This argument about firing a bad (really, really bad) employee is pretty much a case study in the classical liberal argument against unions--making it hard to fire people is not an unalloyed good. Of course there are plenty of arguments on the other side and you end up with a utilitarian analysis which tends to come out on the side of people's political priors. That said, reality is a constraint on this analysis and if unions do become an obvious net loss to society they will be phased out by the political process. Currently, unions in the USA are almost all public sector and the worm is turning on them. WI passed an anti public sector union law recently and the SCOTUS would have kicked PS unions in the teeth but for the death of Scalia. I'm guessing with the hollowing out of the middle class, and society wide laws like $15 min wage, unions are going to have a harder time at the ballot box. Poor people will resent government sinecures that make significantly more than they do and the rich will resent having to pay for it all. On the other hand, cops can't be outsourced and although teaching can be outsourced, having a place to keep your kids while you are at work can't.
That is a WHOLE other issue that has less to do with the fact that unions are engaging in acts of bad faith/optics and more than there's an array of political forces lined up against unions, including the American political system being heavily fractured and corrupted by corporate interests, and a severe diminishment of the American education system.
There are many western nations in which unions continue to do quite well. They actually remain a strong force in Canada, despite leakage of American anti-union propaganda and neo-conservative politics.
It's not the hollowing out of the middle class that destroyed unions; it was the destruction of unions* that allowed the hollowing out of the middle class.
* And the failure to unionize the new middle-class professions, which can be blamed on a lack of political foresight by unions, but ... honestly, computer programmers and engineers just exhibit an irrational aversion to unionization and I can't figure out how to overcome it either.
I take a much more materialist view. The industries that still have unions are public sector where they can't be outsourced and have some political clout. Blaming propaganda or some other boogeyman is what I would consider a non-parsimonious explanation and I'd want to see some evidence. I think unions in non-public sector have done well in places like Germany where there is a culture of corporatism and union/management cooperation that never really existed in the USA. Could we be more like Germany? A lot of progressives hope so. I think Clinton is less progressive than Obama and she'll be next POTUS. We shall see.
Another thing about US unions is that they were pretty radical until the NLRA in the 30's. After that the big private sector unions became pretty conservative and in some cases racist. I think the same will hold true of the current reforms like 15 min wage. There will be a political class that is more and more effective at direct democracy but their gains will be less than the public sector unions and I'm predicting non-skilled labor won't necessarily side with teachers and cops.
Why the public sector unions remain while the private sector unions are endangered, and why specifically in the US is this happening, is the question you're not asking. (Or you are, but not causally tying it to the current labour situation.)
I've asked and answered that question. Private union industries were outsourced to other countries or states with less union friendly labor laws. This happened and will continue to happen. The question is can and will service employees (retail workers, etc.) unionize. I'm pretty sure the only places it works is where you have a lot of people in one limited space like Walmart. It could happen but I'm not seeing it. People just aren't buying it.
Yes, but why haven't private union industries in OTHER COUNTRIES been outsourced to other countries with less union friendly labor laws?
Why did those states write less union friendly labor laws in the first place?
What is it about America that made this phenomenon occur?
It wasn't unions themselves that wanted those things to happen.
This argument about firing a bad (really, really bad) employee is pretty much a case study in the classical liberal argument against unions--making it hard to fire people is not an unalloyed good. Of course there are plenty of arguments on the other side and you end up with a utilitarian analysis which tends to come out on the side of people's political priors. That said, reality is a constraint on this analysis and if unions do become an obvious net loss to society they will be phased out by the political process. Currently, unions in the USA are almost all public sector and the worm is turning on them. WI passed an anti public sector union law recently and the SCOTUS would have kicked PS unions in the teeth but for the death of Scalia. I'm guessing with the hollowing out of the middle class, and society wide laws like $15 min wage, unions are going to have a harder time at the ballot box. Poor people will resent government sinecures that make significantly more than they do and the rich will resent having to pay for it all. On the other hand, cops can't be outsourced and although teaching can be outsourced, having a place to keep your kids while you are at work can't.
That is a WHOLE other issue that has less to do with the fact that unions are engaging in acts of bad faith/optics and more than there's an array of political forces lined up against unions, including the American political system being heavily fractured and corrupted by corporate interests, and a severe diminishment of the American education system.
