# Scabbing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2000, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596 "2000-05-26T13:02:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/21 "2000-06-02T04:46:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Unions create a division where management is the bad guy and the goal is to raise wages, lower work and find blame. You are failing to look at the whole picture. Why did unions arise in the first place? It didn’t happen that everything was going well in the workplace, wages were fine, etc etc, and the workers sat down and said “How can we be greedy and get more for us and squeeze our poor exploited emploer for all he is worth? Let’s form a union and destroy our harmonious working environment.” Unions were formed because workers have had to fight and scrape for every concesion we have gotten. The only way to do this is through unions. Employers create a division where they see workers as lazy and they try to lower wages, increase work, and place blame. To tell the truth. I’m not surprised by your views, and in no way expect to change them. You are an employer. Whether you like to think so or not, in most workplaces an adversarial relationship exists, union or no union. A union is a goup of employees using their colective power to stand up to the employer. As for this quote > [@](#): > > Labor unions were once a necessity when sweatshops, child labor, 12 hour days and 7 day workweeks were the norm. Such is no longer the case due to state and federal labor laws. What planet are you on? Are you saying that 12 hour days and sweatshops and 7 day weeks and child labor no longer exist? Are you really that deluded? here is a little speach from john sweeny on the hours worked [http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/work/sweeney.html](http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/work/sweeney.html) But that is not all that unions do. To quote from the AFLCIO " The booming economy that’s making the rich even richer isn’t treating regular working folks nearly as well. America’s full-time workers increased their productivity by 20 percent since 1978 but are getting 8.6 percent less compensation. Profits at America’s largest companies jumped 30.7 percent from 1994 to 1996, in large part because of downsizing, part-timing, temping and contracting out work. The result? Almost a third of U.S. workers are stuck with “nonstandard” part-time or contract jobs." Anyone who thinks that unions are “no longer needed” doesn’t understand what unions are. I would suggest that you do some reading on the afl-cio website ---
**Author:** ![Sneevil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/41988e/32.png) [@Sneevil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sneevil)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/22 "2000-06-02T05:12:28Z")
> [@](#): > > What planet are you on? Are you saying that 12 hour days and sweatshops and 7 day weeks and child labor no longer exist? Are you really that deluded? here is a little speach from john sweeny on the hours worked [http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/work/sweeney.html](http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/work/sweeney.html) FYI, I find your remarks to me offensive and insulting. I am neither deluded nor do I live on any planet but earth, as do you. I did not make any disrespectful remarks to you and would appreciate your exercise of some restraint of temperament. A while back, there was a janitor’s strike in Los Angeles. Many of the strikers had been janitors for decades. Why?? Janitor is typically an entry level position for someone with no other marketable skills. I was a janitor for a time while I was in college. It paid the rent and allowed me to work nights. I never expected it to be a career. What kind of person would remain a janitor for years and years with the expectation of increasing income for doing the same menial work? Answer: A lazy person. There are simply too many opportunities for self advancement. I checked out your website link which supports my position, that unions are “in it for the money.” The “4.55 per hour” worker mentioned on the webpage (and exploited by the union)is worth no more than what she’s being paid. If she were to learn some marketable skills (including, no doubt, English) opportunities abound. By the way, I find the Karl Marx quote in your signature particularly egregious, as well. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/23 "2000-06-02T05:30:12Z")
