labour and the role of public service unions. If you had two companies, Company A which served as a consulting company for Company B, which is in currently mired in dire financial straits, and they had come to a previous contractual agreement for their work, you would expect Company B to meet those obligations. If their contract expired, you'd expect Company A to be able to negotiate in good faith with Company B, and, in particular, be allowed to withhold their services if Company B failed to meet their demands. You wouldn't allow Company B to call the police and force Company A's employees to work for Company B under undesirable conditions.

    This is why public service unions exist, because interactions between a government and its employees are inherently different than those between a private corporation and its employees, due to the different power dynamics. Otherwise, we might as well let governments conscript employees. Also, unions are CAPITALIST constructs; they're essentially small corporations dealing in labour. There may be some anti-trust issues, but there's a reason Marx held trade unions in disdain. For any government to complain about a lack of power in dealing with unions is incredibly disingenuous when the balance of power is so firmly in their hands.



    As for whether unions should be allowed to donate to political causes... my responses would be 1) well, it's hard to object when the Republicans are such massive dicks out to screw them; 2) apparently in the United States, corporations are people now, so I'm pretty sure that makes unions people too; and 3) you're conflating like a bajillion different things into a pretty fricking incoherent opinion on unions.

    hippofant on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Unions are terrible blood sucking leeches that do nothing for public workers they just funnel money to democrats[except they apparently raise the average wages of their members over the median private employees wage so much that the state can afford it!]!

    Unions are just playing the short con and long con at the same time!

    Do you have an explanation that doesn't require union leaders to be James Bond villains?

    It makes excellent hyperbole but as the numbers ive already posted on this page indicate public sector unions do cost in benefits well in excess what a private sector employee costs. You do understand that at times of economic hardship the state is not going to be able to offer them a better contract, in fact they may have to take some cuts. This is normal. The problem is that they are still receiving in benefits far in excess of what they likely would. Now we can go back and forth arguing about what teachers "should" be paid, but the reality is that due to how things are working now they are being paid more than they normally would given an impartial negotiating environment.

    Just because they occasionally give back, does not mean they do not expect to receive more in better economic times when the democrats are in power. Hell that was their entire "please dear god come to the negotiating table so we can cut the teachers throats offering everything you want just do not take away our ability to milk you later" strategy.

    You act like politicians, and Union leadership are stupid. Both have agendas, and both at times can be very smart in pursuing those agendas. For a Democrat keeping the Unions happy increases his odds of getting elected, not to mention the campaign contributions. Public Sector Unions do not donate millions of dollars to the Democrat party out of the kindness of their heart.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Detharin wrote: »
    The problem is that they are still receiving in benefits far in excess of what they likely would. Now we can go back and forth arguing about what teachers "should" be paid, but the reality is that due to how things are working now they are being paid more than they normally would given an impartial negotiating environment.
    Those dastardly unions! Giving their members more benefits than they'd have without the union! Diabolical!

    Pi-r8 on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    hippofant wrote: »
    I don't know if anybody's saying that the government should give the public unions $200M dollars. I believe the point is that the government should allow the public unions to collectively bargain for their pay, as they would for any private corporation. Furthermore, if there is $200M to be spent, it would be better spent on pay to union workers, who live locally within the state and are lower on income curves, than to corporations, where the money is more likely to trickle out of state or into long-term investments rather than returning into the economy.
    Should? Why should a republican controlled government wish to allow a situation that is both hostile to them, advantageous to their opponents, and expensive to tax payers. Furthermore the 200m in question is tax credits that cannot be redeemed for a minimum of 5 years and are being offering to lure more manufacturing jobs to Wisconsin. They are spending future money in the hopes of attracting more jobs now to hopefully help the current crisis, and "they" are the bad guys. Your solution is to increase government payroll by creating more jobs they have to pay for now, and create even more long term liabilities.

    Moreover there is not "should" when it comes to unionization in the private sector. Less than 10% of the private sector is represented by a union while almost 40% of the public sector is represented.
    Additionally, you seem ignorant of the history of labour and the role of public service unions. If you had two companies, Company A which served as a consulting company for Company B, which is in currently mired in dire financial straits, and they had come to a previous contractual agreement for their work, you would expect Company B to meet those obligations. If their contract expired, you'd expect Company A to be able to negotiate in good faith with Company B, and, in particular, be allowed to withhold their services if Company B failed to meet their demands. You wouldn't allow Company B to call the police and force Company A's employees to work for Company B under undesirable conditions.