There are many western nations in which unions continue to do quite well. They actually remain a strong force in Canada, despite leakage of American anti-union propaganda and neo-conservative politics.
It's not the hollowing out of the middle class that destroyed unions; it was the destruction of unions* that allowed the hollowing out of the middle class.
* And the failure to unionize the new middle-class professions, which can be blamed on a lack of political foresight by unions, but ... honestly, computer programmers and engineers just exhibit an irrational aversion to unionization and I can't figure out how to overcome it either.
I take a much more materialist view. The industries that still have unions are public sector where they can't be outsourced and have some political clout. Blaming propaganda or some other boogeyman is what I would consider a non-parsimonious explanation and I'd want to see some evidence. I think unions in non-public sector have done well in places like Germany where there is a culture of corporatism and union/management cooperation that never really existed in the USA. Could we be more like Germany? A lot of progressives hope so. I think Clinton is less progressive than Obama and she'll be next POTUS. We shall see.
Another thing about US unions is that they were pretty radical until the NLRA in the 30's. After that the big private sector unions became pretty conservative and in some cases racist. I think the same will hold true of the current reforms like 15 min wage. There will be a political class that is more and more effective at direct democracy but their gains will be less than the public sector unions and I'm predicting non-skilled labor won't necessarily side with teachers and cops.
Why the public sector unions remain while the private sector unions are endangered, and why specifically in the US is this happening, is the question you're not asking. (Or you are, but not causally tying it to the current labour situation.)
I've asked and answered that question. Private union industries were outsourced to other countries or states with less union friendly labor laws. This happened and will continue to happen. The question is can and will service employees (retail workers, etc.) unionize. I'm pretty sure the only places it works is where you have a lot of people in one limited space like Walmart. It could happen but I'm not seeing it. People just aren't buying it.
Because when people do try and unionize at Walmart, the stores are mysteriously shut down for 6 months for "plumbing" issues.
This argument about firing a bad (really, really bad) employee is pretty much a case study in the classical liberal argument against unions--making it hard to fire people is not an unalloyed good. Of course there are plenty of arguments on the other side and you end up with a utilitarian analysis which tends to come out on the side of people's political priors. That said, reality is a constraint on this analysis and if unions do become an obvious net loss to society they will be phased out by the political process. Currently, unions in the USA are almost all public sector and the worm is turning on them. WI passed an anti public sector union law recently and the SCOTUS would have kicked PS unions in the teeth but for the death of Scalia. I'm guessing with the hollowing out of the middle class, and society wide laws like $15 min wage, unions are going to have a harder time at the ballot box. Poor people will resent government sinecures that make significantly more than they do and the rich will resent having to pay for it all. On the other hand, cops can't be outsourced and although teaching can be outsourced, having a place to keep your kids while you are at work can't.
That is a WHOLE other issue that has less to do with the fact that unions are engaging in acts of bad faith/optics and more than there's an array of political forces lined up against unions, including the American political system being heavily fractured and corrupted by corporate interests, and a severe diminishment of the American education system.
There are many western nations in which unions continue to do quite well. They actually remain a strong force in Canada, despite leakage of American anti-union propaganda and neo-conservative politics.
It's not the hollowing out of the middle class that destroyed unions; it was the destruction of unions* that allowed the hollowing out of the middle class.
* And the failure to unionize the new middle-class professions, which can be blamed on a lack of political foresight by unions, but ... honestly, computer programmers and engineers just exhibit an irrational aversion to unionization and I can't figure out how to overcome it either.
I take a much more materialist view. The industries that still have unions are public sector where they can't be outsourced and have some political clout. Blaming propaganda or some other boogeyman is what I would consider a non-parsimonious explanation and I'd want to see some evidence. I think unions in non-public sector have done well in places like Germany where there is a culture of corporatism and union/management cooperation that never really existed in the USA. Could we be more like Germany? A lot of progressives hope so. I think Clinton is less progressive than Obama and she'll be next POTUS. We shall see.
Another thing about US unions is that they were pretty radical until the NLRA in the 30's. After that the big private sector unions became pretty conservative and in some cases racist. I think the same will hold true of the current reforms like 15 min wage. There will be a political class that is more and more effective at direct democracy but their gains will be less than the public sector unions and I'm predicting non-skilled labor won't necessarily side with teachers and cops.