Just what percentage of the L.A. janitors had been on the job for “decades”? I doubt that there were many who had been in that job for more than 10 years. The majority of the striking janitors were recent immigrants who took janitorial jobs so they could get some kind of job. Until these supposedly “lazy” people, who had to do things like empty trash cans or scrub bathrooms at office buildings where most of us wouldn’t want to bother with jobs like that, could find one of those seemingly unlimited $70K/year job where you can work for a beknighted employer, what were they supposed to do? Take a pittance in wages and have no health insurance, no sick time, no paid holidays, no supervision of their working conditions. I guess it is easier to say “Screw 'em!” ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/24 "2000-06-02T05:33:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > FYI, I find your remarks to me offensive and insulting. I am neither deluded nor do I live on any planet but earth, as do you. I did not make any disrespectful remarks to you and would appreciate your exercise of some restraint of temperament. \*\* You are new to this board. You will encounter disparaging remarks much more offensive to your tender ears. If you want to stick around take some advice and toughen up a bit. I mean that in a very friendly way 🙂 I don’t really have the time to address your middle to paragraphs right now. Except to point out that it’s rather bigoted of you to assume that the latina worker doesn’t know english. I’ll, or hopefully someone else, will get back to them tomorrow. > [@](#): > > \*\* > By the way, I find the Karl Marx quote in your signature particularly egregious, as well. > \*\* And pray tell why is that? ---
**Author:** ![billehunt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@billehunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billehunt)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/25 "2000-06-02T06:14:42Z")
**oldscratch** wrote > [@](#): > > You (Snevil) are new to this board. You will encounter disparaging remarks much more offensive to your tender ears. If you want to stick around take some advice and toughen up a bit. I mean that in a very friendly way. In fact, if you re-read the thread between you and **Snevil** , you’ll discover that you acted like quite a jerk. Instead of your “friendly advice,” you may consider growing a bit of class and apologizing. I read your cite by John Sweeny. Plenty of passion there, but very little in the way of valuable statistics or logic. A typical rant talks about > [@](#): > > The nurse in Phoenix who is called in unexpectedly for a 2 a.m. shift so a doctor can keep his golf date the next morning; (…) the waitress in Boston who is frantically trying to persuade the baby-sitter to stay until midnight because the boss won’t let her leave on schedule The fact that you offer the cite as a statement of your argument and a justification for your position doesn’t speak well of you or your position. You wrote > [@](#): > > It didn’t happen that everything was going well in the workplace, wages were fine, etc etc, and the workers sat down and said “How can we be greedy and get more for us and squeeze our poor exploited emploer for all he is worth? Let’s form a union and destroy our harmonious working environment.” That may or may not be true, but it’s irrelevant. The discussion concerns whether unions should exist or not. and > [@](#): > > Employers create a division where they see workers as lazy and they try to lower wages, increase work, and place blame. I’m sorry you feel this way. I don’t view employees that way, and neither do most other employers I work with. People are the chief asset of a company and most companies spend considerable effort to maintain and grow that asset. You may consider stopping by a book store and perusing the management section. I’m curious to see how many books you find that suggest “lowering wages, increasing work, and placing blame” as a means of enhancing a business. Unions, on the other hand **are** divisive. Their goal is not to build cooperation between management and employees. Quite the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/26 "2000-06-02T07:14:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > I read your cite by John Sweeny. Plenty of passion there, but very little in the way of valuable statistics or logic. A typical rant talks about > > > [@](#): > > > > The nurse in Phoenix who is called in unexpectedly for a 2 a.m. shift so a doctor can keep his golf date the next morning; (…) the waitress in Boston who is frantically trying to persuade the baby-sitter to stay until midnight because the boss won’t let her leave on schedule > > The fact that you offer the cite as a statement of your argument and a justification for your position doesn’t speak well of you or your position. I was just adding that in for some color commentary. You, on the other hand, have presented no facts or justifications for your positions. Union workers are overpaid? Let’s see some figures and statistics. What is a fair wage, what constitutes overpaid? I agree that I could put more facts in. Here goes. [Wage facts](http://www.inequality.org/facts.html) [Sweatshop info](http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/) > [@](#): > > That may or may not be true, but it’s irrelevant. The discussion concerns whether unions should exist or not. It is quite relevant. You can’t take a group or movement and look at it in snapshot form. You have to look at the history behind everything. It’s not enough to just look at freedom of speech, we have to look at why it was guaranteed, how it was abused in the past, and from that see why we have it. