Well, the back story is that at the publisher, my friend was one of the very few who the publisher employed who was not a member of family or extended family. All the family were on health insurance provided by the employer. My friend had expressed interest in the insurance as she had been there longer than the quite long waiting period she had been quoted on hiring. The employer was increasingly a jerk to her, making up a dress code that only applied to her, changing various rules and trying to play gotcha. My friend feared that trying to leave her first job out of college so soon would look bad, she also hated looking for a job, and feared getting fired if her employer found she was looking for a job. They wanted to buy a house and so that too was a motivator to staying with the same employer.
It was a role that took some skill, skill apparently not found in his family, but not too hard to find outside of it. I think that he made a habit of this, offering benefits to his family and firing anyone who asked for them who wasn’t, finding some reason, however trumped up, to say it was for cause so as not to need to pay unemployment insurance.
She did find another job in publishing, in a much larger company, fairly quickly and has stayed with that company since.
I must have been imagining all the “public schools are the suxor” theads then.
You’re mixing up personal pain and corporate pain. Yeah, the stockholders suffer in strikes, and I’ve seen data showing that for the most part neither side wins. But top managers don’t suffer at all. During the AT&T strike guys in my group (all of whom counted as management) went to fill in as operators. I wanted to go also, because I thought I’d make a ton of OT, which they actually had to pay for once. Turns out the locals took the OT and the fill-ins got stuck away from home for weeks with no extra money. People were a lot less willing to go (and our local management fought against sending them) during the second strike. But they suffered - the top managers didn’t. Why do you think there are strikes? I think both sides get their pride involved. It is more psychological than economic.
Some unions with big war chests defray some of the cost, but a lot don’t have the resources to do so. Plus, lots of strikes don’t work. I don’t think the union got much from the first AT&T strike, because a lot of revenue came from long distance calls which were totally automated.
Workers with unique talents, like you and I, can bargain singly. Workers without unique talents can only bargain collectively. I’m not sure what is unethical about a strike. If the union paid off a company negotiator for a better deal, that would be unethical, and vice versa. But it is not unethical for a union to walk out or for a company to refuse a demand. And fair market price is the output of a negotiation, not the input. When I lived in Africa and wanted to buy something from the Ivory Market in the center of Leopoldville, the fair market value of a painting or sculpture was whatever the seller and I agreed on. If I walked away because the price was too high, or if he refused my highest offer, then the market value was undefined.
Sometimes in teacher salary negotiations the school district opens its books to prove that their best offer really is their best offer. Union officials are elected - if they are unreasonable they can get booted, and if they are too wimpy the deal may get voted down. It’s capitalism at work, and I like capitalism.
No, I don’t. teachers and unions are part of the problem. I didn’t say they deserve all the blame. And unfortunately, many locales and many teachers simply don’t give a rat’s arse.
Per this rule regarding quoting other posters, you will refrain from changing the text of another poster’s comments, particularly inside the Quote tags and most particularly in a way to denigrate the “quoted” poster.
Don’t be coy. Are you calling all of us who have offered these anecdotes liars? From what I recall of the incident I related, I was there and you weren’t.
He’s saying that we might not have the whole story. That’s not the same as calling you a liar. It doesn’t preclude that possibility, but neither is it logically equivalent, and I think you know that.
:dubious: Waitaminnit, Sam. That’s as much as to say that conservatives’ opposition to pro-labor (but never to anti-labor) legislation is neither more nor less than a specific instance of conservatives’ general opposition to any legislation intended to regulate the marketplace. I don’t believe that for a minute, and neither do you.
I can’t speak for Sam Stone but as a right-leaning centrist that’s exactly why I am against the EFCA, just like I would be against a bill that banned unions.
Then you’ve got a thing or two to learn about me. I’m not anti-labor. I am against government stepping in the middle of labor-management relations and forcing outcomes, whether it be on the side of labor or the side of management.