Why the public sector unions remain while the private sector unions are endangered, and why specifically in the US is this happening, is the question you're not asking. (Or you are, but not causally tying it to the current labour situation.)
It's easy enough to kill off a private union. Just move all your production elsewhere. Killing a public union would mean privatizing, which they're trying to do, but teachers, firemen, and police tend to be pretty sympathetic groups, generally speaking.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
This argument about firing a bad (really, really bad) employee is pretty much a case study in the classical liberal argument against unions--making it hard to fire people is not an unalloyed good. Of course there are plenty of arguments on the other side and you end up with a utilitarian analysis which tends to come out on the side of people's political priors. That said, reality is a constraint on this analysis and if unions do become an obvious net loss to society they will be phased out by the political process. Currently, unions in the USA are almost all public sector and the worm is turning on them. WI passed an anti public sector union law recently and the SCOTUS would have kicked PS unions in the teeth but for the death of Scalia. I'm guessing with the hollowing out of the middle class, and society wide laws like $15 min wage, unions are going to have a harder time at the ballot box. Poor people will resent government sinecures that make significantly more than they do and the rich will resent having to pay for it all. On the other hand, cops can't be outsourced and although teaching can be outsourced, having a place to keep your kids while you are at work can't.
That is a WHOLE other issue that has less to do with the fact that unions are engaging in acts of bad faith/optics and more than there's an array of political forces lined up against unions, including the American political system being heavily fractured and corrupted by corporate interests, and a severe diminishment of the American education system.
There are many western nations in which unions continue to do quite well. They actually remain a strong force in Canada, despite leakage of American anti-union propaganda and neo-conservative politics.
It's not the hollowing out of the middle class that destroyed unions; it was the destruction of unions* that allowed the hollowing out of the middle class.
* And the failure to unionize the new middle-class professions, which can be blamed on a lack of political foresight by unions, but ... honestly, computer programmers and engineers just exhibit an irrational aversion to unionization and I can't figure out how to overcome it either.
I take a much more materialist view. The industries that still have unions are public sector where they can't be outsourced and have some political clout. Blaming propaganda or some other boogeyman is what I would consider a non-parsimonious explanation and I'd want to see some evidence. I think unions in non-public sector have done well in places like Germany where there is a culture of corporatism and union/management cooperation that never really existed in the USA. Could we be more like Germany? A lot of progressives hope so. I think Clinton is less progressive than Obama and she'll be next POTUS. We shall see.
Another thing about US unions is that they were pretty radical until the NLRA in the 30's. After that the big private sector unions became pretty conservative and in some cases racist. I think the same will hold true of the current reforms like 15 min wage. There will be a political class that is more and more effective at direct democracy but their gains will be less than the public sector unions and I'm predicting non-skilled labor won't necessarily side with teachers and cops.
Why the public sector unions remain while the private sector unions are endangered, and why specifically in the US is this happening, is the question you're not asking. (Or you are, but not causally tying it to the current labour situation.)
I've asked and answered that question. Private union industries were outsourced to other countries or states with less union friendly labor laws. This happened and will continue to happen. The question is can and will service employees (retail workers, etc.) unionize. I'm pretty sure the only places it works is where you have a lot of people in one limited space like Walmart. It could happen but I'm not seeing it. People just aren't buying it.
Yes, but why haven't private union industries in OTHER COUNTRIES been outsourced to other countries with less union friendly labor laws?
Why did those states write less union friendly labor laws in the first place?
What is it about America that made this phenomenon occur?
It wasn't unions themselves that wanted those things to happen.
Yes, but why haven't private union industries in OTHER COUNTRIES been outsourced to other countries with less union friendly labor laws? -- I think there are a number of reasons but I really don't know. I'm guessing there has been a lot of outsourcing. Also, USA has a more libertarian tradition. As I said, Germany was always more corporatist right on down from Bismarck and post ww2 with Adenauer. Also, and it is coming up in the current election, USA hasn't typically enacted laws to protect its workers from foreign competition.
Why did those states write less union friendly labor laws in the first place? -- combination of culture and wanting to grab those industries from the incumbent states. I'm guessing some of it had to do with simply not having had a significant manufacturing industry so that laws just didn't get enacted.
What is it about America that made this phenomenon occur? -- don't know. America is definitely different culturally than Europe but it is a complex question.
