Other than that, the big news stories, according to the front page of The New York Times, above the fold, are (1) Iran, Syria, and gas prices, (2) North Korea suspends its nuclear weapons tests, and (3) Senator Olympia Snowe retiring. The biggest news story, the lede, is the announcement by North Korea regarding its nuclear weapons tests – not a speech by the President at the UAW, which, as you mentioned, can be seen on YouTube like all of the President’s other speeches.
Granted that, people are talking about Obama instead of taking about Romney.
When labor organizes, union membership is frequently and by necessity compulsory. It is not hard to understand why people might have a problem with this.
When capital organizes, buying from/working for it is frequently and by necessity compulsory. It is not hard to understand why people might have a problem with this.
I am sure you think you are being very clever here. You’re not.
You are just saying that you don’t like the division of the spoils between capital and labor and that you think that capital has a little too much authority in the workplace.
For the first claim, fine. All you have to do is convince everyone to accept that we should switch to a new system of property rights that allocates benefits in another way. Simple, no rush.
For the second, it’s just marketplace bargaining. Employers have power because employees usually get paid efficiency wages. They may not think so, but the very fact that labor markets don’t clear strongly suggests that they do. If every worker were willing simultaneously to give up his efficiency wages, skilled workers would have a lot more bargaining power. They had tremendous power in 1914 in Ford’s factories when they were paid $2.34 a day. Ford crushed them by raising their wage to $5 a day. When you can convince workers that they need to half their pay and go back to daily wage labor, workers may have more power. Good luck with that, too.
Neither case is remotely analogous to compulsory membership (and the payment of fees) to an organization that may or may not represent you as a condition for working.
Thanks for posting that link. That interview was a lot of fun to read.
I remember that people said they thought that GWB was the type of person they’d be comfortable having a beer with; I never thought that.
Reading that interview tho, Obama strikes me as someone I’d be happy to entertain in my own home, watching a college basketball game or just shooting the shit. Ya know how sometimes a friend will bring along their friend because they also want to watch the game? If Obama was that friend of a friend, watching the game would be a great time.
And yeah, I totally agree with MrDibble’s “outclassed” assessment.
“President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company’s proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements.”
The only reason Obama is winning thsi race is because his opposition keeps shooting themselves in the foot.
Well thats your problem right there. Stop watching the fake news shows on comedy central and start watching teh fake news shows on Fox. Then you’ll walk away with the impression that the Democrats are going to steal the 2012 election just like they stole the 2008 election.
"So, I’m reading commentary that implies that the secured creditors got 70% less than they would have gotten under bankruptcy. Did they actually get less than the value of the collateral that secured their debt or was their collateral simply worth only 30% (or less) of the principal amount at the time of the bailout?
These commentaries also imply that union members and non-union members pensions and benefits were treated differently in the bailout. IOW, two line workers, one a dues paying union member and the other a freerider, got different packages based on their union membership. Were two similarly situated employees trweated differntly based purely on union membership or are we talking about management getting a different deal than line workers (perhaps a cap on benefits taht ends up screwing the executive VPs and stuff)?
The reason i suspect its bullshit is because these commentaries also spout bullshit about how GMs profits are the result of the IRS giving them money they aren’t entitled to. I know what the tax deal was and while it was a variance it wasn’t a giveaway."
You think that American labor has little negotiating power because they are already being overpaid?
I suppose if you put the American worker in the same labor pool as Chinese and Indian labor then I suppose you might have an argument (a bad one). Otherwise, I don’t see how a decades long attrition in real labor wages despite increases in productivity can be called efficiency wages (maybe in banking and technology but not in manufacturing).
Real wages in manufacturing have been dropping for at least 40 years. That is not all the result of China and India. So in light of increasing productivity over the last 40 years, how does your efficiency wage hypothesis explain lower real wages compared to 40 years ago?
So it wasn’t compulsory then, was it? You both had the opportunity to vote it down and to leave your job rather than join. It was, rather, a (potential) condition of employment.
Fortunately at the last minute, management closed down the business (which they reopened in Malaysia) and laid everyone off rather than let the union in. You guys really dodged a bullet there.
Not even close, but nice try. They were somewhere between neutral and in favor of it, it ended up not happening and I’m still here years later in a better position than I was. I realized this is elections and not GD so I won’t continue this tangent here.