    This is why public service unions exist, because interactions between a government and its employees are inherently different than those between a private corporation and its employees, due to the different power dynamics. Otherwise, we might as well let governments conscript employees. Also, unions are CAPITALIST constructs; they're essentially small corporations dealing in labour. There may be some anti-trust issues, but there's a reason Marx held trade unions in disdain. For any government to complain about a lack of power in dealing with unions is incredibly disingenuous when the balance of power is so firmly in their hands.
    There have been very, very few cases when Public employees have been forced to work in unfavorable conditions. This generally requires nation security and the president being involved. Public servants have more power over their employers than private employees do. See a public employee gets to vote, decided who is in power, who will negotiate their contracts, and at what terms. There is an inherent conflict of interest with public sector employees that you cannot just handwave away mumbling something about corporations. Public sector employees do not compete with corporations.
    As for whether unions should be allowed to donate to political causes... my responses would be 1) well, it's hard to object when the Republicans are such massive dicks out to screw them; 2) apparently in the United States, corporations are people now, so I'm pretty sure that makes unions people too; and 3) you're conflating like a bajillion different things into a pretty fricking incoherent opinion on unions.

    1. No it is not hard to object when both sides are ruled by special interests out only for money. It is really easy to object. Sticking your head in the sand and pointing at the other side saying they are being mean is not an argument. 2. Does that make Walker guilty of murder? 3. If you have a hard time understanding that inherent conflict of interest with public sector employees being able to directly influence whom they negotiate against, as well as indirectly through large campaign contributions then I am not sure what to tell you. The poor little lower class peons we are trodding on here are grossing 100k a year in salary + benefits.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Those dastardly unions! Giving their members more benefits than they'd have without the union! Diabolical!

    My god it is terrible how these elected officials representing the people are cutting back on tax payer funded benefits in times of economic hardship. They should just raise taxes!

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Detharin wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Those dastardly unions! Giving their members more benefits than they'd have without the union! Diabolical!

    My god it is terrible how these elected officials representing the people are cutting back on tax payer funded benefits in times of economic hardship. They should just raise taxes!

    Well, they should listen to mainstream economics. Or look at Britain.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Or Greece, seriously though the reality is that the mentality needed to run a state such as Britain is incompatible with both the republican party as well as the ideologies of about half the country.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Detharin, the reason the public sector has so many more unions is not because it's there to fuck you over, it's there because that same percentage in the private workforce would like to unionize, but the employers generally just fuck people over about it. Oh you want to unionize? Fire entire workforce.

    Government generally can't do that. Why? Because they'd lose with all the quadruplicates of paperwork proving why they fired someone. And because the government generally frowns on breaking it's own laws internally. Hence the quadruplicates of paperwork.

    bowen on
    Ladies.
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    You seem to be operating under the fallacy that Unions are always a good thing. There are quite a few people, and industries that operate quite happily without Union representation. The reason public sector unions survive is partially because they cannot kill government, and partially because the government has a monopoly on everything that it does.

    Just ask California how outsourcing to China saved them 400 million dollars by avoiding cost Union labor, or ask Boeing how things are going with the South Carolina plant that the Unions are trying to shut down, while at the same time offering the 1000 workers "job security" if they Unionize (ie they will drop the lawsuit.) Should be nice by the time it can be heard by a federal judge sometime in 2013.

    See the thing is people would rather have jobs than Union representation, Unions are costly parasites.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    Well, I for one was shocked when Baltimore public schools had to shut down because it was hot outside. No working AC and I guess the windows can't be opened?

    I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable. Funds should be appropriated to fixing that immediately.

    I think the major monetary problem with public schools is that administration staff siphon off a huge chunk and they are not worth it. Seriously, who gives a shit about the board of education and their hangers-on? Just fund the teachers and the principal. Give everyone a larger chunk of responsibility on the admin side with an increase in pay, call it a day. Make a new mantra even- "Everybody teaches." -If you don't teach, then you don't get paid. (excludes grounds/lunch staff)

    You seriously want IT teaching? :?

    It's the amazing power of simplification!

    Kind of like how a company that ships things gets no increased benefit from roads and such: if it's not actively doing something I can see, it's just a money sink and a waste!