It wasn't unions themselves that wanted those things to happen. -- no kidding.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I believe this to actually be a moment where the US is different from other countries on a fundamental level. We don't have a lot of poor people in the US. We have temporarily embarrassed millionaires just waiting for their moment. This leads to a mentality where everyone will eventually be a boss, and they don't want to deal with those pesky unions. This is a phenomenon that has been noted for over a century of I recall the first time someone wrote about it.
How does that even fly with health and human safety regulations for food prep? Better yet, does that even fly with health and human safety regulations?
IIRC, isn't Tyson one of those corporations that don't actually employ anybody or own any assets? They just sell eggs and feed etc, to chicken farms and contract to buy their chickens, and then wash their hands of all responsibility of anything else.
0
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
IIRC, isn't Tyson one of those corporations that don't actually employ anybody or own any assets? They just sell eggs and feed etc, to chicken farms and contract to buy their chickens, and then wash their hands of all responsibility of anything else.
Tyson is (was?) one of the largest food producers in the US, fiveish years ago when I looked it up they owned a couple dozen beef slaughter/processing plants and that was all I was looking into. They employed 100,000+ people so you may be thinking of someone else.
Not bad. They got Verizon to the table in six weeks. My friends up in Maine took three or four months to break Fairpoint. And it sounds like they got a pretty good deal.
For me, the real lesson is that if you don’t support joining a union, you are a fool because you are only hurting yourself. Almost all of us should have unions. Even if you are a faculty member or public employee in the South and live in a right-to-work state, you should still have a union because it will serve as an organized voice and point of power, even if you can’t win a contract. I know, because I helped one get off the ground. Entry-level lawyers at big law firms should have unions. Workers at every private factory or establishment should have unions. Starbucks and McDonald’s workers should have unions. We should all have unions. Organizing like the Verizon workers is not a throwback to the past. It should be an entryway into the future.
Early on Wednesday morning, Norman Seabrook, the president of the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association, was arrested at his Bronx home on federal corruption charges. According to the New York Daily News, Seabrook, who has blocked reforms at Rikers Island, was under investigation for allegedly receiving kickbacks from a hedge fund that work with the union.
Murray Huberfeld, a hedge-fund financier, was also arrested Wednesday morning. Huberfeld is the founder of Centurion Credit Management, which was acquired by a top-performing hedge fund, Platinum Partners, in 2011. Seabrook, the New York Times reports, invested about $10 million of the union’s pension fund in Platinum Partners through Huberfeld—allegedly in exchange for a cut of the profits.
This goose has been the major roadblock in reforming Riker's Island, mainly because he had everyone afraid of him. He's about to find out that when his sort fall, they fall hard because nobody wants to defend them.
It looks like the Canadian Postal service may be facing a lockout, of course thats not stopping all the news sources from calling it a strike, like they did the last time they were locked out.
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
So can I make my own joints or do I have to pay someone to roll it because shop rules prohibit me from doing it myself, another then pay a professional joint lighter to light it for me because a roller isn't allowed to do the sparker's job.
+2
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
So can I make my own joints or do I have to pay someone to roll it because shop rules prohibit me from doing it myself, another then pay a professional joint lighter to light it for me because a roller isn't allowed to do the sparker's job.
I don't know, did you have to check in with the fraternal order of lazy comedians before you wrote this joke
Students who work as teaching and research assistants at private universities will be allowed to vote to unionize under a ruling Tuesday by the National Labor Relations Board that found that they are employees under federal labor law.
The case arose from a union election petition filed by a group of primarily graduate students at Columbia University, who are seeking to form a union that will join the United Automobile Workers.
The three Democratic members of the board made up the majority; the lone Republican member dissented. A fifth spot on the board has been vacant since last year.
The decision reverses a 2004 ruling by the board involving graduate student assistants at Brown University. The ruling held that the assistants could not be considered employees because they “are primarily students and have a primarily educational, not economic, relationship with their university.”
The current board disagreed, arguing that it could treat students as employees if they perform and are compensated for work that the university oversees, even if their relationship with the university was substantially broader.
Students who work as teaching and research assistants at private universities will be allowed to vote to unionize under a ruling Tuesday by the National Labor Relations Board that found that they are employees under federal labor law.
The case arose from a union election petition filed by a group of primarily graduate students at Columbia University, who are seeking to form a union that will join the United Automobile Workers.