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry you feel this way. I don’t view employees that way, and neither do most other employers I work with. People are the chief asset of a company and most companies spend considerable effort to maintain and grow that asset. You may consider stopping by a book store and perusing the management section. I’m curious to see how many books you find that suggest “lowering wages, increasing work, and placing blame” as a means of enhancing a business. The way I feel is the truth. I’m sorry that that’s the way it is too, doesn’t change anything. You are right I won’t find many books that state that. I also won’t find many statements from the fed that they are deliberately increasing unemployment to keep wages down. However that is what the fed does, and that is what employers do. To repost an earlier quote “The booming economy that’s making the rich even richer isn’t treating regular working folks nearly as well. America’s full-time workers increased their productivity by 20 percent since 1978 but are getting 8.6 percent less compensation. Profits at America’s largest companies jumped 30.7 percent from 1994 to 1996, in large part because of downsizing, part-timing, temping and contracting out work. The result? Almost a third of U.S. workers are stuck with “nonstandard” part-time or contract jobs.” Now I don’t know what you would call that other than lowering wages and increasing work? If you have some other definition for it I’d love to hear it. Keep in mind this quote is only the tip of the iceberg, I can pull up many other facts and statistics on lowering wages, increasing work, and placing blame. You have your own point of view. You are out of touch with the majority of the working class in America however. Most work in shit jobs, have lousy managers, and have an adversarial relationship. Unions give them a tool for helping to cope with that. > [@](#): > > Unions, on the other hand **are** divisive. Their goal is not to build cooperation between management and employees. Quite the opposite. You are correct. The goal of management isn’t to build cooperation either. The goal is to screw the workers out of as much as possible. The goal of unions, which are groups of workers, is to stand up for their existing rights and win new ones. ---
**Author:** ![billehunt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@billehunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billehunt)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/27 "2000-06-02T08:21:46Z")
**oldscratch** , the cites are interesting, but I don’t see anything relevant to the value of unions. To complement your cite about how bad things are for the poor, here’s a cite saying the opposite: [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-364es.html](http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-364es.html) > [@](#): > > Union workers are overpaid? Let’s see some figures and statistics. What is a fair wage, what constitutes overpaid? Well, I’ve got no cites. But look at it logically: Union workers make more than non-union workers. And non-union workers are paid by what the market will bear. Simple microeconomics tells you that what the market bears is the “fair” price. Union workers make more than that. > [@](#): > > The way I feel is the truth. I’m sorry that that’s the way it is too, doesn’t change anything. That’s not an argument, but I am impressed with your conviction. > [@](#): > > You are right I won’t find many books that state that. I also won’t find many statements from the fed that they are deliberately increasing unemployment to keep wages down. However that is what the fed does, and that is what employers do. What? a. You won’t find books that state that because what you suggested (lowering wages, increasing work, and placing blame) is bad business. b. The government is trying to keep wages down? Huh? > [@](#): > > “The booming economy that’s making the rich even richer isn’t treating regular working folks nearly as well. America’s full-time workers increased their productivity by 20 percent since 1978 but are getting 8.6 percent less compensation. Profits at America’s largest companies jumped 30.7 percent from 1994 to 1996, in large part because of downsizing, part-timing, temping and contracting out work. The result? Almost a third of U.S. workers are stuck with “nonstandard” part-time or contract jobs.” First of all, I’m not sure what the quote has to do with unions. Second of all, let’s see a cite for that, please. And not from the AFLCIO. From some body that studies the economy, from some academic body, from the government, or at least from somebody reputable. Not the AFLCIO. Third, the actual statement is filled with nebulous terms and phrases. What is the exact definition of “workers” and “an increase in productivity”? What does “in large part” mean? > [@](#): > > You are out of touch with the majority of the working class in America however. You are entitled to your opinion. However, personal attacks don’t prove your point. I suspect that I’ve been poorer in my life than you have, and I suspect I’ve done work in more industries than you. But I don’t know that. > [@](#): > > Most work in shit jobs, have lousy managers, and have an adversarial relationship. Unions give them a tool for helping to cope with that. I don’t believe your statement applies to “Most” Americans. Not by a long shot. It is true that there are people in the world in lousy work situations. It is true that those people deserve legal protection. But that is not what unions are about. ---