    This is why in my tech company, I advocate firing HR, Finance, every secretary, IT, the C*Os, Marketing/BizDev, and anyone else not directly contributing to the source tree. Because if I simplify it in my mind: we write CODE as a company, so "Everybody Codes" is a solid way of doing business.

    kildy on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    When did I ever say that, or imply it? Also, I don't really know what you're getting after. You can save a ton of money by outsourcing, it doesn't have to be union.

    If Burger King could figure out a way to teleport whoppers to save 50 cents a burger from Malaysia they would.

    bowen on
    Ladies.
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I think people would rather have good paying jobs for 40 hours a week

    than jobs that pay $2 an hour for 90 hours a week

    cause that's where we would be without unions

    Also, outsourcing jobs is a good thing now?

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Detharin wrote: »
    You seem to be operating under the fallacy that Unions are always a good thing. There are quite a few people, and industries that operate quite happily without Union representation. The reason public sector unions survive is partially because they cannot kill government, and partially because the government has a monopoly on everything that it does.

    Just ask California how outsourcing to China saved them 400 million dollars by avoiding cost Union labor, or ask Boeing how things are going with the South Carolina plant that the Unions are trying to shut down, while at the same time offering the 1000 workers "job security" if they Unionize (ie they will drop the lawsuit.) Should be nice by the time it can be heard by a federal judge sometime in 2013.

    See the thing is people would rather have jobs than Union representation, Unions are costly parasites.

    Bolded is false. The people and industries that run well without unions have hard to replace employees. There's no IT union because finding a solid IT person usually involves the employer throwing benefits at them, so there's no reason to unionize.

    Unions are a collective bargaining tool that get benefits by changing the equation to "sure Joe Farm Worker is easily replaceable if he starts asking for medical insurance, but ALL your farm workers are a bit harder to replace at once, so how about we talk medical benefits?"

    Companies have little problem with the idea behind this (it's why we get better medical benefits via work than we can on our own: our employers love collective bargaining), they just don't like that it can work against them.

    kildy on
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    I think people would rather have good paying jobs for 40 hours a week

    than jobs that pay $2 an hour for 90 hours a week

    cause that's where we would be without unions

    Also, outsourcing jobs is a good thing now?

    It's good for the corporation. Sometimes anyway

    Phyphor on
    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    I think people would rather have good paying jobs for 40 hours a week

    than jobs that pay $2 an hour for 90 hours a week

    cause that's where we would be without unions

    Also, outsourcing jobs is a good thing now?

    It is if you want to have record profits.

    Not if you actually want to have a good product or service. Ever call tech support for Microsoft or Cisco? There's a reason why it always takes 20 minutes to fix a 3 minute problem. It would sure be nice if people looked at long term cost/effect than short term "how can I pad my paycheck and that of my shareholders?"

    bowen on
    Ladies.
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    bowen wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    I think people would rather have good paying jobs for 40 hours a week

    than jobs that pay $2 an hour for 90 hours a week

    cause that's where we would be without unions

    Also, outsourcing jobs is a good thing now?

    It is if you want to have record profits.

    Not if you actually want to have a good product or service. Ever call tech support for Microsoft or Cisco? There's a reason why it always takes 20 minutes to fix a 3 minute problem. It would sure be nice if people looked at long term cost/effect than short term "how can I pad my paycheck and that of my shareholders?"

    At least 4 years ago, people were starting to look at that. They still outsource a lot, but most of the jobs I saw on the market were to rebuild local call centers because companies were moving them back to the states. My last gig outsourced about half it's coding, and was cutting back due to quality concerns.

    What we learned from this experience is that some things can be outsourced easily and well (late night on call support for example!), and for everything else, there's H1B, because India has a bunch of AWESOME techs, and they're more than willing to come work over here ;)

    kildy on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    That is an acceptable solution.

    However the problem now is most companies are saying "We can't find qualified people!" and pulling in H1Bs. I don't understand that line of thinking because there are plenty of qualified people looking for the job. It also costs them money to do so I even more don't get it. Unless they're giving this dude chump change in pay. $30,000 a year compared to the $60,000 his peers are making or something like that.

    I see this a lot in the IT world, especially for software engineering and programming.

    bowen on
    Ladies.
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited June 2011
    Someone can start a new Wisconsin thread assuming there are new and interesting developments to talk about.

    Jacobkosh on
This discussion has been closed.