The three Democratic members of the board made up the majority; the lone Republican member dissented. A fifth spot on the board has been vacant since last year.
The decision reverses a 2004 ruling by the board involving graduate student assistants at Brown University. The ruling held that the assistants could not be considered employees because they “are primarily students and have a primarily educational, not economic, relationship with their university.”
The current board disagreed, arguing that it could treat students as employees if they perform and are compensated for work that the university oversees, even if their relationship with the university was substantially broader.
Unfortunately, I predict the next update is "University stops paying and demands work as part of program for free".
Students who work as teaching and research assistants at private universities will be allowed to vote to unionize under a ruling Tuesday by the National Labor Relations Board that found that they are employees under federal labor law.
The case arose from a union election petition filed by a group of primarily graduate students at Columbia University, who are seeking to form a union that will join the United Automobile Workers.
The three Democratic members of the board made up the majority; the lone Republican member dissented. A fifth spot on the board has been vacant since last year.
The decision reverses a 2004 ruling by the board involving graduate student assistants at Brown University. The ruling held that the assistants could not be considered employees because they “are primarily students and have a primarily educational, not economic, relationship with their university.”
The current board disagreed, arguing that it could treat students as employees if they perform and are compensated for work that the university oversees, even if their relationship with the university was substantially broader.
Unfortunately, I predict the next update is "University stops paying and demands work as part of program for free".
Students who work as teaching and research assistants at private universities will be allowed to vote to unionize under a ruling Tuesday by the National Labor Relations Board that found that they are employees under federal labor law.
The case arose from a union election petition filed by a group of primarily graduate students at Columbia University, who are seeking to form a union that will join the United Automobile Workers.
The three Democratic members of the board made up the majority; the lone Republican member dissented. A fifth spot on the board has been vacant since last year.
The decision reverses a 2004 ruling by the board involving graduate student assistants at Brown University. The ruling held that the assistants could not be considered employees because they “are primarily students and have a primarily educational, not economic, relationship with their university.”
The current board disagreed, arguing that it could treat students as employees if they perform and are compensated for work that the university oversees, even if their relationship with the university was substantially broader.
Unfortunately, I predict the next update is "University stops paying and demands work as part of program for free".
That would be illegal.
"Part of your credits are practical application 'courses' that are conveniently..."
Someone's going to try that, or something along those lines. Or maybe I'm just too cynical.
Universities have been exploiting their graduate students for a long time now. Hard to fight back when your student status is almost entirely arbitrary.
Students who work as teaching and research assistants at private universities will be allowed to vote to unionize under a ruling Tuesday by the National Labor Relations Board that found that they are employees under federal labor law.
The case arose from a union election petition filed by a group of primarily graduate students at Columbia University, who are seeking to form a union that will join the United Automobile Workers.
The three Democratic members of the board made up the majority; the lone Republican member dissented. A fifth spot on the board has been vacant since last year.
The decision reverses a 2004 ruling by the board involving graduate student assistants at Brown University. The ruling held that the assistants could not be considered employees because they “are primarily students and have a primarily educational, not economic, relationship with their university.”
The current board disagreed, arguing that it could treat students as employees if they perform and are compensated for work that the university oversees, even if their relationship with the university was substantially broader.
Unfortunately, I predict the next update is "University stops paying and demands work as part of program for free".
That would be illegal.
"Part of your credits are practical application 'courses' that are conveniently..."
Someone's going to try that, or something along those lines. Or maybe I'm just too cynical.
Someone is already doing it. Graduate and doctoral students are basically slave labor and have been since forever. This will likely never change.
Students who work as teaching and research assistants at private universities will be allowed to vote to unionize under a ruling Tuesday by the National Labor Relations Board that found that they are employees under federal labor law.
The case arose from a union election petition filed by a group of primarily graduate students at Columbia University, who are seeking to form a union that will join the United Automobile Workers.
The three Democratic members of the board made up the majority; the lone Republican member dissented. A fifth spot on the board has been vacant since last year.
The decision reverses a 2004 ruling by the board involving graduate student assistants at Brown University. The ruling held that the assistants could not be considered employees because they “are primarily students and have a primarily educational, not economic, relationship with their university.”
The current board disagreed, arguing that it could treat students as employees if they perform and are compensated for work that the university oversees, even if their relationship with the university was substantially broader.