**Author:** ![Sneevil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/41988e/32.png) [@Sneevil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sneevil)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/28 "2000-06-02T13:58:39Z")
I’m not going to bother to quote any of the mindless blather you spouted above (in bold, no less-were you shouting?). Suffice it to say I checked out your ‘cites’ and I understand better from whence you derive your contempt for seemingly all employers. With regard to sweatshops, laws **already exist** in every state and on the federal level in this country **prohibiting** same. As for the third world countries mentioned in you ‘cites’, many of them are communist (Karl Marx) countries. Why do you think they are called ‘third world’? In any event, I’m not interested in pursuing any further discussion with you. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/29 "2000-06-02T15:53:34Z")
Four posts and **sneevil** ’s tolerance of discussion is at an end. A shame. I disagree with **oldscratch** most of the time, but I’ll keep talking. Some employers are not short-sighted, and realise that to get the best from employees, it’s a good idea not to try to screw them. Some aren’t, and unions can give workers protection from such employers. Some unions act like bullies and adopt rhetoric which eschews cooperation. Some don’t. The question here is about scabbing. As I have mentioned and as oldscratch’s Jack London quote amply demonstrates, the term “scab” is pretty harsh, and should not be mentioned lightly. In Australia, there has been a recent example where I think it has been justified. A dock company secretly tried to train scab labour (ex-military personel) in Dubai to replace their workforce. They transferred the assets of their company so as to avoid paying already agreed redunancy pay to existing employees. The government supported this as part of “reform”. I picketed the docks. Like many others, I spoke of how much I hated the dock union (they have been pretty bad at times), but that the practices of the company were unacceptable. In this case, the replacement workers were, in my mind scabs. Catspaws doing a job solely to defraud other workers. picmr ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/30 "2000-06-02T18:31:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Some employers are not shortsighted, and realize that to get the best from employees, it’s a good idea not to try to screw them. Some aren’t, and unions can give workers protection from such employers. > \*\* I agree with you on this one. The problem is that what kind of company you work for can change from month to month, year to year. One that is handing out bonuses and rises one year can be laying off people the next. A union is important to help the employees deal with these issues. To see them through the good times and the bad. Only by building the union and keeping active during the good times will you have the strength to get through the bad. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Some unions act like bullies and adopt rhetoric which eschews cooperation. Some don’t. > \*\* I too agree with this. Sometimes the management of unions is incredibly shitty. However the union is made up of the workers around you. It is made up of the people you see everyday on the shop floor. These are the people that make a union effective or not, not the bureaucrats at the top. Those people can be changed. Look at what happened to the teamsters. They effectively ran reform candidates, changed the union leadership, and won a large concession from UPS in a huge strike. Of course then the government stepped in, and they lost their president, and Hoffa jr. was elected. But that just speaks for the government to stay out of unions. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The question here is about scabbing. As I have mentioned and as oldscratch’s Jack London quote amply demonstrates, the term “scab” is pretty harsh, and should not be mentioned lightly. \*\* I agree. The term scab should only be used for people breaking a strike. It is not a term to be ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/31 "2000-06-02T18:50:44Z")
sorry about the bold. I had a problem with the vB code. > [@](#): > > \*\* > With regard to sweatshops, laws **already exist** in every state and on the federal level in this country **prohibiting** same. \*\* With regards to sweatshops here is some info from the General accounting office of the US government. To quote > [@](#): > > Sweatshop working conditions remain a major problem in the U.S. garment > industry, according to experts GAO contacted. They say that working > conditions, in many cases, have worsened during recent years. In > general, today’s sweatshops differ little from those at the turn of the > century. The full report is [here](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=he95029.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao) Yes sweatshops are illegal. That doesn’t make them non-existent. That’s like saying that murder is illegal so no one needs to worry about being killed or protecting themselves. > [@](#): > > \*\* > As for the third world countries mentioned in you ‘cites’, many of them are communist (Karl Marx) countries. Why do you think they are called ‘third world’? > \*\* Not because they are communist. That was the whole point of the term Thrid world. They didn’t fall into the “first world” or “second world” aka communist. I’m not sure quite what you are trying to get at with that one. > [@](#): > > \*\* > In any event, I’m not interested in pursuing any further discussion with you. \*\* That’s fine. However, if you post something that is false, such as saying that sweatshops are not a problem, or something that I disagree with, I will respond to you. Likewise if I post something fals or that people disagree with they respond to me. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/32 "2000-06-02T21:34:09Z")