I’ve got nothing at all against unions, so long as its power derives from collective bargaining and the ability of an entire workforce to walk off the job if a company abuses them. The company has the right to hire others in their place, but the power of collective bargaining is that this process is very expensive, and the company loses all of its built-up equity in training. And, if the company has practices that are so bad the entire work force was willing to walk away, it’s likely that if it hires another it will go through the same problem again.
That strikes me as a very equitable balance of power. No one is forcing the company to employ these people, but then no one is forcing the employees to work for that company. But as soon as government steps in the middle and forces the company to deal with striking workers without being able to hire replacements, the balance of power shifts unacceptably to the union. But more to the point for me is that government should have no moral right to tell me who i must or must not employ.
Perhaps if you can give me some examples of anti-labor laws governments support which are not just the elimination of pro-labor laws, I could tell you how I feel about them.
You keep attributing this to EFCA, when that has been federal law for 73 years. EFCA does not prohibit firing union members; the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 does. EFCA merely adds penalties to violations of existing federal law; there are currently no fines if companies violate the NLRA.
If you wish to debate the 73 years of law established by the NLRA, by all means do so; but stop trying to introduce a red herring, as though this is some new power for unions that EFCA will establish. It is not, so please stop.
IANSS, but perhaps: a) The law is wrong whether it is 73 years old or brand spanking new. Or:
b) Enforcing a law where it wasn’t enforced before is very similar to instituting a fresh, new law. A new law that we can legitimately disagree with and oppose.
I’m pretty liberal, but its this sort of myopic thing that gets me about unions. To unions, its binary - there is “management” - seen as executives pulling in zillions of dollars - and there is “unions” - the workers on whose labor the company is built. The union goes out on strike, and it only hurts “management.”
Lets not forget that there are a ton of people employed in white collar jobs in a lot of union shops that don’t make a million dollars a year with stock options. There are accountants and marketing clerks and systems admins - some of whom make a lot less then union employees. When the union goes out on strike, those people end up getting furloughed, having their hours reduced - and get none of the benefits of the collective bargaining. Moreover, big unions will have strike funds to help out their members, but an accounting clerk who sees her hours cut by 60% for the duration of the strike?
The 70 dollar figure includes payments being made to 450,000 retired workers. You can not in good conscience include that in a present workers wages. They are not getting it. They will not get it. The 70 figure is more than misleading. It is not true.
If my employees suddenly get convinced by a union organizer that they can get a 20% pay increase if they just get together and refuse to work unless I give them that raise.
I built this company with my bare hands. My money, my ideas, my policies, my unpaid overtime, my losing time with my family.
I took all the risk.
I finally get to where there is too much work for me to do alone, and hire a $10/hour helper. In my case when I did this, I even took a cut in pay to make sure there was enough money in the budget to pay the helper and keep the place afloat. I know…long term, that the increased availability of labor will result in faster project turnaround time and greater levels of percieved service, and with it, higher revenues.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Few years pass.
I now have 10 employees, several of whom are now supervisors, work is flowing in, I can now even take a couple days off now and then, I can start having a life, getting benefits for myself.
They decide to form a union, and want a 30% pay increase or they will stop working. The shift in labor costs will put me 10% into the red. Now everything I worked for, all the hours I put in, all the research I put in, is about to unravel over employees perception that I somehow owe them another few dollars an hour.
Doesen’t matter that some of these people I gave a chance with questionable work histories, or let them show me what they could do even though they didn’t have the formal education or certifications that would prove they had the skills anyway.
The employees now want more from me even if it runs the place into the ground 6 months later. They shrug, walk away, find another job, probably for about what I was originally paying, while I file for bankruptcy and everything I spent 5-10 years building lays in financial ruin.
My partner and I have a percentage of the account balance we get paid. if the main account balance is small we take a smaller amount of pay, good month, good pay. If workers would be willing to accept that, fine by me. If they do bad work and spend half the month on warranty work and it hurts revenues, they suffer too. Do it right the first time, well, and everyone benefits.