Unfortunately, I predict the next update is "University stops paying and demands work as part of program for free".
That would be illegal.
I'm not sure how. Internships are legal and many of them are unpaid. For my undergraduate degree I had to do an unpaid one. There were only so many approved locations for people in my major to do theirs, and all but one was unpaid (and the paid one was with a branch of the CDC and amounted to around $100 for the 100 hours of work the internship credit required).
It might be shady for private universities to suddenly make the switch and require the work for credits, but the ruling your article mentions appears to not include public universities.
Students who work as teaching and research assistants at private universities will be allowed to vote to unionize under a ruling Tuesday by the National Labor Relations Board that found that they are employees under federal labor law.
The case arose from a union election petition filed by a group of primarily graduate students at Columbia University, who are seeking to form a union that will join the United Automobile Workers.
The three Democratic members of the board made up the majority; the lone Republican member dissented. A fifth spot on the board has been vacant since last year.
The decision reverses a 2004 ruling by the board involving graduate student assistants at Brown University. The ruling held that the assistants could not be considered employees because they “are primarily students and have a primarily educational, not economic, relationship with their university.”
The current board disagreed, arguing that it could treat students as employees if they perform and are compensated for work that the university oversees, even if their relationship with the university was substantially broader.
Unfortunately, I predict the next update is "University stops paying and demands work as part of program for free".
That would be illegal.
I'm not sure how. Internships are legal and many of them are unpaid. For my undergraduate degree I had to do an unpaid one. There were only so many approved locations for people in my major to do theirs, and all but one was unpaid (and the paid one was with a branch of the CDC and amounted to around $100 for the 100 hours of work the internship credit required).
It might be shady for private universities to suddenly make the switch and require the work for credits, but the ruling your article mentions appears to not include public universities.
A simple workaround will be that they raise tuition and pay graduate students for work. Now it's all legal and the only pressure is just financial: you're either rich and buy out the work they want you to do, or you're poor and you slave for them. I mean, it basically works that way already for professors and teaching buy-outs.
The difference is that graduate students and TA's are not often doing glamorous work. Unpaid internships work because people need experience and have to get it from somewhere, and the utility of earned experience offsets the lack of pay. Often graduate student work and TA work is not rewarding in that manner, though it depends on the specific position. Many can just be test proctors, for instance, not a skill worth getting for free compared to volunteer opportunities which will get you real skills.
The universities could try it as a mass social experiment, but the transitory period while they figure out which jobs people are willing to do for free and which ones they aren't would be ruinously disruptive. Research-oriented institutions absolutely depend on grad/PhD student work to free up the professors to do the work that keeps research grant money flowing.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
The difference is that graduate students and TA's are not often doing glamorous work. Unpaid internships work because people need experience and have to get it from somewhere, and the utility of earned experience offsets the lack of pay. Often graduate student work and TA work is not rewarding in that manner, though it depends on the specific position. Many can just be test proctors, for instance, not a skill worth getting for free compared to volunteer opportunities which will get you real skills.
The universities could try it as a mass social experiment, but the transitory period while they figure out which jobs people are willing to do for free and which ones they aren't would be ruinously disruptive. Research-oriented institutions absolutely depend on grad/PhD student work to free up the professors to do the work that keeps research grant money flowing.
The number of grad students would drop precipitously
Very few people, if anyone, are going to actually do what's required for (at least a science?) PhD without pay.
The difference is that graduate students and TA's are not often doing glamorous work. Unpaid internships work because people need experience and have to get it from somewhere, and the utility of earned experience offsets the lack of pay. Often graduate student work and TA work is not rewarding in that manner, though it depends on the specific position. Many can just be test proctors, for instance, not a skill worth getting for free compared to volunteer opportunities which will get you real skills.
The universities could try it as a mass social experiment, but the transitory period while they figure out which jobs people are willing to do for free and which ones they aren't would be ruinously disruptive. Research-oriented institutions absolutely depend on grad/PhD student work to free up the professors to do the work that keeps research grant money flowing.
No, unpaid internships work because students often have little choice.
See: Entry level positions all demanding experience, or universities forcing students to do internships.
Unpaid internships are just an abuse of a group of people who don't have a choice in the matter.
GA/TA positions seem a lot less exploitative to me than the unpaid internships. At least they have the trade off of paying for tuition as well as a pay stipend. The people that I knew while in grad school that had these positions seemed happy enough with overall compensation.