> [@](#): > > from Billehunt\*\* > **oldscratch** , the cites are interesting, but I don’t see anything relevant to the value of unions. To complement your cite about how bad things are for the poor, here’s a cite saying the opposite: [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-364es.html](http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-364es.html) \*\* No it doesn’t. It states facts for all Americans. Of course real wages are going up. The problem is that the gap between rich and poor is increasing. The wages are going up because the rich are making even more money. Same with the GDP. Here is a quote from the EPI. > [@](#): > > The most important indicator of how working people are doing economically is whether, and by how much, “real wages” – the inflation-adjusted purchasing power of our paychecks – are rising. > > For 23 years, from 1973 through 1996, the news about wages and benefits wasn’t good for most workers. However, a turn-around began in 1997. There are still many losses to be regained, but the wage trend is finally moving in the right direction. > > The wages paid at the median of the pay scale (in other words, the job in the middle, which pays more than half of all jobs but less than the other half of all jobs) declined between 1973 and 1996, but finally began rising in 1997-99. However, this median wage did not surpass the 1989 level until mid-1999 and it remains substantially below the level reached in 1973 when the downturn began. > > There are a growing number of jobs paying poverty-level wages, defined as an hourly wage so low that a worker employed full time cannot pull a family of four above the poverty line. In 1998, 29% of all workers were in jobs paying poverty-level wages, a larger share than in the past. > > The share of the work force receiving employer-sponsored health insurance has been falling: from 80% in 1979 to 75% in 1998. Pension coverage was largely unchanged over this period – just 49% of workers have a pension through their employer. > > Wages became more unequal between 1979 and 1999 – the rich got richer and the poor became poorer. > > Between 1968 and 1994, the average income of the top 20 percent of households rose from $73,754 to $105,945 – a 45 percent increase after inflation. In the same time frame, the bottom 20 percent had only a 7 percent increase in inflation-adjusted income – from $7,202 to $7,762. On children > [@](#): > > In 1995, some 20.8% of all U.S. children were classified as poor–over 14 million children, including more than 5 million children under the age of 6. In that same year, the adult poverty rate was 11.3%. In the early 1970s, the child poverty rate was approximately 15%. So more children are living in poverty. What is the poverty rate? For 1 person it’s someone making $8,240 per year. For 2 it’s $11,060, for 3 it’s $13,880, for 4 it’s $16,700. I would say that those numbers are grossly out of date. However, even with that we have 20% of children living in poverty. Hell, it should be a lot more, because I don’t know of any family of 4 who can survive on $16,700 a year. Many economists feel that the poverty level for a family of four should be raise up to $28,000 a year. Imagine how many people we would have living in poverty then? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Well, I’ve got no cites. But look at it logically: Union workers make more than non-union workers. And non-union workers are paid by what the market will bear. Simple microeconomics tells you that what the market bears is the “fair” price. Union workers make more than that. \*\* You ask to look at the facts logically, yet you fail to do so. Why aren’t union workers paid what the market will bear? They are still around and being paid, so obviously “the market” can afford them. They are therefore paid a “fair” price. We live in a global market, people performing the same labor in the Philippines make far less, and does that mean that we are overpaid? The market bears actors prices, are they paid a fair price or are they overpaid? Currently the market bears the cost of pharmaceuticals, doe that mean we are paying a fair price, or are they charging too much? Could it be that non-union workers are paid less than their fair market value? Strawberry workers make an average of $8,500 a year for 12-hour days. Are you stating that this is a fair wage? John Chambers, CEO of Cisco, made approximately $5,000 per minute last year. Is that a “fair” price because the market bears it? > [@](#): > > \*\* > What? > a. You won’t find books that state that because what you suggested (lowering wages, increasing work, and placing blame) is bad business. \*\* Then why do so many companies practice it? It’s the old maxim divide and rule. Why do they go into contract negotiations and try to lower wages? Why do they outsource business to companies that pay the workers less? Why do they try to increase productivity? It may be bad business, but it is the way business works. Layoffs increase stock price and get the CEO bonuses. What happens when you lay off people? The workload of everyone else increases. > [@](#): > > \*\* > b. The government is trying to keep wages down? Huh? \*\* You’ve never heard of NAIRU (Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment)? It’s the FEDs governing policy. A quote from Nouriel Roubini, Stern School of Business, New York University, 1998. > [@](#): > > Can the US economy grow more than 2.5% per year and the unemployment rate fall below 5% without causing an increase in inflation ? This question has become a hotly debated issue in the US today. A number of mainstream economists (for example Paul Krugman) have arguing that the long-run potential growth rate of the US economy is about 2.5% per year and that the natural rate of unemployment is in the 5.5-6.0% range. If unemployment would fall below its natural rae and output grow above its long-term potential rate, inflation would start to increase as bottlenecks in production, capacity limits and tight labor market would lead workers to require higher wages and firms to increase price as demand and costs go up. While most participants to the debate agree that inflation might eventually increase if the economy grows above its potential rate, there is a very broad discussion on whether the potential growth rate of the economy is around 2.5% and whether the Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) is around 5.5%. On this issue, opinions widely diverge: in fact, there is no way to exactly estimate the value of NAIRU as the natural rate of unemployment is not constant but changes over time depending on the factors that determine the structural uenmployment rate of the economy. The fed is charged with keeping down inflation. They try to do this by keeping NAIRU steady. That means keeping a certain level of unemployed. There are debates on whether this would actually happen. But, currently the FED tries it’s hardest to keep that unemployment rate steady and keep wages down. > [@](#): > > \*\* > First of all, I’m not sure what the quote has to do with unions. > Second of all, let’s see a cite for that, please. And not from the AFLCIO. From some body that studies the economy, from some academic body, from the government, or at least from somebody reputable. Not the AFLCIO. > Third, the actual statement is filled with nebulous terms and phrases. What is the exact definition of “workers” and “an increase in productivity”? What does “in large part” mean? \*\* Do you really not know how productivity is measured? Here is a good way from the [[http://stats.bls.gov/pdf/lprdh98.pdf](http://stats.bls.gov/pdf/lprdh98.pdf)"]BLS]( [url). They can also tell you what a worker is and answers to many other questions you have. “In large part”? What do you think it means? You’re quibbling over details. I’ve already provided ample facts on this earlier. If you really are curious, go check out the GAO or BLS, they have all sorts of economic facts and figures you can digest from an “unbiased” source. However, I do have to warn you, that is where the AFLCIO gets their facts, you won’t be happy with what you find. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You are entitled to your opinion. However, personal attacks don’t prove your point. I suspect that I’ve been poorer in my life than you have, and I suspect I’ve done work in more industries than you. But I don’t know that. \*\* I never said nor implied that. I said that currently, you are out of touch with the way most workers feel. Most feel they are underpaid. You feel that they are paid a fair wage. You are out of touch with the way they feel. QED > [@](#): > > \*\*I don’t believe your statement applies to “Most” Americans. Not by a long shot. It is true that there are people in the world in lousy work situations. It is true that those people deserve legal protection. But that is not what unions are about. \*\* Then what are unions about? ---
**Author:** ![Sneevil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/41988e/32.png) [@Sneevil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sneevil)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596/33 "2000-06-03T16:30:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Four posts and sneevil’s tolerance of discussion is at an end. A shame. I disagree with oldscratch most of the time, but I’ll keep talking. Good point. I suppose I just don’t find argument entertaining. I would much rather engage in rational, open minded conversation. Most probably Great Debates is not the place for me. oldscratch seems to be coming from the notion that wealth is evil, yet it needs to be forcibly redistributed. That makes no logical sense to me. Nor does the assertion that someone’s inability to speak English somehow makes me a racist. I really do not understand that kind of thinking, yet I recognize it as part of a failed system. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scabbing/20596.md?page=1)