Posts
Yes, but why haven't private union industries in OTHER COUNTRIES been outsourced to other countries with less union friendly labor laws?
Why did those states write less union friendly labor laws in the first place?
What is it about America that made this phenomenon occur?
It wasn't unions themselves that wanted those things to happen.
Because when people do try and unionize at Walmart, the stores are mysteriously shut down for 6 months for "plumbing" issues.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/companies/walmart-reopen-stores-plumbing/
It's easy enough to kill off a private union. Just move all your production elsewhere. Killing a public union would mean privatizing, which they're trying to do, but teachers, firemen, and police tend to be pretty sympathetic groups, generally speaking.
Yes, but why haven't private union industries in OTHER COUNTRIES been outsourced to other countries with less union friendly labor laws? -- I think there are a number of reasons but I really don't know. I'm guessing there has been a lot of outsourcing. Also, USA has a more libertarian tradition. As I said, Germany was always more corporatist right on down from Bismarck and post ww2 with Adenauer. Also, and it is coming up in the current election, USA hasn't typically enacted laws to protect its workers from foreign competition.
Why did those states write less union friendly labor laws in the first place? -- combination of culture and wanting to grab those industries from the incumbent states. I'm guessing some of it had to do with simply not having had a significant manufacturing industry so that laws just didn't get enacted.
What is it about America that made this phenomenon occur? -- don't know. America is definitely different culturally than Europe but it is a complex question.
It wasn't unions themselves that wanted those things to happen. -- no kidding.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/us-poultry-workers-are-denied-bathroom-breaks-resort-to-wearing-diapers-report-says/ar-BBsYvRy?ocid=spartandhp
MWO: Adamski
the
fuck
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Right up until they ask "Where are your I-9 records"
Tyson is (was?) one of the largest food producers in the US, fiveish years ago when I looked it up they owned a couple dozen beef slaughter/processing plants and that was all I was looking into. They employed 100,000+ people so you may be thinking of someone else.
Not bad. They got Verizon to the table in six weeks. My friends up in Maine took three or four months to break Fairpoint. And it sounds like they got a pretty good deal.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The lede says it all, but if you need more:
This goose has been the major roadblock in reforming Riker's Island, mainly because he had everyone afraid of him. He's about to find out that when his sort fall, they fall hard because nobody wants to defend them.
Bwahahahaha.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
MWO: Adamski
How does that work if he wins?
Can he just order them back to work?
So can I make my own joints or do I have to pay someone to roll it because shop rules prohibit me from doing it myself, another then pay a professional joint lighter to light it for me because a roller isn't allowed to do the sparker's job.
I don't know, did you have to check in with the fraternal order of lazy comedians before you wrote this joke
Unfortunately, I predict the next update is "University stops paying and demands work as part of program for free".
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
That would be illegal.
"Part of your credits are practical application 'courses' that are conveniently..."
Someone's going to try that, or something along those lines. Or maybe I'm just too cynical.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Someone is already doing it. Graduate and doctoral students are basically slave labor and have been since forever. This will likely never change.
I'm not sure how. Internships are legal and many of them are unpaid. For my undergraduate degree I had to do an unpaid one. There were only so many approved locations for people in my major to do theirs, and all but one was unpaid (and the paid one was with a branch of the CDC and amounted to around $100 for the 100 hours of work the internship credit required).
It might be shady for private universities to suddenly make the switch and require the work for credits, but the ruling your article mentions appears to not include public universities.
A simple workaround will be that they raise tuition and pay graduate students for work. Now it's all legal and the only pressure is just financial: you're either rich and buy out the work they want you to do, or you're poor and you slave for them. I mean, it basically works that way already for professors and teaching buy-outs.
The universities could try it as a mass social experiment, but the transitory period while they figure out which jobs people are willing to do for free and which ones they aren't would be ruinously disruptive. Research-oriented institutions absolutely depend on grad/PhD student work to free up the professors to do the work that keeps research grant money flowing.
The number of grad students would drop precipitously
Very few people, if anyone, are going to actually do what's required for (at least a science?) PhD without pay.
No, unpaid internships work because students often have little choice.
See: Entry level positions all demanding experience, or universities forcing students to do internships.
Unpaid internships are just an abuse of a group of people who don't have a choice in the matter.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy